Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arnt | Hacker News Reader

Much of the reporting says (I summarise) "sit-stand work stations aren't worthwhile" but that's not what the original study says. It says any stationary low-energy position is likely bad because it's stationary and low-energy. But the key difference between a sit-stand station and a chaired (or fixed standing) is that one isn't in one stationary position all the time. Rather, the position varies throughout the day.

<digression> And in my case, I notice that when I stand I walk over to the window and curse bugs a lot more often than when I sit. Is that just me? It's not exercise, just two steps each way. Or does the lack of a chair reduce the initial friction moving two steps for many people? </digression>

The original study is at http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/09/ije.d...

View on HN

> but that's not what the original study says

If you look at the press release, people from the study do say that.

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_476860_en.ht...

The study does agree with this, people who sit less die at the same rates in the study. So one assumes they are standing-ish when not sitting and hence standing more won't help you since it didn't help them.

They included some confounding factors like the fact participants where white collar. But the reality is, so are most of HN.

Would really like a reason to dismiss the study but yet to find one other than it conflicts with others and I don't like it's result.

I don't think it necessarily needs dismissing... It's basically saying sitting isn't so bad as long as you exercise and take breaks and move. Which...yeah...duh...?

This one of the things activity tracking devices are good at. The Apple watch has a "stand" metric, but what it's really trying to measure is if you get to N level of movement during each hour. Standing in place won't cut it. I've only ever tried the watch, but other trackers like the Jawbone, I believe should do the same thing.

The thing is, properly used sit-stand desks give people much more freedom to change their position as desired. I recently got a sit-stand desk, and it is easier to move around if I'm already standing. It's only been a couple weeks, so we'll see.

I'm not dismissing the study. Seems like good work to me. It leaves a fascinating question unanswered, but that's always the case. My complaint is about some of the reporting.

The press release says in part "Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement" etc. But the Guardian then writes that the study "casts doubt on the value of sit-stand work stations", which is another thing entirely. That's something the Guardian could write if the study looked at whether spending the day in one position or varying makes a difference.

Sit-stand desk reduce the maximum length of time you're encouraged to stay in one stationary position. That may be helpful to your health, or not, but the study doesn't look at that dimension.

(Also, FWIW, I personally don't have a sit/stand desk because of health concerns. I just like them. Maybe I won't die a little earlier or later because of my desk and its motor, but I do have a more pleasant working day.)

Perhaps that answer missed.

Consider three groups: 1: People who spend all day in one office, sitting down writing code or doing something like that. 2: People who spend all day in one office writing code, but with sit/stand desks. 3: People who have so many meetings that they move as often/much as group 2.

The statistics in the study don't justify talking about the difference between the first two groups, because the last two groups look the same.

(I'm still not complaining about the study.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com