Sitting May Be Bad for Your Heart | Hacker News Reader

Sitting May Be Bad for Your Heart

nytimes.com

185 pointshvo116 comments

Taking a bigger picture view, this makes me wonder.. we took so much effort to move from the industrial age, where hands on work, always active all day work took its toll on workers, to the service or knowledge age, where we sit all day and that takes its toll.

Surely the answer lies somewhere in-between, that we must rest, and we must move, and the amount of each must be relative to each person and activity.

I would prefer to see studies not just trying to prove things bad (we have enough of those), but focuses on what can be proven to be a positive, for example, the optimal mixture of activity and rest for different people and situations.

For example, in addition to "sitting may be bad for your heart" (while necessary and important), I would like to see more of the studies that say "for age group <Y>, occupation <Z>, walking for <N> interval followed by resting for <M> interval increased <X> or <Y> positive benefits".

Since we automated a lot of manual labor, maybe the next big thing is automating sitting all day so we can get up and walk around.

You might like Spark by John Ratey. That book dives into a bunch of the studies related to this kind of book and got me off my ass and into the gym.

Stick the computer on an exercise bike, set it up so its powered by a dynamo and get the programming, marketing and sales teams to cycle while working. Okay, that's not a good idea, but it's one I can see a executive coming up with to 'promote a healthy lifestyle' at one of those newfangled offices Apple and Google and the likes have.

Enforce mandatory installation of a processor throttling program, tied to an exercise bike, on all software developer machines. This should prevent them from slacking off when compiling!

Apple and Google already have walking treadmill desks, which serves the same purpose.

Do they get used much, or do they sit unused, somewhere out of the way?

There's approximately one per floor, and they often sit idle.

My co-worker has bike peddles underneath his standing desk. So he either stands most of the day while working or sits down and peddle some. I was laughing at first, but it actually seems like a good idea. I am not sure if he is healthier or more productive but he is happy ;)

I actually find it hard to focus or type when I use something like that. It's kind of like how you turn down the music when you want to focus on something when driving.

> Stick the computer on an exercise bike, set it up so its powered by a dynamo and get the programming, marketing and sales teams to cycle while working.

I liked that Black Mirror episode.

>exercise bike

10 years time, headline reads: Male office workers sperm counts plummeting, bike-desks blamed.

"These people should be spending more time sitting" says talking head with vague academic credentials slightly linked to the subject matter.

There might be easier ways depending on where you live. For the new year (and new job), I'm trying to find an apartment ~1mi away from work along a pedestrian friendly route. I plan to walk to/from work on every good weather day. If I get an hour for lunch, I could even go home for a quick lunch.

I used to do this when I worked in Manhattan and the 1.5hrs of walking were great. I'll admit this may not be enough exercise for your needs, but it is a good forced way to get very regular exercise, and perhaps part of a good overall plan that incldues a gym as well.

I always understood a lot of the industrial age jobs took a toll because of hazards & health issues. Occupational hazards like mine collapse & black lung, heavy machinery, fumes, and so forth. Are there many accounts of people simply being "all worn out" from hands on work? Are, e.g., lumberjacks who aren't injured, healthy or worn thin?

Yes, but it isn't clear if they are worn out from 45 years of physical labor, or worn out because their body is 65 years old.

Presumably that's what studies would be for. Compare the joints of an office worker to the joints of an uninjured lumberjack.

Sure. Now compare their amounts of muscular mass, and the percentages of body fat.

I think the real problem is doing the same thing many hours a day, every day, all year long, for decades. Whether that's sitting, or felling trees, it appears to be equally bad, just in different ways.

We are shaped by evolution for a more varied lifestyle.

Go ask anyone aged 45 or over, who does physical labor - construction workers, electricians, farm workers, flatbed truck drivers. They will all tell you of the severe toll on their muscles, bones, and most specifically joints. Shoulders, elbows, hands, knees, and backs get to a point of being functionally disabled.

So, yes, physical labor, even with full OSHA support, will wear your body out. Alongside all those structural injuries seems to come a penumbra of other illnesses, like heart and kidney disease.

Are there any commonly known physical labor jobs that do not have that result?

My dad is a logger and was a mechanic; he's almost 61 and "retired" for two years. He thrashes along six or seven days a week, cutting on two different jobs, with a cable skidder and chainsaw - so he's jumping up and down, sawing, and pulling cable all day. I'm amazed at how hard he can work, but he's always been a bull. I think he's afraid that if he slows down, he's not going to be able to start back up. Or maybe it's just the way he is. Only issue he's really had is that the years of power tools and vibrations got to his wrists and hands, so he had to get carpal tunnel surgery.

> Surely the answer lies somewhere in-between, that we must rest, and we must move

I think the biggest change we made that caught us completely unprepared, was that we've committed ourselves to doing the same thing 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, all year long, for decades. I don't think our bodies evolved for this kind of effort (and I use the word "effort" even when the activity requires a lot of sitting, which is appropriate as the article shows).

If you look at hunter-gatherer societies, their activity is more "bursty", more casual. They go gather stuff for a couple hours, then rest; then perhaps do something else. They go hunt something, which is harder, and then rest a longer time. Etc. There might be periods of intense activity, then longer times of rest, or diminished effort. There are also seasonal variations.

The executive functions behind our foreheads, with their long term planning and their delayed gratification, are really pushing us pretty hard in directions that we're not fully adapted to.

Perhaps something similar happened to our diet. Three meals a day, every day, for decades - that's a very recent change in diet. It used to be a lot more "lumpy" throughout the whole evolutionary past that has shaped us.

While nothing you said is inaccurate, be careful of falling for the "original affluent society" canard. Hunter gatherers do not work less than we do, and they do not get enough food. (Quillette recently did a good write-up on this.)

Right. Something that modern society is good at is smoothing out random variations. After a local catastrophe, the rest of the country (or, sometimes, the world) will lend you a helping hand nowadays. But back then, your whole tribe would get wiped out.

Similar for non-life-threatening events. Food input decrease in your area? You barely notice it in the somewhat higher prices, because society is routing food to you from other places. But your hunter-gatherer ancestors would be hungry for days or weeks.

We're better adapted for a harsh, variable environment, and it's funny how our cozy, temperature-controlled dwellings are causing a whole host of new issues.

The article you're referring to[1] only talks about a single group of hunter-gatherers, the !Kung. And all things considered, they do not work less than we do.

. . . his original estimate of 12-19 hours worked per week did not include food processing, tool making, or general housework, and when such activities were included he estimated that the !Kung worked about 40-44 hours per week.

How many people do you know that spend 44 hours or less per week working, commuting, grocery shopping, cooking, doing housework, running errands, etc.?

[1] http://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romanticizing-hunter-gathere...

Did you finish reading the article? It gets far worse than numbers of hours worked (and the !Kung score quite well on many metrics compared to other hunter-gatherers).

Humans stopped being hunter-gatherers for a reason.

It doesn't necessarily matter whether they were affluent or not. When trying to understand what conditions our bodies need to be healthy, lacking definitive wisdom on the subject it's rational to try to understand what conditions proto-man lived in. What foods he ate, how he spent his time, and so forth. Whether or not proto-man was affluent, he spent countless centuries in a certain kind of lifestyle, and in all likelihood his biology adapted to that lifestyle.

Of course. We should keep in mind that we are evolutionary creatures and that drastically changing our diet or environment probably has negative effects (sitting down too long, eating refined sugars, etc).

Do keep in mind that evolution hasn't stopped recently, either. There are plenty of civilization-era evolutionary adaptations in the human genome as well. [1]

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accel...

I often read comments here comparing our lives to hunter-gatherers, but something to bear in mind is most humans haven’t lived like that for many thousands of years. We may have evolved from that, but our bodies are very different to the people who lived like that. Farming has been around for a long time, and a lot of that involves doing the same repetive tasks all day long, and having a relatively stable supply of food.

> our bodies are very different to the people who lived like that

True, but I think the differences can still be explained 99% by changes in lifestyle. Genetically we are still overwhelmingly similar - with a few tiny differences like lactose tolerance, etc.

Not so much “evolved” changes, but human bodies definitely undergo differences in shape depending on use and context. Just look at athletes who start playing different sports from a young age – some of the difference is genetic and selection effects, but training definitely also affects muscle mass, joint flexibility, etc.

The nutrient-deficient and unvaried diet, poor hygiene/concentration of people, and difficult menial workload from farming gave us very high infant mortality rate, higher disease rate, shrinking height and all sorts of health problems, repetitive strain leading to bodies just completely worn out by age 50, etc.

As people started eating better etc. after getting away from a peasant lifestyle, average height increased by 30cm, infant mortality went way down, life expectancy and quality of life for elderly people went way up, etc.

Our bodies to some extent started reverting to their “natural” shape, but of course being bottle-fed, wearing rigid shoes, sitting inside all day staring at close work from birth onward, a diet with increasing amounts of refined sugar/starch and plenty of alcohol etc. has certainly had its physical effects, and is leaving us with small jaws, dental caries, warped feet, inflexible ankles (unable to squat e.g.), decreasing levels of physical strength, back problems, diabetes, dementia in old age, ....

>> I don't think our bodies evolved for this kind of effort...

Our bodies evolved to stay alive long enough for our kids to have kids of their own, somewhere between 30 and 40ish. There is no grand plan, no set lifestyle that will perfectly suit our bodies. Such concepts tough on quasi-religious ideas of grand designs and lost edens. Evolution is a dirty and unplanned mess of factors without any plan. Brushing my teeth every day isn't something my body evolved to handle. The bit of evolution that gave me wisdom teeth had in fact a very different plan. That doesn't mean I should return to the 'natural' lifestyle of not taking care of my teeth. Sitting too much is no doubt bad for our hearts, but there is no idealized 'balance' between sitting and jogging, a form of exercise that didn't even exist until maybe 1800.

Brushing my teeth every day isn't something my body evolved to handle.

According to some dentists I've talked to, this is a consequence of modern diet. Eat a lot of raw carrots and other basic foods, and you wouldn't really need to brush.

Go look at some old skulls in any museum. Tooth infections, leading to bone infections, were common before sugar and bread were a thing. Wild animals still get cavities. A chip here, a broken tooth there, and you've got an entry point no matter how many carrots you chew.

> I would prefer to see studies not just trying to prove things bad (we have enough of those), but focuses on what can be proven to be a positive

The thing is, we dont know yet

So youll have to settle for conflicting studies about coffee and red wine consumption forwarded from your loved ones

I found out that most doctor's advice is so sane and blunt nobody listens to it. You need something more clickbaitish and with a catchy name like paleofit, restcharging or standoori

While certainly nice to have, your wishlist of studies isn't very actionable in our world where nobody really exercises at all. It's not like the average person is erring on the side of moving too much. Moving at all would be a good start.

Unfortunately while there is evidence that sitting all day is bad, we don't know if/what alternatives are good. Is standing better, or do you need to move? Maybe it is staring at something close (monitor, papers...) and sitting is only bad as a proxy (I know of no study that can actually say that hypothesis is wrong even though I just made it up). Modern life currently requires a lot of people to spend a lot of time at computers, so we need to know how to be healthy while at computers.

I like having a motorized desk, but I don't think I could actually stand all day long, (other than the same breaks someone sitting all day would take). I tried a treadmill desk a time or two, but I don't have the option of using it daily.

I think the only real alternative is to get rid of the 8+ hour work day.

Correct me if there is evidence to the contrary, but I don't think humans were designed to sit or stand in one position for extended periods of time, habitually.

Unfortunately I don't see the 8 hour work day going away any time soon, so imo the best option is to alternate sitting/standing and take as many walking around breaks as possible.

I don't mind the work day so much, it's the work week that bothers me most. I would rather have a standard 4 day work week.

I could get behind that, even if I worked a 40 hour week still. Four 10 hour shift would not be bad.

Have you considered a career in healthcare, e.g. nursing or EMT?

> Correct me if there is evidence to the contrary, but I don't think humans were designed to sit or stand in one position for extended periods of time, habitually.

Hard evidence? I can't give you that. But look at all of the other mammals out there. Almost all of them spend substantial amounts of time sitting.

Traditional hunter-gatherer societies do almost of their work and food processing sitting down. Every hobbyist flint-knapper works sitting down.

The difference is they don't use chairs. Sitting in a chair is bad - just consider the risk of embolisms on long flights. It removes the need for your body to actively support itself and restricts motion. Anecdote of size one, but for me the biggest help was getting rid of the traditional "throne" chair and replacing it a very broad stool. I can comfortably sit cross legged on it all day. I'm constantly moving and shifting my weight forwards and back, leaning and reaching since I can't just roll a chair around.

It has required making some unusual furniture to use a computer comfortably. Like all of my keyboards are tilted the "wrong" way (away from me) with the front higher than the back. Much easier on my hands and wrists.

>Like all of my keyboards are tilted the "wrong" way (away from me) with the front higher than the back. Much easier on my hands and wrists.

Like the horizontally staggered rows of keys, the traditional tilt is a skeuomorphism of a mechanical typewriter. There's no good reason for it to be preserved in electronic keyboards. Ergonomic keyboards are usually tilted the opposite way, with the front higher than the back. This better matches the natural tilt of your hands when you hold them in front of yourself.

Got any pictures of this stool?

Yeah I'd be curious to see as well, if it's got some unique properties to it that would be useful to take example from :)

No, it is basically a boring hard flat piece of wood. Think of a bit of floor raised up off the ground. No back or arms.

Traditional hunter-gatherer societies blend into their daily schedule some amount of sitting, some amount of walking, also running, also climbing trees, perhaps swimming, etc.

It's the variety that's the key difference. We do the same thing (whether that be sitting in a chair, or felling trees in the forest) all day long, for decades. The monotonous schedule seems to be the problem; we're not evolutionarily adapted to it.

> the best option is to alternate sitting/standing and take as many walking around breaks as possible.

Agreed. This works great for me.

The 8 hour day contributes, sure, but it's more than just that. Because I live in a city that allows it, I walk to/from work and to/from lunch every day. And to/from any other errand that needs doing. People who drive to suburban office parks do none of this.

It's not just what you're doing for the 8 hours that you're at your desk. A lot of us have arranged our entire lives to require no physical movement.

Prolonged standing increases risk of varicose veins. It seems likely that mixing sitting and standing would be best. In what proportions, I don't know. Walking is likely to be a good substitute for simple standing in most people. It improves veinous return, puts some healthy impact into the legs, increases uptake of glucose from the blood stream by the leg muscles, gives the heart and lungs a little extra work, etc.

I developed plantar fasciitis in both feet after a year of standing only (using a pad on the floor). I switched to a drafting stool to help clear it up. One heel got better after a couple of months but the other one took about six months to clear up.

I just started standing again, but I will be switching between sitting and standing to avoid getting plantar fasciitis again. I do enjoy (and actually prefer) standing. I also noticed my posture improving when I work while standing.

I've been working standing up for seven years now (ruptured discs). It's given me spider veins in my legs and feet. There needs to be more awareness of this downside. I hardly ever see it discussed.

I started running in the past few years but have not paid close enough attention to be able to determine whether or not that has improved the situation. I am also going to start alternating between sitting and standing. I am hopeful that these measures in combination can improve the situation.

Standing desk + anti fatigue mat + tall rolling chair. You can sit or stand any time, don't have to adjust the desk, and standing is less tiring. No need for an adjustable desk is also cheaper.

I will say the one downside is I'm short and even at the lowest settings the tall rolling chairs sometimes have the foot rest too far away for me. I prefer to rest my feet on the floor.

My guess is that the solution involves squatting instead of sitting, although the West has lost the ability to squat comfortably for prolonged periods of time.

There is some evidence that having to stand all day is bad for you:

https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/standing-all-day-...

Every time an article about the (very important!) dangers of sitting makes the rounds, it always brings in people with a bad case of switcheroo fever, who come in and say something to the effect of "well actually, standing can cause injuries too!"

But that's never followed up with any clear conclusions about the relative dangers of standing vs. sitting. The conversation is left with a dangling implication that maybe standing is just as bad as sitting. Or worse, we're left with a vague, open ended exhortation about how the body is really complicated.

This always annoys the heck out of me. At a bare minimum, we should at least be able to come away from these articles with the conclusion that we shouldn't sit for substantial periods, and that we definitely should throw ourselves into some other alternative, whatever it's complications are.

The risk of injuries from standing should be mitigated however they have to be mitigated, but it we shouldn't let that complication muddy the waters on the more fundamental point about sedentary behavior still being bad even if the alternatives have problems too.

I hope this study don't revive the trend of standing desks again. Look I know being sedentary will rob me a few years of life, but going full opposite and being stand 9 to 5 it's Dante inferno at work. Probably the best balance will be having a routine with exercise present, and small breaks to stand and walk a little bit at X minutes sitting.

At home I have a desk I can take up and down. Some days I sit, some days I stand. I think that's the best

They're starting to phase in desks at my current job where you can save a few preset heights, and push a button to shift to one. It's pretty cool, though 90% of people with them only sit.

I place this (http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/90184047/) on my desk when I want a standing desk and remove it when I am ready to sit down :) . I like Ikea.

I place this https://m.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/art/80267566/ on my desk, you can put more things than your computer and lean on it, it holds well.

That's a good idea - the Marius table that I use is a bit precarious with its round top.

It's almost as if it's lack of constant (even low-grade) activity that's the problem, rather than whether you're sitting or standing. Perhaps not moving all day is the cause.

Treadmill desk?

Potentially better than nothing! However, as a single repetitive motion, it might carry its own long-term risks.

Maybe one of those giant human mouse-wheel things with variable terrain? Tripping would suck, though.

Minority Report style interfaces that require big limb+head movements?

Heh, nice try, but you don't even need a big interface to see how that pans out.

You realize how sedentary you are when you have to use a huge multitouch monitor for... half hour. Your arms will be heavy from just pointing and clicking at the screen in front of you.

This situation is very sad and I'm also looking for alternatives.

Right now what I'm doing is just taking a 5 min break every hour at work and walk to some random part of the complex pretending I'm delivering something or running some errand, just to get me a lil walk and stand time. While they allow me to do that just fine, I know I am also hurting my productivity quite badly because you're never in that kind of flow state where hours pass like minutes.

I want:

- Good productivity. Good time alloted to 'flow' - Not fuck my health in the long term too badly.

Let's share ideas!

I think it's fine to have an occasional binge of any kind. So you once every couple weeks spend a day or two just sitting intensley focussed on something. What matters is your habits for most of the time, not literally all of it (in other words as long as ~80%+ of your days you do take regular breaks it's fine).

I bought an Aeron chair a few years ago and although it's fantastically comfortable I feel a downside is sometimes I don't move for several hours if I get engrossed in work. Once they are set up right I've not sat in any work chair which comes close.

As I said, I'm not sure that's a good thing because of the length of time I can sit. I do wiggle a bit but often don't even stand up. I was toying with getting a sand timer or something similar to enforce getting up but not sure how those interruptions would affect my workflow.

Yes, I agree. See my other comment that is a sibling to yours.

>It's almost as if it's lack of constant (even low-grade) activity that's the problem, rather than whether you're sitting or standing.

Yes, IMO. And I would add to that: it is likely that the lack of a change is also part of the problem, as in lack of change (at not-too-long intervals) between action and non-action (such as walking or moving for the former, and standing, sitting or lying down for the latter). Noticed it in myself - if I walk or move for too long (many hours), or stand or sit or lie down for too long (ditto, except for sleep), I start feeling uneasy or affected in some way (obvious way is to get tired due to the former, but also uneasy due to the latter).

Edited for typo.

Also, adding to above my points in this comment: about lying down for too long, in particular, I've noticed that if I do that, whether intentionally (not often, maybe sometimes due to getting engrossed in reading something interesting), or accidentally / unintentionally (say due to a fever), the body feels uncomfortable after a while, which seems to reinforce my point above about some change being good.

Something a bit more like this every morning at work?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCfW6HFP5cI

revive the trend? its still in full force so far as I can tell.

One of our offices just moved to a new building and got (small) motorized standing desks for everyone. I thought I would hate it, but honestly having the option is nice. Plus, its a lot easier to look at something with a coworker standing for some reason. Sadly I'm almost never in that office, I kind of wish I had it all the time.

> Plus, its a lot easier to look at something with a coworker standing for some reason.

So true. I think this is because legs are not in the other person‘s way vs sitting.

I like the option of just changing the chair height and/or the desk height every few hours and stay seated. That alone mixes up my posture quite a bit.

What do you mean by "Dante inferno"? Are you saying it's torture? I stand my entire work day and I'm not going back. But no one is forcing anyone to stand all the time.

Cardiovascular exercise is torture for me. But that has no bearing on the utility of it.

What's wrong with a trend in standing desks? Nobody is forcing you to use one.

There probably are some employers that mandate sending desks.

If there are, do they supply high quality shoes? Standing for so long in bad shoes might result in pain, too. I'm a bit of a pessimist in that regard so I could see an employer doing this to save money. A good office chair ranges from $600 to $2000 but you can also can go as high as you want.

it probably depends how many other job options their employees have.

I got a VersaDesk because of some pain issues I was having (which have since been resolved).

I would absolutely not want to be standing for 10 hours a day. But it is nice to be able to stand up for my usual 3-5 hours per day.

They have adjustable sit-stand desks these days.

What's bad about the trend - don't offices typically give you a choice of which you'd prefer?

Previous workplaces I've been at had the option of an Ikea adjustable height desk for people who would occasionally switch between the two.

I've had one of those and it was okay, but I much prefer my home setup - a standing-height desk and a draft-height chair. Nothing needs to move to switch, and so I switch regularly throughout the day.

What a good idea! I have a powered sit/stand desk but tend to only stand during meetings, which luckily (well, unlucky in this context) aren't very often. Going to give a drafting chair a try.

Maybe we can figure out what we need to do, at a minimum, to alleviate the problem. 20 push-ups, 20 squats, etc every couple hours?

“But even slightly elevated troponin levels, lower than those involved in heart attacks, are worrisome if they persist”

If we can measure the right things, we can “treat it”

——-

HN-TIME:For those tracking, this story was posted 3 times in two days. 12pm EST on a Friday got over 50 upvotes in a hour. Lunchtime EST.

Personally I love standing desks. I find myself naturally walk around more often, especially when I'm in deep thought. This rarely happens when I'm sitting, as it feels much harder to get up. But it's good to have a sitting option too so you don't have to stand all day.

Standing desk plus an anti fatigue mat was mostly life changing for me. The amount of energy that I have at the end of the day is noticeably different but it does take some getting used to.

Different strokes for different folks though. I really miss it when I don’t have it.

I think the real solution here is diversity. I don't know that 9-5 standing was ever seriously advocated as a preferable alternative to sitting; clearly there are issues with that too.

I mix things up at work personally; about a third of the day standing, a third sitting in a chair, a third sitting on a yoga ball. At this point it seems like you should just hedge and try to about doing any single thing without moving for too long.

TL;DR - We don't really know.

(but here's an observational study that says the more you sit around the higher your troponin levels are, and those are bad, so try to walk around more.)

> so try to walk around more

Even though we just said it's probably not going to help.

I dunno if sitting is bad or not -- but ever since I got a fitted desk and put a Deskcycle under it I've felt super great. It's a bit awkward always being a little bit sweaty though (I put in ~50 miles a day).

https://deskcycle.com/

Does it have inertia as well as resistance? I bought one several years ago that had absolutely no inertia and it was just horrible to use.

From the main page:

> The precision machined flywheel silently spins at 14 times your pedal speed. The high inertia of the flywheel helps keep the pedals moving at a smooth pace, sort of like a mini spin bike.

That picture at the top is such a hilariously bad photoshop. I can't imagine anyone using this with a rolly chair on a wooden floor. The scratches!

FYI: There are special rolls for hardwood flooring, that dont scratch the floor.

Price is good. Thanks for sharing, I just ordered one.

What's a fitted desk?

I had one at my old job, but my current desk is too short to use it without bonking my knees.

If interested, I made a little tool to gather cadence data on a computer instead of using the provided monitor: https://github.com/lfowles/deskcycle

I have a Deskcycle too, and I love it. It's as smooth and quiet as the site says.

Went to an orthopedic doc for an achy leg/back/knee.

Gave me the usual prescription: strengthen some core muscles, physical therapy, anti inflammatory meds for a couple weeks, and should be good to go.

Also, however, he prescribed that I read the book Deskbound, by Kelly Starrett.

Reading that book will definitely give you an incentive to not sit for long periods of time.

Weasel words perhaps, but Kelly Starrett really divides physical therapist communities. Some love him, some hate him. Personally I think he's often "right for the wrong reasons". But if his approach gets you feeling better, that's what's important.

Ditto workouts for "core muscles".

Interesting, thanks for the info I’ll check it out.

Is there any readable book that's "right for the right reasons"? I'm interested in learning more.

I would say during the 16 hours I'm awake, it's mixed between standing with a little bit of movement (75%), walking / running (10%) and sitting (15%). This has been going on for about 2 years.

You can put together a custom standing desk for about $50 nowadays and a $35ish chair is all you need to comfortably sit in an ergonomic way with your standing desk when you want to take a break (no complicated adjustable desk needed, just a standard 29" comfortable stool with a back).

I really like this set up and highly recommend it.

When I started my fisærst and current job I got back pains after 2 months. I tried walking home every day, which helped, but that's not always possible in winter. What really helped was working out with weight exercises during lunch. No pain since then.

i had back pain for 2 years... which sows up 2 to 4 times a month, i tried many techniques, but with no great result.

But this one technique where you just lie down on the floor upside down fully flat for 20 mins... my back pain just disappeared and never came back for last 6 months...

>fisærst

Seems closely connected with something I happened to submit recently:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15839654

Do you think the author was sitting down when he typed this?

i noticed in the past 3 years that my ability to stand still > 1hr becomes very very challenging. not sure if this is my age..but it truly was alarming.

so now i take it day by day and push myself a few min more each morning ( when my hormones are the highest ) to stand more. i mix it up during the day when i can..and use a fitball for sitting.

Let's all do more standing, drinking water, yoga, and eat more non-processed foods in 2018!!

This article comes as I worked sitting down for 16 hours yesterday to hit a code deadline. I think Im going to get a standing desk ASAP...

Yeh, start bugging your employer (assuming you work for one) to get those awesome adjustable desks that can raise/lower to different heights. OK, they are a bit pricy, but if enough people speak up about it that should make things happen. Hopefully :)

I’m a independent contractor and work from home. So yeah, my employer is aware :) I definitely have this high on my list especially since I get the money spent right back in tax relief.

"Not surprisingly, those men and women rarely exercised."

Perhaps a more controlled study is needed.

Is it that sitting is bad, or that not walking is bad? Is this clickbait?

We need recess at work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com