Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Instead, we get serial repetitions of "standing is bad", "standing is good", "it doesn't really matter". I have to look at a calendar to figure out if the caffeine in my coffee is slowly killing me or turning me into a focused super-intellect. Won't someone please, please tell me if I should be ingesting wine and/or chocolate this week?
It's the cultural substrate which is misguided - having an interest in feeling good about something, rather than actually accomplishing it - but this is personal choice.
"Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement rather than the time spent sitting itself,"
Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing isn't any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad.
Guess it's time to get one of these!
http://www.amazon.com/DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser-Whi...
And to be perfectly blunt, that sounds more like an attempt to go back and justify the choice of a standing desk after the fact, now that the base assumption ("standing is better than sitting") has been invalidated.
Finally, when I sit I have a habit of slouching while standing I tend to have a much better posture even for extended times.
While a bad back isn't death inducing (usually), we should consider all the benefits of standing over sitting, not just the fact that you may or may not die.
For you.
You are an anecdote, not data.
I'm sure I could just as easily trot out examples of folks with bad backs or knees because of extended standing, or due to bad standing posture.
I could probably also find examples of people with circulation problems or other issues as a result of extended standing.
We were sold on the idea that standing, alone, versus sitting, will offset the life shortening effects of being sedentary. Given this study seems to contradict that, the picture is a lot more nuanced.
Anyway this is like saying "Buying a bike won't make you thin". Yes, you have to ride the bike. But the availability of a bike in your house greatly raises the chance that you'll ride on any given day. It's indirect, but still a pretty good idea.
That's a bit odd... you're basically advocating "[formulating] testable hypotheses" simply to post-justify a choice you've already made.
That's basically science backwards...
It's also human nature. We all love to rationalize. But we can at least see it for what it is. :)
Edit:
Incidentally, I have personally witnessed the fact that buying a bike has absolutely no correlation with frequency of riding it... ;)
When someone says that a standing desk has helped them, you can't just jump out and say "aha! this study says on average they don't work, therefore that someone is rationalising their purchase".
The best you can say is that it works for some people and not others.
This is not true. This invalid conclusion mirrors the lament that a commenter posted:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10389475
> The work looks useful and valuable to this area of study. But WaPo and other media outlets persist in a ubiquitous and terrible trend in science reporting, especially those associated with lifestyle and healt : "Here is a study which has different findings than the other studies we've been reporting on, all that research is now overturned! Burn your standing desk!" Of course, in a few months, someone will publish another study calling this one into question, and they'll tell us all to go out and buy new standing desks. As we all know, science doesn't work that way. This study needs to be put into context with other studies, if it contradicts those studies, that needs to be discussed, future studies that might resolve the discrepancy should be identified, limitations on the applicability of this study and on the ones it contradicts should be pointed out, changes in the model we use to understand the effects of mobility and posture on health should be discussed, etc. etc
This is just an anecdote, but it's hard for me to imagine someone just standing like a statue for hours on end.
It was also great for my posture.
But then again, I didn't switch to a standing desk to decrease my mortality rate.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/fidgeting-your-way-...
Sit on such a chair, and I bet you will take more breaks than when using a standing desk.
(1) the literal translation would be "to sit is a verb", with word play on "verb" = "working word", but that is hard to translate.
> Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing
> isn't any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad.
Furthermore, I don't think that aggregate time spent sitting is the right measure. We know that uninterrupted sitting is a known risk factor for deep vein thrombosis because since calf muscle contractions are important for preventing blood clots in the leg vasculature [2]. So a better measure would be the length of continuous sitting without breaks. It's very plausible that 300 minutes of sitting with 10 minute breaks every 50 minutes might be healthier than sitting for 5 hours straight without any breaks at all (and then taking an hour break at the end).
1. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/09/ije.d...
2. I note that the calf muscles are continuously contracting while standing. So standing desks could be a good idea for persons with increased risk of DVT. Of course, standing desks might not confer any benefit over simply standing periodically. This should be studied directly.
I have a sit/stand desk. I think I'm more likely to take a short walking break if I'm already standing. In this case, the study merely moves sitting from being a direct cause to being an indirect cause.
The report refers to a study which says that sitting is no worse than standing without moving the body.
However, the report does nothing to contradict past studies which show that sitting is bad for the body (in comparison with standing up and walking every n minutes).
A better way of reading the study would be to say that "sitting" and "standing without moving" are equally bad. A lot of other research suggests that sitting for hours is definitely worse than taking a break every hour (or n minutes) and walking for a couple of minutes in that break.
But this is also hard to do unless you're John Carmack giving a talk.
Sitting just happens to be highly correlated with a sedentary lifestyle.
But the article made it seem like "your standing desk is a waste of money!" Which I disagree with, mostly based on personal experience. [1]
[1] I started standing about a year or so ago after getting into more athletic endeavors like olympic weightlifting. My flexibility today is far, far better now that I stand... and lift regularly. Sitting = tight hips.
Michael Dura, Herman Miller
Perhaps the extra years gained from being more wealthy are negated by sitting all day.
I rotate through all 3 though throughout the day, so if my knees are bothering me or I feel like taking a break, I'll sit down for a bit.
The most important thing once I starting using the treadmill though was investing in decent shoes.
The authors specifically say this in the press release in case you can't see it from the study
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_476860_en.ht...
Dr Melvyn Hillsdon - "The results cast doubt on the benefits of sit-stand work stations, which employers are increasingly providing to promote healthy working environments."
I too don't like the result but the study is pretty clear.
How this study could contradict a large body of evidence to the contrary I can only see as it being a
1. Badly done study.
2. Blue collar vs White collar
If your goal is general health in life you only need to do three things (well 4)..
1) exercise regularly 2) eat a balanced diet 3) sleep as much as you need. 4) drink water.
Don't get hung up in the details.
I got hung up on the details.
My comment is about staying healthy over the duration of your life. It's also about doing what you can and not sweating the small stuff. Studying hard and sleeping 6 hours will get you better test results than sleeping 9 hours and not studying. Your comment is splitting hairs about a small increase and missing the point....
- sitting on a small stool with no back support.
- sitting cross legged at a low table
- standing with my keyboard at about elbow height.
All three are surprisingly good. I thought I would miss a chair, but I do not in any way. The stool is the least effort, but requires me to be careful of posture or else I get sore muscles. Standing is quite nice as long as I remember to keep shifting my weight around. Sitting cross legged is still difficult for me (lack of flexibility) for more than a few hours, but probably makes me feel the best when I'm done.
Eventually I want to transition to sitting cross legged for most of the day, but I think it will require a concerted effort at training my body to accept it. I'm a bit worried about blood circulation in the legs, though.
My "office furniture" has come in quite a bit under budget with these schemes, though. I spent the equivalent of $10 on the stool. I use my closet (which has a surprisingly convenient shelf in just the right place) for standing.