People think that sitting is very bad for you because it is correlated with all kinds of undesirable health outcomes. Does anyone know whether these effects disappear when controlling for level of activity?
So, for example, running a marathon doesn't take much training. It averages about an hour per day, according to this [1]. The runners seem to be living "largely sedentary" lives, playing video games, watching TV, sitting for work, etc. It sure seems like running has some positive effects [2]. Are you saying that Stephenson's approach of walking slow most of the day is pretty much the only way to unlock an extra year or five?
My argument is, of course, argument via google. There's so much contradictory information and economic motive to, well, lie that it's hard for me to get a grip on what's actually sensible. Some regular exercise sounds like a good argument, and there's some evidence to back that up ([2] for example), but it sure has the feeling of folklore.
[1] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/the-marathon-runner...
[2] http://www.hs.iastate.edu/news/2014/07/28/iowa-state-profess...
The best way to puritan-ize it is probably to greenwash the thermostat up to 85F in the summer and require treadmill desks for the proles, then let management sit in separately air conditioned individual offices at 70F. Guarantee you're going to see this at the "trendy" offices real soon.