3 ms·

I'd like to preempt the inevitable posting of the link to the Cornell article about standing desks. It's a complete, 180-degree misrepresentation of the study i

• tzs 13y ago
  There are problems with the page you cite. 1. It seems to be referring to a very old version of the Cornell page. For instance, it says the Cornell page only cites one source. The current page cites seven sources in the references section, and one in the body of the article. 2. The one source cited in the old version of the page was concentrating on musculoskeletal disorders. It found benefits to using an electric height-adjustable work surface. The EHAW resulted in a minor increase in musculoskeletal discomfort, and a substantial decrease in the severity of upper body musculoskeletal symptoms. The Cornell article does not contradict this. It says that they have found that standing desks increase the risk of some musculoskeletal problems such as carpal tunnel syndrome. Together, these are just saying that standing can help with some kinds of musculoskeletal problems, and harm with others. The Cornell article is also considering a wider range of potential problems than the EHAW study considered, and has the benefit of being written 8 years after the EHAW study and so can take into account subsequent research. The bottom line is that sitting too much is bad for you, and standing too much is bad for you. That's the conclusion of the Cornell article, and nothing in the EHAW study (which was done by the same people that did the Cornell article) contradicts that.