Slashdot Mirror


Regular Exercise Not Enough To Make Up For Sitting All Day

An anonymous reader writes: Toronto researchers have found the amount of time a person sits during the day is associated with a higher risk of disease and death, regardless of regular exercise. The paper, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine (abstract), found that prolonged sedentary behavior was associated with a 15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death from any cause; a 15 to 20 per cent higher risk of heart disease, death from heart disease, cancer, death from cancer; and as much as a 90 per cent increased risk of developing diabetes, said Alter. And that was after adjusting for the effects of regular exercise. ... Engaging in 30 to 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous daily exercise does not mean it's OK to then "sit on your rear" for the rest of the day.

348 comments

  1. Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So there is no reason to regularly exercise any more!

    1. Re:Excellent! by bhagwad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, nice try by whoever wrote the report. I have no intention whatsoever of ungluing my ass from my seat. A 15% higher risk is a trivial price to pay for a lifetime of luxury and decadence.

    2. Re:Excellent! by skids · · Score: 1

      Though, it would be even nicer to get hazard pay for it.

    3. Re:Excellent! by fxsoap · · Score: 1

      That's just the initial report of 57 studies man. They aren't conclusive. That number could jump up 50% of what it is in the future. Is that REALLY worth it?

    4. Re:Excellent! by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      Though, it would be even nicer to get hazard pay for it.

      Funny you mention that. I drive a gasoline tanker, and get hazard pay to sit on my ass all day.

  2. Yeah, butt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exercise sucks.

  3. Better take 2 minute walking breaks then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sitting for eight or more hours a day can be deadly.

    That fact has been hammered home in study after study showing the negative health effects -- including heart disease, poor circulation and joint pain -- associated with being parked on your behind for most of the day. The only sure way to prevent those problems, researchers have said, is to sit far less.

    But there is growing evidence that there are ways to reverse the damage without necessarily committing to being on your feet for eight or more hours a day.

    A new study by researchers at Indiana University published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise suggests that the impaired blood flow in leg arteries can actually be reversed by breaking up your sitting regimen with five-minute walking breaks.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/09/08/take-a-seat-you-may-be-able-to-reverse-the-damage-to-your-health/

    1. Re:Better take 2 minute walking breaks then... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      There was /. on how much you exercise is less important than how often you exercise, when you have a desk job. People who got up and did mild exercise once every 1-2 hours saw no difference in circulation than not sitting, but sitting 4+ hours saw nearly no benefit from any amount of exercise. Or something like that.

      Rule of thumb, lots of mini breaks.

    2. Re: Better take 2 minute walking breaks then... by jseale · · Score: 1

      That's great! Especially since most office jobs involve sitting, and standing at your computer to type or enter data would REALLY cut down your WPM quite a bit.

  4. higher risk of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    " a 15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death from any cause"
    I kind of thought the risk of death from any cause was pretty much 100%.

    1. Re: higher risk of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I just want to know how sitting on my ass all day increases my chance of being eaten by a shark by 15 to 20 percent.

    2. Re: higher risk of death by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just want to know how sitting on my ass all day increases my chance of being eaten by a shark by 15 to 20 percent.

      You don't stand a chance against a Land Shark if you're sitting down.

    3. Re: higher risk of death by MisterSquid · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just want to know how sitting on my ass all day increases my chance of being eaten by a shark by 15 to 20 percent.

      You don't stand a chance against a Land Shark if you're sitting down.

      Plumber

      I didn't ask for a plumber. Who is it?

      Telegram

      --
      blog
    4. Re: higher risk of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot: 0*0.15=0

    5. Re: higher risk of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *knock knock knock* Candygram

    6. Re:higher risk of death by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      I wonder how these data concerning the increase in cancer risk is complying with the recent article http://science.slashdot.org/st... saying 65% of cancers are just bad luck and no link with genetics, environment or behavior. Seems to me another flawn study.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    7. Re: higher risk of death by gmiller123456 · · Score: 1

      You don't stand a chance against a Land Shark if you're sitting down.

      Land sharks only attack when answering the door, so you are actually better off just sitting down.

    8. Re:higher risk of death by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      I wonder how these data concerning the increase in cancer risk is complying with the recent article http://science.slashdot.org/st... saying 65% of cancers are just bad luck and no link with genetics, environment or behavior. Seems to me another flawn study.

      It's Statistics! They could very well both be correct ... technically.

      Until we know the mechanism, we don't actually know much.

      But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to sit around all day...

  5. We'll get paid a risk premium now, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Considering how dangerous that desk job is...

    1. Re:We'll get paid a risk premium now, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only if you do your part: Regular expressions at least twice a day!

    2. Re: We'll get paid a risk premium now, right? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Off that is true then Perl programmers will live forever!
      note to self: cancel gym membership and get back in to perl coding.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    3. Re:We'll get paid a risk premium now, right? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      We call it hazard pay.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  6. We all have to die one day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Delaying it is not going to make it any better or worse.

    1. Re:We all have to die one day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delaying it is not going to make it any better or worse.

      It might give you time to repent

    2. Re:We all have to die one day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might give you time for bigger and better sins.

    3. Re:We all have to die one day by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 5, Informative

      Delaying it is not going to make it any better or worse.

      True enough. For death itself.

      The thing to really fear is if sitting on your butt all the time increases the risk that you won't be able to enjoy sex for the last 10 years of your life because you'll be too sick to complete the sex act. Even when making love all by yourself. You won't have the heart for it any more. In a very literal way.

      That's the true message here. Not that death will take the indolent sooner, but that if you develop one of the sedentary diseases, you will not be able to have much fun in the last, lingering, decades of your life.

      Get off your keister and move around a bit. We've got the technology... take your coffee and lunch breaks with a walk with an audio book. Replace your computer desk with a treadmill equiped with a keyboard. Move your butt!

      That might be a good rallying cry for all geeks: Move your butt.

      --
      Will
    4. Re:We all have to die one day by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      When you get that notion, put your back field in motion!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  7. Eat less by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you expend less energy it needs to match down consumption too. Americans are so fat because they are used to eating more. You would never see a restaurant like Bucca Di Peppo in Europe. As an American just saying.

    A sandwich is or small salad with no sugary soda is what people who are skinny and in Europe eat for lunch. No fries supersized, coffee with sugar, or a Coke on a daily basis.

    1. Re:Eat less by Drethon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm 150 pounds and 5'10" and used to drink a 20 ounce pop about once a day and eating fast food two or three times a week. That was balanced out by eating nothing more than what can fit in a small lunch bag for breakfast and lunch and dinner is typically a home cooked meal. Most of the time I could eat more but just ignore the hunger. That being said just getting off the 20 ounce pop means I don't have to watch what I eat nearly as much, these days I usually just drink pop when I'm too stressed out to pass it by.

      Also I would say watch the alcohol consumption. I've seen coworkers put down more than one pitcher of beer and that is not low calorie.

    2. Re:Eat less by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      "I'm 150 pounds and 5'10" "

      I would suggest you actually need to *gain* some weight. Thats pretty skinny. (For a guy - if you're a woman ignore this).

    3. Re:Eat less by eam · · Score: 1

      And even those rail-thin Europeans are at a higher risk of disease if they spend all day sitting at a desk. That's what the article was about.

    4. Re:Eat less by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3

      I don't think it's a matter of eating too much food as it having too much of our food be low nutrition or otherwise inappropriate food. If your body wants fat, and you cram it full of sugar, you aren't going to be filled, and you will shove your face through much more of it than your body needs in the process. Ironically, trying to eat healthy or trying to get others to eat healthy can be a big cause of this because it results in fighting and suppressing the urges of the body to meet its own needs.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:Eat less by sdoca · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's pretty skinny for a woman 5'10" as well.

    6. Re:Eat less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What health benefit would there be in gaining weight? The grandparent has a BMI of 21.5 which is in the middle of the healthy range.

    7. Re:Eat less by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I was skinny when I was 115 pounds. Now I'm somewhere between 8% and 15% body fat which is fine for me. I can't bench press 350 but I'm fine with 200 and can rock climb like a monkey.

    8. Re:Eat less by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Well you might not think you're skinny at 150 but most other people would.

    9. Re:Eat less by Drethon · · Score: 1

      To each their own :)

    10. Re:Eat less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know your body better than we do, it's possible you might just have a very slim frame. That said, I'm about 5'7" and at my peak condition at a military academy my lowest weight was 165lbs. I wasn't really muscled or anything, just a 2 mile run every day, followed by 30-40 minutes of situps/pushups/weights. I couldn't imagine getting down to 115 even at 5'7", let alone 5'10".

    11. Re:Eat less by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      That's why I normally get up and walk around for a couple of minutes every hour or so during the day in addition to going to the gym outside of work.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    12. Re:Eat less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 6'1" and weigh 150 lbs, yes I am skinny however putting on weight is not an easy thing to do for me. The metabolism lets me keep going. To be fair I also cycle to and from work 5 days a week. Last year I rode 5800 km.

    13. Re:Eat less by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You would never see a restaurant like Bucca Di Peppo in Europe.

      You wouldn't see a restaurant serving Italian food in Europe? WTF?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:Eat less by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      that isn't 'skinny' at all. that's pretty much ideal for a male of that height and an average build.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    15. Re:Eat less by itzly · · Score: 3, Informative

      5'10" and 150 lbs is a BMI of 21.5, which is about ideal.

    16. Re:Eat less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you might not think you're skinny at 150 but most other people would.

      Seriously, what kind of world are we in when 5'10" and 150 is skinny? What other's think of your weight isn't important.

    17. Re:Eat less by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Nope. This is ideal. Talk to a doctor and look at the chart.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    18. Re:Eat less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, what kind of world are we in when 5'10" and 150 is skinny?

      The kind that isn't populated entirely with anorexics.

    19. Re:Eat less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 5'11" and 130lbs and have been the same weight my entire adult life (I'm pushing 40). As the skinniest man I know, I don't have concerns about being overweight. However, articles like this give me pause because I know all too well that because I drive a desk all day, that may have serious health implications down the road.

      Case in point: my mother is as thin as I am. She's always been known to her friends as the skinny one. But that didn't help her avoid the two heart attacks she'd had, likely caused by her sedentary job, poor eating habits and total lack of exercise.

      Being thin isn't everything; being healthy is something you have to work at.

    20. Re:Eat less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      150lbs is the "ideal weight" that a 5'10" male was supposed to be in decades past (say, way back in the 1980's and 1990's). It's only recently that everybody has become overweight and the "ideals" have been hiked up. I'm myself 5'10, 160lbs and athletic, and could lose a few pounds still. I'm definitely not rail thin, but neither am I a body builder with an unhealthy but trendy emphasis on looking big and bulky.

    21. Re:Eat less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you might not think you're skinny at 150 but most other people would.

      Actually, 5'10 150# isn't skinny for a girl - or a guy. In high school I was 6'1 175# and considered a medium build. At 150# he's not skinny, just on the low edge of medium build and the upper range of a light build. If you can't see the veins on your biceps - and I mean the ridges, not the blue - then you're already beyond the healthier level of body fat (10-15% male, 20-25% female).

      If you are 6' 200# and can't BENCH 200# in a chest press/lat pull down, then you're doughy, at best. Dropping 20# of lard, 70,000 calories is like not drinking 412 cans of soda. So skip soda/etc for a year without making up those calories elsewhere and you're set.

      I say this having just binged on two candy bars and a soda, but at least I know where I sit.

    22. Re:Eat less by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      Yup same here. I go to the gym for an hour before work 3 days a week. Then at my desk I keep a cup. Since I drink so much water I generally have to refill the cup every 20-30 min or so. Sure it isn't a couple minute walk, but 20 seconds or so each way, and often Ill stop and stand at someones office and have a quick chat.

    23. Re:Eat less by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Thats pretty skinny.

      Maybe compared to the people around you, but it's actually smack bang in the middle of a "normal healthy BMI" according to NIH.

  8. Limited power to change working situation... by quintessentialk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I appreciate this and other studies that affirm that sitting most of the day is bad for you. What am I supposed to do about this? Like a great many professional workers, I work for a large, un-hip company whose furniture, real estate, and office layout is driven by cost and not ergonomics or health. I can't just decide to have a standing desk or reconfigure my 'workstation' -- arbitrarily, and due to client sensitivities I can't work from home. I guess I can just hope the news gets around and maybe my kids will get to have the choice.

    1. Re: Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are screwed. That is our system and if you do not like it, there are a billion Indians who would. Have a nice day 99.99%'er and thank you for dieing to make the .01%'ers even richer - that mega yacht is getting cramped!

    2. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by daq+man · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly, I'm in the same situation. The only thing that I can do is at least try to move as much as I can when I am allowed. So, I get up from my desk at least once an hour and walk to someone's office rather than calling them on the phone. Bathroom breaks are taken at the furthest bathroom from my office. When I was in a multi-floor office building I'd go to the bathroom on the floor three down from the office and take the stairs. In the morning I don't park in the spot closest to the building but walk a bit.

      I'm still stuck though. The rest of my time is spent typing at my desk or in meetings and I can't exactly stand and pace in the corner of the meeting room.

    3. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Informative

      You could mitigate the damage by taking small walking breaks while in work. Go to the gym couple times of week. Use a standing desk at home: the Ikea Björkudden is a relatively cheap option at $99.

    4. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > office layout is driven by cost and not ergonomics or health

      You mean, the cost to your health is externalized.

    5. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I started using a standing desk a few months ago and can definitely notice the improvement to my posture and strength in my legs and lower back. I realize it's probably futile, but sharing studies like this with your HR department and making the connection to healthcare costs for the company is still worth it.

    6. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Take a 5 minute walk every hour if you can.

      If you have standard cubes you could see about having the desk surfaces mounted at standing desk height. Then all you need is an adjustable chair/stool. You might be able to either arrange that outright, or for a future (and probably inevitable) move as companies are fond of swapping people around.

      If you have any health issues or concerns you might talk to your doctor to see if a standing desk would help, and if so get a note. A company that wouldn't do it based on preference might be more inclined to accommodate it to address a health issue. (Of course it is better to avoid the issue to begin with.)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the summary? The discussion is centered around the claim that regular exercise doesn't truly counter the effects.

    8. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, there are massive cost-savings to be had by getting rid of your desk and chair and having you pedal on a saddle-less exercise bike all day to generate electricity in order to keep your computer and the office lights running. Expect it to become a mandatory condition of employment within the next few months if for no other reason than the company health insurer will insist upon it.

    9. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can get up and take a five minute smoke break every 30 minutes.
      Sitting on your ass all day sounds so bad, taking up smoking might actually be a net-win.

    10. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually it doesn't. What the article is trying to say is that exercise will not counteract the effect of prolonged sitting. The problem with that assertion is, it's not proven. The article simple correlates health outcomes with people who exercise and have prolonged sitting, through meta analysis.. Nothing more. IT DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION. Therein lies the problem. Even the correlation is somewhat weak since it was not a single experiment designed to observe those outcomes but rather base those conclusions on other research.

      So there is no proof here. But it does highlight an area for future research.

    11. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I appreciate this and other studies that affirm that sitting most of the day is bad for you. What am I supposed to do about this?

      Nothing unless you are willing to make major changes.
      The point of a study like this is to figure out how things work, that way you can make informed decisions.
      If the company you work for doesn't allow for you to have a good health you have to choose between health and work.
      You should consider what you are giving up next time you negotiate a salary. You should consider if the increased risk of diabetes, cancer and heart disease is small enough to ignore or if you prefer to find a new job that allows for you to keep your health.

      You should not assume that you can both stay at your current workplace and live long enough to see retirement.

    12. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True going to the gym, according to the article, would not help. This has not been proven. So take that assertion with a grain of salt. However, taking mini breaks during the day would be of benefit. The key is not to sit for prolonged periods of time.

    13. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Standing poses other health risks. There is no silver bullet. They key is to get people to move around on a regular basis at work.

    14. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      Consider this investment. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't an insurmountable sum:

      http://www.varidesk.com/index.php/varidesk-pro

    15. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      It does not hurt either. But remove the gym part from my message if you want. :)

    16. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by bitingduck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can get up and take a five minute smoke break every 30 minutes.
      Sitting on your ass all day sounds so bad, taking up smoking might actually be a net-win.

      Especially if you don't light the cigarette.

      Smoking is one of the few things where you can look at study after study and it's unambiguously very, very bad for you. They don't have to tease correlations out like in the "latitude of birth correlates with risk of hangnails" kind of studies, it just jumps right out of the data.

      So take a smoking break, but don't light up. Or at least don't inhale.

    17. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lie down on the floor for work and tell them it's doctor's orders.

    18. Re: Limited power to change working situation... by doombob · · Score: 2

      I have had this at the office for the past six months and love it. I know anecdotal and all that, but I switch between standing and sitting a couple times and have felt really good since getting this. I seem to have eliminated the mid afternoon sleepiness, and now I'm also much more tired when I go to sleep at night so can't make it through an episode of anything on Netflix. Feeling more energy through the day and sleeping really well through the night.

    19. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Switch to e-cigarettes. Practically all risks from smoking are because of the tar you inhale, not the nicotine. Nicotine is only harmful in very high doses.

    20. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Get up and move around occasionally. Take breaks and go for a walk. Stand and stretch in your cubicle from time to time. Get a pedometer or a fitbit or something, shoot for 10,000 steps (yes, it's not a magic number, but it's probably more than most of us do).

      You are kind of stuck with your job and your hours. You know this already.

      So, you either say "bummer, maybe my kids can do this", or you try to fit it into your day.

      It won't happen for you.

      (And I say this as someone who is pushing 50, and a little too squishy around the middle, I definitely empathize with you.)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    21. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by quintessentialk · · Score: 1

      You should not assume that you can both stay at your current workplace and live long enough to see retirement.

      Ok, partially valid point. If my employer doesn't provide standing desks, and I think that standing desks are worth any potential reduction in salary, relocation, and/or inconvenience associated with finding a new employer, then that is logically what I should do.

      However, arguments of that type (which could apply to any workplace safety condition) eventually do eventually break down when one considers that employees are not perfectly mobile and interchangeable, and that there may be enough willing workers that employers may not face any market pressure to compete in this area. This is why we have to have government-imposed safety regulations, because 'just get a job at a factory that is safer' was not a reasonable or successful approach.

    22. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      You stand up and walk around for a few minutes once every 45 minutes to an hour, that's what you do.

    23. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by sribe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What am I supposed to do about this?

      Question the studies and the motivation behind their being pushed so hard ;-)

      Question why studies that reach contrary conclusions get no publicity.

      Question why, even though there is absolutely zero evidence that stationary standing is better for you, standing desks are being pushed so hard.

      Then go for a run.

    24. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Present at meetings, lots of meetings. Form a committee, create employee focus groups, and try to generate a synergistic rapport with management and create a win-win solution for each stakeholder.

    25. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I... I uh... I didn't exhale... (PCU)

    26. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drum up support for desk swapping in the cube farm, then take the concept to HR or management, along with the a presentation on the health costs of continuing current practice. Desk swapping: every hour there is a "chinese fire drill" where everyone swaps cubes with a partner on the far side of the cube farm. Each pair gets an enforced walking break at least once an hour.

    27. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I've been looking into sit/stand for my home office. The thing is that it looks like the monitor height only increases by 10" when you extend this (they say 15", but it starts out at 5" based on the dimensions). I'm just over six feet tall. I feel like I'll be staring down at my work with something like this. I'd probably want something that extends upwards something like 2-3 meters beyond the base position.

      There just aren't many affordable options for sit/stand right now, though I should look on kickstarter again as I saw something in the works.

    28. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      correlation is the first step in establishing causation

      there has never been a single scientific discovery ever that didn't start with a "hey, that's interesting" correlation

      so i don't understand how "correlation does not equal causation," a useful phrase meant to remind us to keep an open mind, has evolved into a kneejerk reinforcement to close your mind, "whoa, whoa, i'm not changing my preconceived notions bub when prevented with new evidence"

      that's what the phrase has become: a way to wave away data that people aren't comfortable with

      "correlation does not equal causation," "correlation does not equal causation," "correlation does not equal causation..." you see it parroted under any article that might challenges someone's ideology or beliefs, all the time

      the phrase has become toxic and worse than useless

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    29. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      s/meter/foot - I'm not THAT tall. :)

    30. Re: Limited power to change working situation... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I am in the same position. What I do is set my my desk up so I can fully stretch my legs under neath. Every 15 minutes I tighten as many leg and stomach muscles as I can for at least 30 seconds. It isn't much but it does improve circulation a bit. I just wish I could figure out a way to boost cardio too.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    31. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1
      If you have some control over your cube... All I used was a shoe rack and desk mount stand: http://www.amazon.com/ClosetMa... and http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

      Others where I work went cheaper and just used two shoe racks.

    32. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bring a Vape to Work Day?

    33. Re: Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wish I could figure out a way to boost cardio too.

      You can.

      DeskCycle Excercise Bike

      http://www.amazon.ca/DeskCycle-Excercise-Bike/dp/B00B1VDNQA

    34. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. My desk is adjustable and I alternate sitting & standing throughout the day. That, along with brief walks around the building and outside.

    35. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first standing desk was made by setting a few cardboard boxes on top of my work desk. I used that system for about a year and a half before my company got sick of looking at it and bought a standing desk for me. I didn't even ever have to replace the boxes.

    36. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Get into work early. Seriously. Often I am the first one in the office. Before I sit down I do some stretches and deep knee bends. Then some upper body stretches for the shoulders and neck. Stretch out your calves as well. I can do all of this before anyone else gets in.

      Try and do this a few times a day. Drink lots of water rather than soda. Not only will you consume fewer calories but it will give you an excuse to go to the bathroom more often. Resist the urge to eat lunch at your desk. If you go out for lunch then park a bit further so you have to walk a bit. Take the stairs rather than the elevator. I love it when I go to big meetings and there are not enough chairs. I'm the first one to stand.

      The bottom line is that you can't always count on your employer. If you do some of the things above it might help. At the very least, you'll feel better.

    37. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, nicotine paralyzes the cilia that clear your lungs – of lots of stuff, not just tar from cigarettes.

      Nicotine is used as a pesticide on plants. It may only be fatal to humans in large doses, but I wouldn't relish the thought of inhaling bug spray at all, never mind on a regular basis.

      But yeah, by all means, keep telling people to switch to e-cigs because "they're better for you." Just like filter and low-tar cigarettes were once touted as the healthier choice.

    38. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put your monitor on one or two of these $10 ikea lack tables.

    39. Re: Limited power to change working situation... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      What a smeggin cop out.

      Of course you have a choice -- if *you* won't respect your body and buy better equipment so it is healthier don't expect any one else too either.

      Dual / triple monitors and a standing desk are the two *best* _investments_ for your body you can give it. Am ergonomic keyboard where your wrist isn't twisted is also great.

      Maybe by being proactive and setting a positive exams your company will get on board by taking ergonomic health issue more seriously.

      "Be the change you want to see in the world"

      Complaining about it and doing _nothing_ is precisely part if the problem.

    40. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Or at least don't inhale.

      Right. Then you only can get mouth cancer.

    41. Re: Limited power to change working situation... by FeltLion · · Score: 1

      I don't think the problem is lack of a solution but lack of a creative solution on your part. You simply need to increase the blood flow into your legs and body. You can do nonmoving static isometric exercises while sitting at your desk: flexing your muscles against each other, wall sitting, taking bathroom breaks and doing lunge or pushup type exercises in the stall. Are used to work in a factory for 12 hours a day and I could induce myself sweat just while sitting up slighly from my chair, supporting myself with my quads. "But people just don't do those things" you might say. That's what lack of creativity is.

    42. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I appreciate this and other studies that affirm that sitting most of the day is bad for you. What am I supposed to do about this?

      Get up and walk around every couple hours. Get a standing desk. Tell HR it is because of health problems and HR should be able to give you a desk that allows you to stand or sit (they jump when you tell them it's for health problems). Take 'smoke breaks' then use them to walk around.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    43. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could, you know, take responsibility for your own well-being and advocate for a more ergonomic working environment. Maybe apply your creative talents to the problem and come up with some ways that you can mitigate the damage without getting yourself fired.

      It seems pretty strange that you would need to ask that sort of question, seeing how obvious the answers are and that you aren't a child.

    44. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      There is no silver bullet. They key is....

      Uh.....did you say that ironically?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    45. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Years ago, I picked up a $90, swing-arm monitor stand with keyboard tray. That holds my center monitor. When I'm doing routine documentation or coding, I can raise the monitor and keyboard and work while standing. My other 3 monitors can still be quickly consulted even while standing. Granted, I still have to sit for the intense multi-monitor design, debug or unit test sessions, but I generally need a break every hour while doing that. Most of the time, I'm switching between standing and sitting twice per hour.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    46. Re: Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did political jargon become insightful on the nerd site?

    47. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correlation does not equal causation, though it merits investigation!

    48. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Nicotine is used as a pesticide on plants

      It's also used as a pesticide by plants (including tobacco). So you'd better cut back on tomatoes and potatoes too.

    49. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      As long as you don't ever accidentally swallow that contaminated saliva.

    50. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      "But yeah, by all means, keep telling people to switch to e-cigs because "they're better for you." Just like filter and low-tar cigarettes were once touted as the healthier choice."

      Shut the fuck up, you ignorant fool. Scientists continue to be shocked at how many adults think that nicotine causes cancer:

      http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

      It's smoking that causes cancer. Not vaping.

      Why are so many fucking idiots like you spouting this bullshit? And why am I willing to call you a fucking reprobate idiot on my actual slashdot account?

      BECAUSE MISUNDERSTANDINGS LIKE THIS ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE

      It's worth some karma. It's worth some anger. It's worth my ego versus yours. If you are opposed to tobacco replacement for smokers, if you spread lies about how e-cigs are like "lite cigs", then you are literally causing cancer. YOU BECOME A CARCINOGEN. And unlike tobacco and the other carcinogens, you have agency, and can fix your goddamned shit. And you best do it fast before a statistically signifigant portion of your smoker friends are injured or killed, when your attitude could instead have lead them to STOP smoking, START vaping, and not have had that happen.

      Here's a good study on this topic:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

      And one last thing: Yes, this means that smokers get to have (most of) their cake and eat it too. They still get to sit together and socialize and be cool. They just no longer have to slowly kill themselves. No one had a problem with the nicotine gum, because it obviously sucked and wasn't cool. Vaping IS cool, AND it is saving lives- more than the gum ever did. Vaping is not a "lite" cigarrete. Vaping is an alternate nicotine delivery system that preserves most of the positive effects of smoking while eliminating most of or all of the negative one, most importantly, the cancer risk.

      So they'll still be cool and having a good time, but they won't be killing themselves just to live their lives normally. That's a great triumph of technology, not some tragedy.

    51. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      ...at much lower rates and with much more favorable outcomes.

      Tobacco causes cancer pretty much no matter how it is used (nicotine doesn't seem to cause cancer at any dose). But, your odds with chewing tobacco are vastly better than if you were smoking, and the odds are also better if you take the smoke into your mouth but not your lungs. Not to recommend these practices or claim they are safe, but it's way more of a safety difference than wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle or car, and you wouldn't claim those are the same risk profiles.

    52. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Drink lots of water. Having to pee every hour will take care of your sitting problem.

    53. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, you're a bit right:
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...

      10 grams of eggplant equated to ingesting the same amount of nicotine you would absorb by being in a room with low amounts of smoke. Weird.

      Of course, unless you like to snort eggplant, it's not going to do jack to the cilia in your lungs.

    54. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by itzly · · Score: 1

      Nicotine still hardens your arteries.

    55. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Have you tried asking your boss for the furniture you'd like to use?

      I believe employers (in the US) are required to make reasonable accommodations for employee health concerns. Perhaps you could get a note from your physician stating that he recommends you use a standing desk (for example)?

    56. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      > even though there is absolutely zero evidence that stationary standing is better for you, standing desks are being pushed so hard.

      False.

      I switched to standing desk alternative between siting and standing. I most certainly do feel better as the constant switching every 15 mins or so breaks up the complete monotony and stress of siting all day.

      My personal subjective experience over-rules your "data."

    57. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I know people with asthma who smoke partly because it makes them feel better, for some reason. I've also encountered claims that cigarettes are useful in self-medicating some conditions, such as schizophrenia.

      If smoking is useful in some conditions, then it's ambiguously bad for people with those conditions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    58. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Here's a study saying it doesn't.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

      This study looked at actual humans, using actual tobacco products ("smokeless tobacco"), and found no correlation.

      Meanwhile, the study YOU are talking about involved a guy (Chi Ming Hai) who claims that "atherosclerosis" is "...a kind of cancer of the blood vessel..." in order to get press. What he did was take heart cells out of the body, dose them in nicotine and PKC, and show that in encourages the formation of "podosome rosettes", which would imply that hardening of the arteries could result.

      But, no arteries were actually hardened in this study. It's interesting then, that you've heard all the fuck about it, but you didn't hear about how none of the studies in actual people show any heart problems at all.

      Interesting indeed.

      Is nicotine harmful to the heart? Probably? Not detectable, however. And it could have cardioprotective effects as well as harmful ones, and that could be why they can't be detected in actual humans.

      So again, cram it with your fear mongering. And don't just pick the one goddamned study that correlates with your preexisting view that smokers or drug users or whomever should suffer and that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Don't just say shit like "nicotine still hardens your arteries" and not even bother to look up if that fact is true at all. I mean, Zeus's beard bro, you are on the internet. Just type this crap into google!

    59. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Unions... Get a government job where the unions take Occupational Health and Safety to an extreme and you can request any darned whizzbang office furniture.

    60. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is kind of off color but on topic... when I worked at Yahoo, I was on the top floor of building A for several years. The mens room there was the best in the building because nobody would bother to come all the way to the fourth floor to use the bathroom. The first floor bathrooms look like a punk rock bar's bathroom literally urine rolling across the floor and sticky even though it's cleaned 4 times a day. yikes...
       

    61. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone gave me -1? Someone obviously doesn't get sarcasm.

    62. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Or hack/mod your own. I have another computer with its monitor on a bookshelf to force me to stand to use it. Obviously, this won't last long since I will be finally laid off on Friday. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    63. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      It doesn't counter the effects of sitting for a prolonged time "after adjusting for the effects of regular exercise". Regular exercise is still a big part of a healthy lifestyle.

    64. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry to hear it. Have you started updating your resume? It might be easier to document key accomplishments / dates while still employed. Time to check your benefits, and when they run out (midnight the day you are gone, end of month, or ??). Can you do any cost shifting? Time to get a 90 supply of drugs (if on any)? Access to FSA/HSA? Are you better with our without a 401k contribution in final paycheck? Do you have the phone numbers and email addresses of friends or key contacts there that might be useful in the future? Home cooking - tasty, healthy, frugal. Take a few days to unwind, and start the job search. Good luck, go to church, and don't give up hope.

    65. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      BECAUSE MISUNDERSTANDINGS LIKE THIS ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE

      You're defending people who are bright enough to avoid the warnings, for the last 40 years. Do you flip out on people eating fast food? Heart disease is the leading killer.

      Vaping IS cool, AND it is saving lives- more than the gum ever did.

      Stopping a bad habit is beneficial, who would've thought? There are fewer smokers today despite vaping.

      It's worth some karma. It's worth some anger. It's worth my ego versus yours. If you are opposed to tobacco replacement for smokers, if you spread lies about how e-cigs are like "lite cigs", then you are literally causing cancer.

      Did adults suddenly not become responsible for their behavior? Their actions are solely responsible, not some blowhard on a forum, the person willfully inhaling.

      YOU BECOME A CARCINOGEN. And unlike tobacco and the other carcinogens, you have agency, and can fix your goddamned shit. And you best do it fast before a statistically signifigant portion of your smoker friends are injured or killed, when your attitude could instead have lead them to STOP smoking, START vaping, and not have had that happen.

      Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot put into their body? Sounds like these people lack discipline and willpower to deny themselves something they've LEARNED to like. FYI I'm a former smoker and not an antismoking nazi either.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    66. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I don't know what question this Vik Khanna is trying to answer, but if you put that article in this article's context it seems as if you are assuming there is a dichotomy between (standing work + no exercise) and (sitting work + exercise). I.e. it appears you are saying one cannot exercise along with standing work. Which is obviously incorrect. This statement from the article you quote is also highly misleading :

      The metabolic cost of standing is about 50% greater than the metabolic cost of sitting, but in both cases the absolute load is very small so the incremental increase in benefit is infinitesimal

      50% higher metabolic cost is huge. Fitness enthusiasts would give their right hand to increase their rest metabolism by 50% - if giving their right hand didn't reduce the rest metabolism that is. Even if workday is considered only of 4 hours - 50% over 4 hours can surely not be called infinitesimal.

      It takes much more energy to stand rather than sit. Not only that, the semi-voluntary movements one makes while thinking are much more energy intensive when standing than when sitting. That is because while standing we move much much heavier body parts - e.g. legs+torso, pelvis+torso, whole body on ankle/knee joint etc. While sitting such movements are typically restricted to arm movements, head movements, leg movements not translating to whole body movements because ass is glued to a chair. It is clear which movements consume more energy. And while thinking there is a lot of semi-voluntary body movement going on.

      Then there is the consideration of what our ancestors evolved doing. While it is not standing, standing is still much closer to it than sitting on comfy chairs. Invention of chair doesn't go as far back as early man.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    67. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by sribe · · Score: 1

      Which is obviously incorrect. This statement from the article you quote is also highly misleading :

      The metabolic cost of standing is about 50% greater than the metabolic cost of sitting, but in both cases the absolute load is very small so the incremental increase in benefit is infinitesimal

      50% higher metabolic cost is huge.

      No, it is not.

      Fitness enthusiasts would give their right hand to increase their rest metabolism by 50%

      Yes, they would. But that is completely different than thinking that an "activity" that requires 150% of rest metabolism contributes anything to fitness. (And by the way, 50% is a very generous estimate.)

    68. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't contribute anything to fitness, why would fitness enthusiasts give their right hand to achieve similar effects?

      It doesn't preclude exercise, you know.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    69. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      See this. Converting 8 hours of work from sitting to standing assuming 50% addition to calories per hour, adds equivalent of about 1.5-2.5 hours of workout a day. In addition to which regular workout can still be done.

      99% of first world population and well-off third world population doesn't even do 1.5-2.5 hours of such workout a day. And even most of those that do definitely do not consider 1.5-2.5 hours of workout a day "infinitesimal".

      That is ignoring the much heavier semi-voluntary activities that standing induces.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    70. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by sribe · · Score: 1

      See this [harvard.edu]. Converting 8 hours of work from sitting to standing assuming 50% addition to calories per hour, adds equivalent of about 1.5-2.5 hours of workout a day.

      When it comes to fitness (and health benefits) burning an extra 40 or so calories an hour for 8-hour period is in no way equivalent to burning 150 calories an hour for 2 hours.

    71. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by sribe · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't contribute anything to fitness, why would fitness enthusiasts give their right hand to achieve similar effects?

      They would not, if they have a clue what it means. A 50% rise in resting metabolism is an indicator that you've increased muscle mass (and cardiovascular capacity necessary to support it) by a huge amount. Burning 50% more calories standing than sitting is an indicator that you're standing--it indicates absolutely nothing about your fitness level.

    72. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      indicates absolutely nothing about your fitness level

      One would hope their activities DO SOMETHING about their fitness level, not just indicate something about their fitness level.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    73. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      And yet lots of people consume lots of more calories than they spend in a day. Which adds up to very unhealthy amounts of fat over time in their bodies. Which they could have prevented/reduced - in this regard the calorie burn is equivalent to a 1.5-2.5 hour workout.

      But you claim erroneously that there is no benefit of spending this extra 320 kilocalories, equivalent to 5 such cheese slices per day.

      Which also doesn't prevent them from performing other forms of exercise - as I keep reminding you falling on deaf ears.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    74. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by sribe · · Score: 1

      But you claim [slashdot.org] erroneously...

      Well-designed studies support that claim, as referenced in the article I linked.

    75. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Nope, that article assumes an option between (standing work + no exercise) and (sitting work and lots of exercise). The studies it cites all relate fitness to health - which no one is denying. But they DO NOT relate standing work to health.

      And telling it to you for the 5th time - standing work does NOT prevent you from exercising.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    76. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by sribe · · Score: 1

      And telling it to you for the 5th time - standing work does NOT prevent you from exercising.

      And why exactly are you so focussed on that distraction??? 1) I never said it did. 2) That is completely irrelevant to the question of what its benefits might be.

      (Well actually, foot pain, ankle pain, knee pain, hip pain, back pain, varicose veins--all potential side effects of standing desks, especially for the unfit--might in fact discourage or reduce exercise. There, I didn't say it before, because I consider it a very minor point, but since you keep on and on about it like a broken record...)

    77. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      But I thought salt was bad for you! Life is so complicated...

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    78. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Because the article you point to keeps repeating that fitness correlates with health must mean standing desks do not correlate with health. You misinterpret the studies it cites to mean standing desks do not corelate with good health whereas they say nothing of the sort.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    79. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the phrase has become toxic and worse than useless

      By analogy with your argument, we can conclude numbers are toxic and worse than useless. After all, politicians and fanatics routinely misuse numbers so they don't have to change their preconceived notions when presented with new evidence.

      It follows (by your logic) that numbers are just a way to wave away data people aren't comfortable with.

      Let's generalize even further: we should get rid of any concept or idea subject to potential abuse by the idiots of the world.

    80. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that's a very interesting article. The letter of reply is also informative. Lest readers believe that the fact that nicotine is present in some vegetables may somehow compare to the serious dangers of smoking, he indicates that the calculations presented regarding an "environment with minimal smoke" described by the author of the article actually amounts to "the equivalent of 1 percent of the smoke from one puff of a cigarette", hardly what most of us would consider "low amounts of smoke in a room":

      Finally, it has been well confirmed that the exposure to tobacco smoke indicated by a plasma concentration of 5 to 10 ng of cotinine per milliliter is of clear toxicologic importance,3 whereas there is no evidence that daily exposure to the equivalent of 1 percent of the smoke from one puff of a cigarette would be of toxicologic importance or could possibly confound assessment of environmental exposure.

      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290619#t=letters

    81. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by sribe · · Score: 1

      You misinterpret the studies it cites to mean standing desks do not corelate with good health whereas they say nothing of the sort.

      So where exactly is the part where they establish that standing desks DO correlate with good health???

      Uhm, yeah, I never made the claim you're stating above. Your claim about what I said is pure 100% unadulterated bullshit. I claim now that it has not been established that standing desks cause good health.

      And that wasn't even my original claim. Simple fact: what is being claimed widely now is that sitting is very toxic even for those who are fit. Simple fact: that is bullshit.

    82. Re:Limited power to change working situation... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      So where exactly is the part where they establish that standing desks DO correlate with good health???

      Read http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      Uhm, yeah, I never made the claim you're stating above. Your claim about what I said is pure 100% unadulterated bullshit

      You claimed this by hiding behind this Vik Khanna's article, who does claim this.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  9. Something I used to to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about vigorous 60 minutes in the morning and vigorous 120 minutes in the evening while "sitting on your rear" in-between? Can this be considered OK?

    1. Re:Something I used to to by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's the long periods of inactivity that are the problem, not cardiovascular health.

      There was a related study several years earlier that suggested people in good shape who went home and plunked down on the sofa for 6 hours suffered as much as couch potatos.

      So break that time up and that's the goal.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  10. Standing desks by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This really makes me wish it was the norm for employers to provide standing desks. It seems like the evidence is mounting that traditional desks are killing us. But since a decent adjustable standing desk costs ~ $700-$1500 US, they're seen as a luxury.

    I'm not sure it would be a bad thing for OSHA to require employers to provide adjustable desks for office workers.

    1. Re:Standing desks by kenj123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      wait till employers figure out they can move cube walls closer together and cram more people in the same office space. your office will look like a phone booth. (for younger people, here's what a phone booth is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...)

    2. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only problem with standing desks is that there's no solid evidence that they protect against the ill-effects of sitting. The problem with sitting isn't the posture; it's the lack of activity.

      Here's a simple solution: keep water (or some other low-calorie drink like tea) by your desk and keep drinking it. You'll be forced to take bathroom breaks every hour or so. Not only do you get to inject activity into your workflow, keeping hydrated is good for you too.

    3. Re:Standing desks by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      My previous employer did this, presumably because of high rent in a metro area. The resulting cube layout was insane.

    4. Re:Standing desks by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Standing desks DO NOT solve this issue since you are still not moving and poses other health issues. You can't stand in one place all day. People need to sit as well.

    5. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a simple solution: keep water (or some other low-calorie drink like tea) by your desk and keep drinking it. You'll be forced to take bathroom breaks every hour or so. Not only do you get to inject activity into your workflow, keeping hydrated is good for you too.

      I just worry if constantly overhydrating myself might have bad consequences as well. Maybe it swells my body, flushes out important nutrients, or something like that.

    6. Re:Standing desks by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      I bought one of these a few months ago. It's pretty spacious, adjustable, and is regularly on sale for $450 or so.If you're in the market for one and don't want to spend lots of money for something fancy, this might be a good option for you.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    7. Re:Standing desks by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's what I do. I have an electric tea kettle and drink tea all day. That means I have to go fill the tea kettle and go on bathroom breaks. I try to walk down a few flights of stairs and walk back up every 2-3 hours as well. (I haven't fully incorporated that into my routine yet.)

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    8. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I worked as a cashier at burger king, I was told not to lock my knees, but to shift my weight and move my legs every so often as I stood. Standing with legs locked is bad. Standing and subtly shifting about (not dancing or rocking, just repositioning feet every so often) really helps.

    9. Re:Standing desks by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2

      It's actually pretty hard to overhydrate unless you are slamming down a couple of liters an hour, if you eat a balanced diet, you're not going to be peeing out much in the way of minerals, your body does a pretty good job of keeping them in balance.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    10. Re:Standing desks by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Standing desks DO NOT solve this issue since you are still not moving and poses other health issues. You can't stand in one place all day. People need to sit as well.

      Do you know of any articles that back up your claim? I had two reasons for thinking standing desks were an improvement: (1) these articles make sitting sound bad, and standing != sitting, and (2) I wondered if sitting --> obesity --> health problems was one of the causes for sitting --> death.

    11. Re:Standing desks by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      I can personally tell that working at a standing desk involves quite a lot of movement. It's not like you have to stand in attention -- you can keep changing your posture, move your feet around, etc. while actually working/typing. I also feel like it solves ADD-type issues to a great extent, as you don't have to fight your body's natural urge to move.

      It's true that standing for hours on end isn't great for you either. The idea isn't so much about sitting vs. standing, but not staying in one place/posture too long. When you sit down for a break from standing work, it feels much more like a break.

      BTW, my standing desk consists of a coffee table on top of a desk. It's not quite perfect yet, but sure beats sitting down.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    12. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, do what I did. Put my monitor up on the bookshelf above the proper desk portion that as far as I've seen, pretty much all cubes have. Got a cardboard box and put my keyboard on that and use my tower as a mouse pad. Works perfectly as a standing station, total cost was about 2 bucks for the box.

      Of course, assumes you don't have one of those horrid open work spaces which eliminates any and all walls between your farts and your co-workers.

    13. Re:Standing desks by sribe · · Score: 1

      This really makes me wish it was the norm for employers to provide standing desks. It seems like the evidence is mounting that traditional desks are killing us.

      There is absolutely zero evidence that standing desks are any better. And they cause their own set of problems.

      I'm not sure it would be a bad thing for OSHA to require employers to provide adjustable desks for office workers.

      So, because you're not sure it would be a bad thing, they should do it???

    14. Re:Standing desks by internerdj · · Score: 1

      I'd take a narrower cube where I have to stand over one of those I've got to see you working half height cubes any day.

    15. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has a door - that's more than can be said for 90% of current offices. Add dimmable glass, and that could be the cube of the future. Shape it like an old UK police box and claim it's bigger on the inside.

    16. Re:Standing desks by mytec · · Score: 1

      I purchased this desk (Amazon.com) for $286 (with a Prime membership).

      I wanted to get a relatively inexpensive standing desk to see how I'd like it. I've been using the desk for two months now and love it. I'm sure it doesn't have all the adjustments more expensive desks have but I feel very comfortable working all day.

      It took almost two weeks to adjust to standing all day long, but now I cannot imagine not working at a standing desk. I think part of the aforementioned comfort is due to all the movements my body is now making. I do find myself unconsciously stepping back, moving my arms around and other movements that are recommended periodically while sitting all day. I even find myself swaying side to side while I'm thinking through a process and stop as I continue to type away.

      The improvement in how my back and shoulders feel is great.

    17. Re:Standing desks by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      How is that adjustable? Do you always have to work standing up?

    18. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      put your monitor on top of a shelf &
      use a wireless keyboard & mouse setup.

      low budget solution for us workin' class folks !

    19. Re:Standing desks by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      How is that adjustable? Do you always have to work standing up?

      It's not adjustable. A good question, though. My standing desk is for the computer only, and I have another, regular desk for paperwork. I find this a good, balanced setup, as I have quite a bit of paperwork due to studying math. I've also had full coding/writing days on the standing computer with no problems -- I do take breaks, after all.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    20. Re:Standing desks by sls1j · · Score: 1

      My standing desk consists of a wide board laid on top of two 5 gallon buckets which costs a total of $10-15? Why would you ever pay $700-$1000???? Are we so far away from simple ingenuity?

    21. Re:Standing desks by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      So, because you're not sure it would be a bad thing, they should do it???

      I was using a common idiom to put forth a topic for discussion. I was not indicating that I was convinced it was a good idea.

    22. Re:Standing desks by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      My standing desk consists of a wide board laid on top of two 5 gallon buckets which costs a total of $10-15? Why would you ever pay $700-$1000???? Are we so far away from simple ingenuity?

      I was referring to adjustable standing desks. I.e., for the use case where one alternates between standing and sitting as his computer, multiple times per day.

    23. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, we know what a phone booth is!

      It's some time machine things you see in the movies.

    24. Re:standing desks by PPH · · Score: 1

      Don't know why this was modded Troll. Good idea or not, it's worth considering.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    25. Re:Standing desks by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Drinking too much water is bad too as it tends to flush out essential electrolytes, like sodium.
      Sports drinks like Gatorade are supposed to alleviate this problem by providing the necessary electrolytes but they also contain sugars, which are good when you are exercising but bad when you are just sitting on your butt.

      Interestingly there were a few cases of "overhydratation" with users of stimulant drugs like MDMA (aka ecstasy). Because it is easy to get dehydrated while under the influence of these drugs, it is recommended for users to drink a lot of water, even if not thirsty. This has led to some people drinking too much, resulting in a potentially fatal condition known as hyponatremia.

      Note : Too much water is more than maybe 1 liter per hour. That's a lot.

    26. Re:Standing desks by firewrought · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you know of any articles that back up your claim?

      Read this brief on the perils of both sitting and standing, and then check the references at the bottom. Notably, standing all day leads to varicose veins and puts a strain on your circulatory system.

      Just generally, the factory production line taught us long ago that holding the same pose or making the same motions all day long will have chronic repercussions. (If you ever have to work an assembly line, hope it's in a factory that practices job rotation so your tasks are varied over time.)

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    27. Re:Standing desks by firewrought · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it would be a bad thing for OSHA to require employers to provide adjustable desks for office workers.

      Check that make-a-law impulse. A desk job is just about the safest thing you can do (assuming you don't have to travel for work). Very little chance of suffocating a mile underground (mining), disappearing into the sea (commercial fishing), losing a limb (logging, mill works), or routine exposure to carcinogens (many factory jobs). (Obligatory slideshow: the twenty deadliest jobs.)

      That's not to say OSHA should have no concern but office workers (which they do)... just that it should be proportional to the risk involved.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    28. Re:Standing desks by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Read this brief on the perils of both sitting and standing, and then check the references at the bottom. Notably, standing all day leads to varicose veins and puts a strain on your circulatory system.

      Thanks, that one link advanced the discussion (for me at least) more than all the other comments combined.

    29. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get yourselves a desk cycle off amazon for $150 or if you're lucky use articles of this nature to convince your employer to purchase one for you. It's more cost effective than standing desks and doesn't require new furniture. I'm averaging 20km a day and contrary to the rest of the office don't require a space heater and ergonomic foot rest.

    30. Re:standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a budding activist for a son (he's 12). We all stand at our desks at our house, but our son, of course, has to sit all day long at school. We're encouraging him to start campaigning for standing desks at his public school, for all children. Yeah, yeah, I know; it'd be a change, and change is difficult, but it seems that the benefits to our society would far outweigh the fixed costs and the socio-educational-cultural adjustments that would have to be made. My own lay estimate is that we'd eliminate most of the childhood type-2 diabetes and improve the classroom educational environment.

      yeah, standing desks may compensate for lack of activity. I would rather have more recess/P.T. time for the kids but that would be even more difficult to institute than standing desks.

      I went to school in the 50's/60's and we sat all day in school but for one recess period or P.T. period when older.
      Obesity and diabetes didn't happen in near the numbers it does now a days; I do not think that sitting is a health problem by itself.
      I might also mention that soft drinks and bags of snacks were a rare or weekend treat, and that when we got out of school we were running non-stop in the streets, woods, and playgrounds until supper time, and then we went back out. Of course, that wasn't everyone - some kids just didn't want to go outside. There was almost nothing on TV for kids to watch and no electronic toys.
      There was no 4 hours of homework a night either.

      I'm betting that it's multiple factors.
      Perhaps sitting has a threshhold effect. For example perhaps sitting 8 hours but in two hour sessions interrupted by a half-hour break maybe OK, but sitting eight straight hours may cause some internal changes that lead to problems during each sitting session.
      Perhaps it's sitting still after eating sugar-loaded foods rather than running around.

    31. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy a tall chair.

    32. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My standing desk consists of a wide board laid on top of two 5 gallon buckets which costs a total of $10-15? Why would you ever pay $700-$1000???? Are we so far away from simple ingenuity?

      I was referring to adjustable standing desks. I.e., for the use case where one alternates between standing and sitting as his computer, multiple times per day.

      So add a pump and some tubing to your buckets. Add styrofoam blocks in the buckets, with a run-off bucket and an aquarium pump. A 1,000 GPH pump will float the rest of the stuff in under a minute and it will cost you less than a hundred bucks US. Big Home Depot buckets not your style? Paint some PVC. A gallon weighs 8 pounds. Two 5 gallon buckets will displace 80#. If your monitor and keyboard are that heavy, add a third bucket. Or use a couple of air springs to take most of the load and the bucket will literally just float the last ten pounds.

    33. Re:Standing desks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solution for keyboard:

      Get a music stand with a flat back. (Google "music stand".)

      Use double-sided tape to attach a keyboard to the stand, with the top row of the keyboard pointing towards the floor.

      Adjust the music stand so that when you hold your hands in front of your body, your fingers are close to the home-row of the keyboard. Learn to type with your arms down, without being able to see the keyboard. (If you need to see the keyboard, get a small mirror (maybe a curved mirror) that allows you to have line-of-sight to the keys while you're standing.)

      Solution for display:
      This is tricky since, unlike a music stand, it's more difficult to integrate a cheap solution into any office setting. Mount to wall? Get a long LCD monitor stand? Put monitor on top of a stack of reams of paper snatched from the printer room? I don't have a cheap solution here. Get creative!

      The keyboard solution isn't pretty, has some functional issues, and probably will attract some snarky comments from coworkers. But it's CHEAP -- cheap enough to spend your own money on it, and can probably implement it in most offices without being hassled by higher authorities. It's a first step towards solving a legitimate problem.

  11. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An hour a day counts as regular exercise? That's just masturbation. Utterly fruitless. Did we really need a study to tell us that a half hearted effort won't produce results? Maybe everyone knows and just doesn't give a shit.

    1. Re:Really? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I dont know about you, but its definitely not fruitless when i do it!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An hour a day counts as regular exercise? That's just masturbation.

      You masturbate a whole hour every day?

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know about you, but its definitely not fruitless when i do it!

      Can you do it to me so that I can tell?

    4. Re:Really? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      20 minutes a day is considered insufficient. 1 hour a day is good.

    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much more than that and I just don't get anything else done

    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An hour a day counts as regular exercise? That's just masturbation. Utterly fruitless. Did we really need a study to tell us that a half hearted effort won't produce results? Maybe everyone knows and just doesn't give a shit.

      What you thought you were telling us: "I exercise so much that an hour a day seems trivial to me! Fear me, for I am a physical god among you scrawny nerds!"

      What you actually told us: "I don't exercise at all, but boy howdy do I need strangers on the Internet to think I do!"

  12. Cause, or effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are sedentary people more likely to die, or are people more likely to die sedentary?

    1. Re:Cause, or effect? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are sedentary people more likely to die, or are people more likely to die sedentary?

      Dead people are more likely to be sedentary.

    2. Re:Cause, or effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will die mid-air in cool explosion while "taking risks and living my life to the fullest".

  13. Sounds logic by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the pas few thousands of years, humans have always been mobile. And being mobile, I do not just mean walking. I mean moving around all day.

    It is only in the past 75 or so years that we have started to do a LOT of nothing. We sit at our desk and the most we walk is to the printer.

    Just look at pictures of 75 years ago and see how few cars there were. All these people and so few cars. They either walked, took a bike or at least walked to the train station. And now we have electric toothbrushes and don't stand up to switch channels.

    So what has replaced the moving around all day? Nothing. We don't even stand up to go to the phone anymore.

    I noticed this when I went sailing with some friends. On a sailing boat on the sea you move around all day when you just want to sit. Otherwise you fall over. The result was that I was aching all over as I used muscles I normally don't use.

    Nothing has replaced what we used to do in the last few thousands of years.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Sounds logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at pictures of 75 years ago and see how few cars there were. All these people and so few cars. They either walked, took a bike or at least walked to the train station. And now we have electric toothbrushes and don't stand up to switch channels.

      Have you never heard of a horse or a cart/coach? Horses were less common by 1940, but in 1940, cars were very common. Desk jobs existed in 1940. Desk jobs existed in the 1600's

    2. Re:Sounds logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... humans have always been mobile. And being mobile, I do not just mean walking. I mean moving around all day.

      Some of them ran too. The ones that didn't run fast enough got eaten by the lion that was chasing them. For them, being sedentary definitely took its toll.

    3. Re:Sounds logic by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      But let's keep this in perspective, shall we?
      Let's even use that 75-year number, even though we know it's fairly arbitrary, I think it will be representative:
      http://demog.berkeley.edu/~and...

      US life expectancy 1940, male: 60.8 years.*
      US life expectancy, 2014, male, 76 years.
      That's 25% more life.
      *if we go back to 1900 it would be an even more startling comparison - life expectancy for males was 46 years.

      So clearly, being sedentary isn't healthy. If you can avoid it, great.
      But our sedentary lives (looking at them cumulatively) have ALSO given us a net "win" for the individual by 25% more life span. That's pretty great.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:Sounds logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the pas few thousands of years, humans have always been mobile. And being mobile, I do not just mean walking. I mean moving around all day.

      Yeah, and they died at 32.

    5. Re:Sounds logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But let's keep this in perspective, shall we? Let's even use that 75-year number, even though we know it's fairly arbitrary, I think it will be representative: http://demog.berkeley.edu/~and...

      US life expectancy 1940, male: 60.8 years.* US life expectancy, 2014, male, 76 years. That's 25% more life. *if we go back to 1900 it would be an even more startling comparison - life expectancy for males was 46 years.

      So clearly, being sedentary isn't healthy. If you can avoid it, great. But our sedentary lives (looking at them cumulatively) have ALSO given us a net "win" for the individual by 25% more life span. That's pretty great.

      Those increases in life expectancy were largely due to decreases in infant and child mortality. We have also replaced short, high-intensity wars that killed young men by the tens or hundreds of thousands with a permanent war that takes fewer than a thousand U.S. lives per year. The increases for people who made it past young adulthood are less impressive.

    6. Re:Sounds logic by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "It is only in the past 75 or so years that we have started to do a LOT of nothing."

      And how has the average life expectancy changed over that last 75 years?

    7. Re:Sounds logic by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      But all in all, the society we've created - that largely includes (and one might say is a result of) jobs filled by people sitting at their desks - in the net has resulted in an increased lifespan. That's incontestable.

      Teasing out causality is a challenge, of course, and I wouldn't presume to do so, but the simple fact is that we are - in terms of health & lifespan - better off than we were in 1940.

      --
      -Styopa
  14. Allow me to summarize every medical finding by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anything enjoyable, comfortable, or sinful is bad for you. Ideally, we should all work as rowers on a slave ship eating nothing but cardboard and water.

    That must be why our ancestors in the past led such long, disease-free lives.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Allow me to summarize every medical finding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they all had to sit to row.

    2. Re:Allow me to summarize every medical finding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they did. We only improved childhood mortality. Once you got past the first year of life, things weren't much worse then than now. Now we can stretch out old age too, much for the benefit of retirement homes which can suck away at those pension checks.

    3. Re:Allow me to summarize every medical finding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything enjoyable, comfortable, or sinful is bad for you. Ideally, we should all work as rowers on a slave ship eating nothing but cardboard and water.

      That must be why our ancestors in the past led such long, disease-free lives.

      Except for the studies showing that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial, chocolate is good for you, and sex is good for you.
      And Italian and French diets are good for you, or at least they're good for the Italians and French.
      That's about my whole list of things I want to do.

    4. Re:Allow me to summarize every medical finding by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you are on the oar. If you're next to the oarlock, you probably have to move the oar back and forth with arm and torso muscles while sitting. If you're far from the oarlock, you may have to walk back and forth. If you're in the middle, you may be able to stand up when moving the oar forward, out of the water, and fall back on your bench to pull. That's the most effective stroke, but it does fatigue the rower.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by wiredog · · Score: 3, Funny

    from any cause"

    Isn't the risk of death from any cause 100%? At least for us mortals?

    1. Re: "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      That's assuming that you've only got one cause trying to kill you. When in fact, there are many competing causes.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    2. Re: "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I think that says "people who sit all day have a 15-20% higher chance of dying, no matter what the specific cause".

      Long term, yes, nobody gets out alive.

      But over the same time period, people who sit all day long are more likely to die sooner -- no matter what it's from.

      The implication being that sitting all day seems to help whatever is already killing you do it faster.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re: "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by rossdee · · Score: 2

      "But over the same time period, people who sit all day long are more likely to die sooner -- no matter what it's from.

      The implication being that sitting all day seems to help whatever is already killing you do it faster."

      So the people who sit all day have increased their risk of being hit by a large asteroid, but such an impact is going to wipe out the rest of us as well, therefore we need to get those people up and moving or we are all going to die!

    4. Re: "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by cockroach2 · · Score: 1

      (posting to undo moderation mis-click)

    5. Re: "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by internerdj · · Score: 1

      "'from any cause.'" The study I want to see is how exactly, does sitting at my desk increase my overall chances of getting eaten by a shark or struck by lighting?

    6. Re: "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      The implication being that sitting all day seems to help whatever is already killing you do it faster.

      Or that more people who are going to die sooner than the average in any case sit around a lot more than the others. Is the study doing an adequate job of controlling for this variable? As an episodic asthmatic there are several weeks each year when I have to time my medications and inhaler use so I can get an hour of walking in each day, but other than that hour I am quite sedentary, trying to avoid wheezing, during those weeks. I live a generally sedentary life because I have little choice: I could not keep a job as a mailman or Fedex delivery driver, etc. I am likely to die earlier than most from complications of airway disease, yet that has little to do with how much I sit on my butt during the hours when I am not doing my daily 3 to 6 mile walk.

      There are a lot of men in similar predicaments. I know of two young men with cystic fibrosis who religiously Zoomba an hour each day and otherwise are student bookworms dependent on elevators and those OLGCs (old lady go-carts) to get around. These guys are doing everything they can to live to their 40th birthday and the odds are not in their favor. How much do these kinds of edge cases distort the general statistics? Is the study adequately accounting for those who are going to die young no matter what, and must live a sedentary life style?

      --
      Will
    7. Re: "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you're still alive, there's no data point for YOU just yet.

      Have you ever heard the philosophical proposition of the infinite life hypothesis? It goes like this - every time you were about to die you shifted into another reality where you would have lived. The fact that you're in a society that is fairly close to cracking the aging problem means that if you're under 40, you've got a shot at living forever...

    8. Re: "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      So the people who sit all day have increased their risk of being hit by a large asteroid

      Totally.

      Mauled by bears, set upon by rabid weasels, abducted by aliens, falling into a volcano, poisoned by fugu ...

      The lesson here is "run, because the universe is trying to kill your sorry ass, and if you sit in one place too long it will get you". ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re: "15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      from any cause"

      Isn't the risk of death from any cause 100%? At least for us mortals?

      It is deaths during the period(s) of study that they are measuring.
      To put it another way, everyone does not die every day, so the risk of death today is a small number. The risk of death this century is near 100%

  16. is sleeping for 8 hours straight as bad? by kenj123 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm going to set my alarm clock to go off every hour at night so I can take a 5 minute walk. i'll live forever.

    1. Re:is sleeping for 8 hours straight as bad? by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      Are you sleeping sitting up?

    2. Re:is sleeping for 8 hours straight as bad? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      That's it! I need to find a job where I can work lying down! ...er, wait a second...

    3. Re:is sleeping for 8 hours straight as bad? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm going to set my alarm clock to go off every hour at night so I can take a 5 minute walk. i'll live forever.

      Congratulations! When's your wife due?

  17. Sitting or over eating? by Drethon · · Score: 2

    From the article: "The authors extrapolated from available research that those who spend long hours in sedentary activity are 90% more likely than those who don't to develop type 2 diabetes." I am not a doctor but my understanding is a majority of type 2 diabetes is caused by being overweight. So is it the sitting that is causing the problems in general, and the type 2 diabetes specifically, or is it due to burning less calories than those in an active job so consuming the same calories leads to being over weight? Just my bent $0.02.

    1. Re:Sitting or over eating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a doctor but my understanding is a majority of type 2 diabetes is caused by being overweight.

      I'm not a doctor either, but a common sign of type 2 diabetes is rapid weight loss. Plenty of type 2 diabetics are skinny. Exercise is the key. Obese people exercise less often than thin people so they tend to be type 2 diabetic more often.

    2. Re:Sitting or over eating? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      And that's the problem, it's a crap conclusion. No one is going to develop type 2 diabetes if they are healthy. It's the inactivity and amount of food you eat. So indirectly you could say prolonged sitting contributes to this outcome. The article severely overreaches.

    3. Re:Sitting or over eating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not just overweight dude. there are a lot of contributing factors.. and a lot of fat people who don't have it. I was exposed to a high concentration of manganese, tetrachloroethylene and benzene in my drinking water from our family well in Johnston, RI 1979-1981. My symptom was a massive cluster headache. Blood came back with manganese poisoning. The chemists on slashdot can understand what happened. The chemicals leached the naturally occurring manganese from the soil and leched into the aquifer feeding my families well. I was a teenager then. The benzene/tetrachoroethylene exposure beat the heck out of my pancreas and liver. I've got type 2 from the exposure. I consider myself lucky since there were infants born with cancer, lots of people diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma, and bladder cancer. I need to eat as if I am allergic to gluten, eat mostly protein and go low on carbs, plus workout, plus some meds. Sitting down with no excercise leads to a slow metabolism and other chemical activities in the body with the hormones and all slow down. I'm a systems engineer but I get up and walk, plus stick to a regular work out schedule. I had Type-2 before I graduated college. and I was active. very active. damn chemical exposure got me.

  18. Correlation Causation? by HnT · · Score: 2

    Is this merely a correlation or actual causation directly linked to the sitting? This study-of-studies seems very nebulous at best with different studies having different thresholds for what "prolonged sitting" actually means and what alternatives are there? Are standing desks really an alternative?

    --
    "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Correlation Causation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd even ask what "sitting" actually means here... Are we talking flat no-back wooden stool combined with bad posture/hardware position/lighting, or 1000-1500$ orthopedic armchair and proper everything else?

    2. Re:Correlation Causation? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      It's not causation since no experiment was conducted to measure this. It's a weak correlation at best, since again, no correlation study was conducted to measure this outcome. It was a meta analysis not an experiment. That's the limitation of the study. It should be touted as proving anything. What it does point to is an interesting of study, something that should be looked at.

      I think a reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that prolonged sitting is associated with a number of bad health outcomes and that prolonged sitting should be broken up with breaks during the day.

    3. Re:Correlation Causation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you suggest a statistical study should find an "actual causation"? Correlations are all we have. A strong correlation suggests there is a causal link. The different thresholds at which correlations are found don't make the metastudy "nebulous". On the contrary, they are an additional indication that there is indeed a causal link, not just a coincidence: the more you sit, the earlier you die. This would favor a model that contains this kind of causal link. Of course it cannot prove any specific model. This is science, not truth-seeking.

    4. Re:Correlation Causation? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      It seems an equally valid conclusion is that a number of bad health outcomes are associated with pre-existing conditions that encourage or enforce prolonged sitting. I don't think this meta study has adequate controls for pre-existing bias; I don't think that can be done in this kind of research.

      Nevertheless, the human body is designed for strolling around the savannas gathering stuff to eat, gathering things to burn. Brandishing torches to drive the large predators away from their prey, cooking their stolen meat on fires of dried dung. Nearly constant movement, but very little extreme exertion. A sort of idyllic life, if you don't mind the smells and the bugs.

      It makes sense that a modern life style that mimics the one the human body was adapted to would be the healthier way to live.

      --
      Will
    5. Re:Correlation Causation? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      They're saying that if sit down all day you're more likely to be hit by lightning, die in a plane crash, and so on. Maybe there is a statistical correlation, but what it means is a big question. Maybe people who work desk jobs are more likely to be able to afford plane tickets, have to travel more often, have stressful jobs, and so on.

  19. Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Question is are we jumping to conclusions considering the inactivity and the risk of death being in a cause and effect relationship?
    It sounds so stupid to ask this question but consider that we also know that foods which cause rapid swings in blood sugar lead to excessive body fat storage.
    It is also known that swings in blood sugar along with excessive blood lipid levels interfere with insulin sensitivity making the problem worse.

    The layout of the american work schedule does not help this either however does it necescarially follow that if one has a low average activity level that it is only due to their own choices or is there an additional underlying metabolic insult?

  20. Because people who sit all day are unhealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have OTHER unhealthy habits, like eating too many Doritos and drinking too much Mountain Dew.

  21. Is It Time To Outlaw Chairs and Couches. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    nuff' said.

  22. Ten years behind but catching up! by HnT · · Score: 4, Informative

    You seem to have a very utopian idea of Europe. Don't worry, Europe is generally some ten years behind contemporary developments in the States but we are quickly catching up especially in rising obesity and directly linked diseases. The massive portion sizes in the States have not always been this huge and gradually grew. There are enough restaurants over here already offering ridiculously massive portions or all-you-can-eat buffets and they make it their main selling point. Oversize clothes stores can be found everywhere as well.

    --
    "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Ten years behind but catching up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have a very utopian idea of Europe. Don't worry, Europe is generally some ten years behind contemporary developments in the States but we are quickly catching up especially in rising obesity and directly linked diseases. The massive portion sizes in the States have not always been this huge and gradually grew. There are enough restaurants over here already offering ridiculously massive portions or all-you-can-eat buffets and they make it their main selling point. Oversize clothes stores can be found everywhere as well.

      Yep, "American" portion sizes are a much more recent thing than people remember, hardly 20 years ago a typical medium fountain drink cup was called a large and a small was the size of a soda can. Triple cheese burgers didn't start showing up at places like Wendy's until around 15 years ago as well.

    2. Re:Ten years behind but catching up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped at a burger king and got a cheeseburger and a small soda, and holy crap, the soda was freaking huge. It was what I remember a large being 15-20 years ago.

    3. Re:Ten years behind but catching up! by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to have a very utopian idea of Europe. Don't worry, Europe is generally some ten years behind contemporary developments in the States but we are quickly catching up especially in rising obesity and directly linked diseases. The massive portion sizes in the States have not always been this huge and gradually grew. There are enough restaurants over here already offering ridiculously massive portions or all-you-can-eat buffets and they make it their main selling point. Oversize clothes stores can be found everywhere as well.

      Yep, "American" portion sizes are a much more recent thing than people remember, hardly 20 years ago a typical medium fountain drink cup was called a large and a small was the size of a soda can. Triple cheese burgers didn't start showing up at places like Wendy's until around 15 years ago as well.

      That said, we really do need to encourage people to drink more water.

      If I go to a Burger King and just ask for tap water (for free) I get one of those tiny little cups you might get from a water cooler dispenser - maybe 1/6th the capacity of even a value soft drink. I'd need to refill it about 10 times during the course of a meal since I tend to drink a lot. So, I feel like I'm being punished for drinking water, which is of course the healthiest option there is.

    4. Re:Ten years behind but catching up! by dpilot · · Score: 1

      However in Europe you've been warned. In the US we walked (or sat?) way too far down this path before discovering how bad it is. Now that we all know better, you can change your path before getting where we are.

      OTOH, my wife are generally stupified looking at twenty-somethings smoking. Our parents didn't know better, and in fact during WWII the Army included cigarettes with meal rations. During our generation (I'm a later Boomer.) we sort-of knew better, but the cigarette companies didn't actually admit they were lying until well into my adulthood. For this generation there's no doubt about how bad cigarettes are, but if anything smoking seems to be on the rise.

      I wonder if Hari Seldon would have said that masses of people are stupid, as well as predictable.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:Ten years behind but catching up! by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I used to work at Wendy's around 15 years ago, I can confirm. I remember thinking "WTF?!" the day that they came out with the current plastic "large" size (64 oz?) drinks and everything else just got renamed down a size, so the 32 oz large became a medium, 16 oz medium became a small, etc. They already had the triple cheeseburger by the time I started there, but they didn't have the Baconator's and such at the time. I looked at a nutrition information once on a slow day and a Triple w/cheese and a large fry was something like 3,500 calories - yikes.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:Ten years behind but catching up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay for the soda and put water in it. The soda is practically a give a way in a value meal anyways so the "overcharge" would not be very significant.

    7. Re:Ten years behind but catching up! by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Triple cheese burgers didn't start showing up at places like Wendy's until around 15 years ago as well.

      Wendy's was selling triples back in 1985 when I was going to college, but the menu across the country sometimes varied (and still does).

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    8. Re:Ten years behind but catching up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd need to refill it about 10 times during the course of a meal since I tend to drink a lot.

      Or you could just ask for 10 little cups when you order and then fill them all at the same time. :)

    9. Re:Ten years behind but catching up! by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that it's not until fairly recent times that a significant number of people could afford to eat out at restaurants regularly. It may be that people who ate out regularly were always fat, but there weren't many of them. Portion size increase is almost certainly a factor as well, but perhaps a less important one than eating out in the first place.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  23. Exercise: When and How? by mrhippo3 · · Score: 1

    Wow. Thank you for the truly depressing statistic about which I can do absolutely nothing. I have an engineering degree, which binds me to the desk. Having moved into upper management, my ability to leave the desk is reduced even further. My possible exercise, going into the shop with the fumes and dust and particulates is perhaps just as bad. This is just what we need to add to the STEM shortage.
    On an earlier job I was sharply criticized for just leaving my desk, at all. I was working in software docs and really had to talk to the developers. My typical process was to try the software on my own, develop a rough outline (the hard part was coming up a 'suggested use.' with so many options, what was the 'intended use'?), and then march the draft to the developer to see what I had missed. This took so much less time than the email flurry. I was at least a factor of four faster than the other writers. But I was accused of "annoying the developers" by trying to do things the right way.
    Oh, cancer risk, too? Well I had it (in remission but getting scans and inspections every three months or so). Gotta run to the shop. No more time to write.

    1. Re:Exercise: When and How? by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      Find an engineering job at a place with a large campus where you have to walk to meetings a lot. I normally work at a site that's built on the side of a mountain, so there's maybe 500 feet of elevation change from bottom to top, and I've typically had to walk a couple laps nearly every day to meet with people, plus various shorter walks for things. Right now I'm temporarily at a subcontractor site that's also a large campus, but it's dead flat and it's not nearly as nice.

    2. Re:Exercise: When and How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On an earlier job I was sharply criticized for just leaving my desk, at all. I was working in software docs and really had to talk to the developers. My typical process was to try the software on my own, develop a rough outline (the hard part was coming up a 'suggested use.' with so many options, what was the 'intended use'?), and then march the draft to the developer to see what I had missed. This took so much less time than the email flurry. I was at least a factor of four faster than the other writers. But I was accused of "annoying the developers" by trying to do things the right way.

      You weren't criticized for leaving your desk. You were criticized for slowing down the important part of the company (developing software) for your own benefit. If you were the CEO, that might be tolerated. But you were a documentation writer. Not important to the company bottom line when everything's said and done. Developing and other cerebral design tasks require the developer/designer get "in the zone". As an engineer, you should understand this, but you admitted to having a literature degree. Why would a real engineer write documentation? That's for Lit majors. I've noticed this with graphics artists too. "Please validate me. Appreciate my art right now!" Hey, I'm trying to work here.

      Imagine an IT guy reboots your computer ten times a day to install software patches and maintain your computer. He's getting his job done at your job's expense. That's what you did to the developers.

    3. Re:Exercise: When and How? by beowulfcluster · · Score: 2

      You were annoying the developers because you were doing it the wrong way. Your factor of four speed doc writing improvement comes out of the developer interruption budget.

  24. Well then we're all doomed by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    because the sitting all day is happening... so... genetic engineering anyone?

    I look forward to a new genetically engineered super species... and of course the gills... and flying squirrel wings... and internal testicles. And I assume women would like to lay eggs or something because they don't appear to like the whole pregnancy thing.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Well then we're all doomed by swillden · · Score: 2

      Yes, we're all doomed... to an average life expectancy of 85+ years, and rising. Spending your days on your butt may cost you a year or two, on average, but given that two hundred years ago your life expectancy would have been around 40 years, drastic action is hardly called for.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Well then we're all doomed by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Shhhhh... you're fucking us all out of gills and internal testicles... shut up!

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Well then we're all doomed by Drethon · · Score: 1

      We just need to deal with a shorter lifespan until our offspring evolve to survive in an office environment.

    4. Re:Well then we're all doomed by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      but given that two hundred years ago your life expectancy would have been around 40 years, drastic action is hardly called for.

      It was NOT. You are misinformed. The average life expectancy may have been in 30-40 range, but it was caused by childhood mortality. For anyone who survived birth and early childhood, life expectancy was much, much higher.

      As per Wikipedia (here), even in Upper Paleolithic era, life expectancy at birth was 32, but for anyone who reached the age of 15 life expectancy was already at 54 instead.

    5. Re:Well then we're all doomed by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      Plus, don't forget how people used to live wayyyy longer. Noah made it to 950 according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah)

  25. Any cause ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > prolonged sedentary behavior was associated with a 15 to 20 per cent higher risk of death from any cause

    So, that includes being hit by a car, struck by lightning, and shot to death ?

  26. Sheesh! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Engaging in 30-60 minutes of moderate to vigorous daily exercise does not mean it's okay to "sit on your rear" the rest of the day.

    Maybe not, but if your lot in life involves sitting for a paycheck, I guarantee you're still better off with the exercise.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  27. It's everywhere by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Ok, I have myself taken these warning seriously. But at the same time it has left me wondering why just in the recent one or two years, this issue has come up so strongly? The "Sit and you will die, bitch!" headlines are everywhere. Surely static postures are always harmful, but if the risk was that bad, wouldn't this alarm bell have ringed years ago? Is this just some kind of new "fish oil" trend?

  28. Relative vs Absolute Probability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I buy 2 lottery tickets instead of 1, I double the probability of winning, but the absolute probability is still negligible.

  29. Like granny always said by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    If it feels good than it is illegal, immoral, or fattening.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  30. Walking Paper? by Luthair · · Score: 2

    Wasn't there a paper recently about how walking for 30-minutes countered about 4-hours of sitting?

    1. Re:Walking Paper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Can you still find the paper?

    2. Re:Walking Paper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember that paper specifically, but the overall message I've picked up over the last decade or so of studies about this stuff is that if you take a ten minute walk every 50 minutes, you're pretty much fine. It's being in any position for too long that is "deadly", including standing. That is, the benefit of a standing desk isn't the standing itself, it's the freedom of movement it gives you to bounce, dance, increased likelihood and frequency of short trips around the office, etc.

    3. Re:Walking Paper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. People that believe every study, at face, are stupid.

    4. Re:Walking Paper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2014-09-09-regular-walking-breaks-protect-arteries-/

  31. What if you don't sit still by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    We keep hearing about how bad sitting is for your health, but usually don't have much on the specific details. There's the sedentary element, which would be taken care of by exercise, but there's also apparent negative factors. However, not much research seems to try and nail down the specifics. Are people who are not in static positions, or bounce their leg not subject to these health effects? If so, it could be that a lot of children are naturally fighting for their health, much to the chagrin of strict teachers.

    Also, do any of the negative effects apply, other than perhaps bone stress inherent to putting weight, to someone very active while sitting, such as a drummer?

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:What if you don't sit still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very active while sitting. I frequently move my hand up and down the length of my middle appendage, for strictly medicinal reasons.

  32. Re:All these people and so few cars. by Coreigh · · Score: 1

    This doesn't really change your point but you do realize that 75 years ago there were fewer than HALF the people than are around now.

    --



    "Waitress I need two more boat-drinks..."
  33. Walking 10 minutes every 50 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw those studies a while ago. I tried a standing desk; didn't work, I couldn't concentrate as well, or go into 'flow'. Now I walk for 10 minutes every 50. I set a timer for 50 minutes. Then walk for 10, either on a treadmill or, better, outside. (I was surprised how far one can go in 10 minutes.) I've been doing it for weeks, and while I don't always do the walk on 50 minutes, I do enough of them to notice generally feeling better (so I believe the studies) and the breaks help me maintain perspective on my work, which is good too.

    I still do my 7 km runs every other day. I see that as solving a different problem. Read the studies.

  34. What's their definition of "exercise"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say 30-60 minutes of moderate exercise is pointless, but what does that really mean? It sounds like a weak attempt at saying even moderate exercise is pointless.

    10-25lbs dumb bells crunches, running on an elliptical at the lowest resistance, and eating processed crud from fast food places? That's like cutting from a pack of cigarettes to only 5 a day. You're still going to get burned by a sedentary lifestyle if you aren't gradually pushing yourself at the gym to build more strength.

    I'm having a bear of a time finding any useful information about this study on Google. If their definition of exercise is, a 300 lbs squat, 500 lbs deadlifts, a 250 lbs bench press, and eating grass fed beef with other whole foods then maybe I'd be more willing to believe this study.

    1. Re:What's their definition of "exercise"? by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      Building musclemass to unsustainable (even in old age) levels will come back and bite you in the ass. Either it will put pressure on your heart, or it will turn into fat over time. Either way you end up with excess tissue that your body has to provide with air/nutrients and expell garbage from. In other words not something you want when your body starts to deteriorate at the end.

      Why do you think all those strongmen, wrestlers etc. rarely live to become very old? Answer: stroke.

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    2. Re:What's their definition of "exercise"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muscle does not turn into fat. That is all.

    3. Re:What's their definition of "exercise"? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      citation needed.

      Muscle does not turn into fat. Stop exercising and start eating like crap and your body will lose muscle and will also starting putting on fat. The muscle does not turn into fat. Starting lean and muscular will not cause you to get fat faster.

      I would bet you are not currently overendowed with muscle. Nobody who works out would believe this urban myth.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    4. Re:What's their definition of "exercise"? by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      Muscle doesn't turn to fat. Also, since you are trotting out myths from 30 years ago, sit-ups wont get rid of your gut, and there is no such thing as "toning".

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    5. Re:What's their definition of "exercise"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This myth persists because both muscle and fat are anabolic growth results. Someone muscular who stops working out generally maintains an anabolic diet, and it's got to go somewhere.

    6. Re:What's their definition of "exercise"? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Why do you think all those strongmen, wrestlers etc. rarely live to become very old? Answer: stroke.

      And what causes that stroke? Answer: steroid abuse.

  35. So...It's not based on physical activity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woot - Astral Projection FTW.

  36. potential solution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking about this issue for a long time because i have blood thickening issue and my circulations stops if a sit for long. It does not happens if I lie down for long. May be we can use something like this http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/04/f0/f3/04f0f3854f91cb53532a265bb743fe8d.jpg . I am looking for one which is small and does not make sound.

    1. Re:potential solution ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      something like cycling while on desk

  37. standing desk is incompatible with head-down work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The overseers want to be able to look across the sea of cubes with low walls and see everyone's head bent down, toiling on their work for the owners. The nail/person that stands up gets hammered down.

    Have you never heard the term prairie-dogging with respect to cube farms?

    And what is this suggestion about walking to the furthest restroom. You're not being paid to walk to the restroom: you're being paid to work, and work you shall! You're lucky we don't just put a slops bucket in your cube that you have to carry out at the end of the day.

    The US Federal law requires providing you with 2 10 minute breaks, in addition to your 30 minute lunch. We get to choose when you take those breaks. We provide you with those breaks: it takes 10 minutes to walk from the timeclock to your work station, and a similar time when you leave at the end of the day.

    Thank you, and back to work now.

  38. Yet another pointless study. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about:
    Those with healthy diets.
    Those with bad diets.
    Those with standing desks.
    Those with adjustable desks.
    people that exercise while at the desk.
    people that exercise regularly every hour.
    people that change posture regularly. (don't sit still. Are assroids now a positive! Click here to find out and get a free iPod!)
    different seat styles.

    Until studies actually start studying ALTERNATIVES, they are worthless.
    There is no point saying, "durr this is baddd" when you can't state why it is bad and what you can do to stop it.
    It seems like a horribly loose relationship at best.

  39. standing desks by mrjacques · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have a budding activist for a son (he's 12). We all stand at our desks at our house, but our son, of course, has to sit all day long at school. We're encouraging him to start campaigning for standing desks at his public school, for all children. Yeah, yeah, I know; it'd be a change, and change is difficult, but it seems that the benefits to our society would far outweigh the fixed costs and the socio-educational-cultural adjustments that would have to be made. My own lay estimate is that we'd eliminate most of the childhood type-2 diabetes and improve the classroom educational environment.

  40. Think I found a loophole. by mindwanderer · · Score: 1

    I'll just have to do all my computing lying down.

    --
    :wq
  41. Simple solutions by nickname100 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just get Obama to mandate that no one is allowed to exercise and no one should walk by taking short breaks at work.

    Then you will see an immediate change in all of the U.S with droves of people running to the gym

  42. Re:standing desk is incompatible with head-down wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With any luck you'll find a useful purpose in life. That wasn't it.

  43. I wonder if they also considered stress by cjjjer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the issues with studies like this are they very specific and don't look at the associated environment(s). What I mean is most people who sit all day in a job can be pretty bored/stressed/hate their job kind of people. And since stress is also a contributor to some or all of the diseases ailments they mentioned who is to say that by sitting and working in a boring/stressful job isn't more of the factor than just sitting.

  44. Well then all we need is this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Lazy_Man_Toilet_Seat

    Then we won't need to get up for any reason.

  45. Needs More Study by nealric · · Score: 2

    I'm not convinced the sitting variable has been properly isolated. The people who get regular exercise but sit for long periods are mostly office workers. Perhaps it's the stress of an office job that is getting to these people rather than sitting. I also note that this "study" aggregated other studies. One of those studies defined excessive sitting as someone who watches more than five hours of television a day. I submit that anybody who watches more than five hours of television a day is suffering from depression or some other condition that would lead to doing such a thing.

    1. Re:Needs More Study by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I submit that anybody who watches more than five hours of television a day is suffering from depression or some other condition that would lead to doing such a thing.

      Are you sure you got cause and effect around the right way? Daytime television is particularly mind numbing.

  46. GeekDesk! by danaris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is why I got my department to buy me a GeekDesk a couple of years ago. I don't stand all day every day, but it lets me stand quite a lot of the time.

    Since then, my chronic low-grade upper-back stiffness has decreased a lot—but I find that on weekends, when I tend to sit on the couch with my laptop a lot, it frequently comes back. My legs still sometimes get tired from standing for a few hours at a time, but overall, I think it was a really, really good decision.

    If you can't afford a GeekDesk, and think you can handle losing the chair cold turkey, there are much cheaper standing desks that can get you off your butt and on your feet—for your health! :-)

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:GeekDesk! by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      Even having permanent standing desks combined with a drafting stool of the proper height could go a long way without increasing the cost of furniture. That would allow you to easily switch between standing and sitting without having a desk that has height adjustments.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:GeekDesk! by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much a standing desk would really help. Absent the standing desk, I would suspect that normally standing implies some other measure of activity besides just not-sitting. I would suspect just-standing as you would at a standing desk is better than sitting, if only because of micro-movements involved in remaing standing. But I'm guessing that simply moving to standing desks won't fully erase the bad effects of too much sitting, it'll lessen them to the bad effects of too much just-standing.

      Movement is a spectrum, the question here is where is just-standing on that spectrum between sitting and the known-good brisk walk. Also, how do you fit onto that spectrum the known-good and known-bad thresholds?

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    3. Re:GeekDesk! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why I got my department to buy me a GeekDesk a couple of years ago.

      Instead of paying $979 for that desk, I use a regular $39 table, and bought four sections of PVC pipe for $0.79 each, and extended the legs.

      My monitor is attached to this arm, so I can swing it between my standing desk and a full recliner. So I work about half the time standing, and half the time laying down. The only time I sit, is in meetings.

    4. Re:GeekDesk! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As they don't know why sitting is bad, even with exercise, you can't really speculate on whether just standing solves the problem. You're assuming too much when you do so.

    5. Re:GeekDesk! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work from home and basically built this solution myself by adding some parts from Ikea (cheap coffee tables, shelf and brackets) to my current desk and using a bar-height chair. Took all of ~$80. I added a treadmill too by removing the upright bars and just put the main chunk on the ground with the controls on the original height of the desk, connected just by the wires. So a treadmill desk for all of ~$250. Lost 60 lbs in two years.

    6. Re:GeekDesk! by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      This is why I got my department to buy me a GeekDesk a couple of years ago.

      We've been using Kangaroo desks. We went to them after trying out a few Ergotron sit-stand desks that were just too flimsy.

      We've got about a dozen now and there have been nothing but positive reports including a few that have lost weight (not a controlled study). The best tool we've found for making sure the desk gets used is to have your PC read off the time every half-hour as a reminder to switch. I don't have one of the desks, but I use the half our reminder to get up and move around if I haven't recently.

    7. Re:GeekDesk! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I (& a bunch of my co workers) have the Varidesk, which just sits on top of your existing desk so it's cheaper (~$300). It's the way to go, but for a year I did the Ikea hack which is better than sitting:
      http://iamnotaprogrammer.com/Ikea-Standing-desk-for-22-dollars.html
      I needed 2 for my two monitors.
      Key is that you get a decent mat to stand on.

    8. Re:GeekDesk! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I can't comfortably type standing up tho....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:GeekDesk! by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      My monitor is attached to this arm

      Slightly off-topic but how sturdy is that arm? Could I attach a keyboard to it? Would it be stable enough to type on without jumping all around?

    10. Re:GeekDesk! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Slightly off-topic but how sturdy is that arm? Could I attach a keyboard to it? Would it be stable enough to type on without jumping all around?

      It is plenty strong enough to hold a 27" monitor. But I don't think attaching the keyboard to the arm is a good idea. It would likely vibrate too much. I put the keyboard on the desk when I am standing, and on my lap when I am lying down. The arm holds only the monitor.

    11. Re:GeekDesk! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      > I wonder how much a standing desk would really help.

      I switched to one a few years back. I was extremely skeptical at first.

      The first few days of usage was enough to convert me for life. Absolutely love it ! You sit for a while, stand for a while. It breaks up the monotony of not moving. Especially if you take a 5 min break every 45 - 55 mins.

      > I would suspect just-standing as you would at a standing desk is better than sitting,

      No, as that is too hard on the feet / soles.

      > if only because of micro-movements involved in remaining standing.

      Correct.

    12. Re:GeekDesk! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I spoke with my doctor about a standing desk.

      She said it would not solve the problem, because it's not the sitting that's the problem, it's the doing one thing all day that causes the problems, whether it's sitting or standing,

      She suggested regular breaks that get me moving around.

      Many years ago, I read about a martial artist warrior who turned up at a temple, and was offered shelter by the monks living there. He noticed they were all in very poor physical shape from copying manuscripts all day, so taught them basic forms to help them recover, which ultimately became either Kung Fu or Tai Chi.

      Whichever it was doesn't really matter, the ultimate thing being that sitting all day is bad, standing all day is bad, we're not evolved for this crap. What we need to do is get up and move for a few minutes every so often.

      In fact, right now I'm going to take the greyhound out for a shit (that's not a masturbation euphemism) and have a bit of a stretch.

    13. Re:GeekDesk! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to mod parent up as +1 Informative.

      Using PVC = brilliant.

    14. Re:GeekDesk! by dpilot · · Score: 1

      So is your desk a standing-only desk, or one of those that moves up and down? My wife has been looking at one of the latter.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    15. Re:GeekDesk! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Standing only.

      The chair has extra long legs. It is a sit/stand type:

      i.e.

      http://www.uline.com/Product/D...

    16. Re:GeekDesk! by danaris · · Score: 1

      Can't comfortably type standing up (for some specific reason), or just have never tried to type standing up with the keyboard at a proper ergonomic height?

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    17. Re:GeekDesk! by danaris · · Score: 1

      Absent the standing desk, I would suspect that normally standing implies some other measure of activity besides just not-sitting. I would suspect just-standing as you would at a standing desk is better than sitting, if only because of micro-movements involved in remaing standing. But I'm guessing that simply moving to standing desks won't fully erase the bad effects of too much sitting, it'll lessen them to the bad effects of too much just-standing.

      When I'm standing at the GeekDesk, I move around a lot. Sometimes it's just shifting positions, but other times I'll be practically dancing as I'm reading something, or contemplating the next chunk of code, or even watching a video or playing some Hearthstone over lunchbreak.

      Not being stuck in a chair really frees you to move around as much as you feel like you want to.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    18. Re: GeekDesk! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Not being stuck in a chair really frees you to move around as much as you feel like you want to.

      I'm a disabled programmer (paraplegic) and I really hate being stuck in a chair all day working. These words hit home.

      The article in the summary and all similar kinds of health studies always leave us (disabled people) out of the study. Are we just doomed to die early?

  47. Sexual budding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Budding reproduction is best,
    put on a few extra pounds weight & the next morning - pop you have a baby !

    Sexuality might be replaced with airborne spores - so genetics can still mix but no need for time consuming interpersonal contact.

  48. Bullshit research. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry but they have ZERO data. It's all speculation and Correlation.

  49. KILL two birds with one stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Drink more water and, in turn, go to bathroom more often.
    On related topic now I know why my friends who smoke look so healthy and relaxed- they don't sit and work all day like I do.

    1. Re:KILL two birds with one stone by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I drink a lot of water at work and normally get up to go to the bathroom around once an hour or so during the day (sometimes more just to move around than because I HAVE to go). It works pretty well for most salaried positions, but hourly ones like in a call center would have a problem with it.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:KILL two birds with one stone by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Why? If they threaten to let you go, keep drinking water and don't go to the bathroom. When they fire you for pissing at your desk, I'd bet you have a good case in court. Provided you didn't drink excessive amounts of water.

    3. Re:KILL two birds with one stone by skids · · Score: 1

      Yep, smokes and trips to the soda machine for a diet cola keep my legs from getting cramped. Also sometimes keeps my coworkers from getting verbally raked and expells unwanted company from out of my office.

    4. Re:KILL two birds with one stone by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, using "smokes" as a reason to get up an exercise _for your health_ is really logical there!

    5. Re:KILL two birds with one stone by Snufu · · Score: 1

      Drink more water and, in turn, go to bathroom more often.

      Coincidentally, bihydrathalon racing will be an Olympic sport in 2016.

    6. Re:KILL two birds with one stone by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I see a market for fake cigarettes that expel a realistic-smelling smoke-like vapor without any health downsides, allowing everyone to take smoke breaks.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  50. What about diet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i couldn't find anywhere in the study that showed that the researchers adjusted their findings to account for the role that diet could also have played. Were these mostly fast food-munching couch sitters and non couchers, vegetarians, etc?

  51. Little cup is not a punishment by Trachman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Little cup is not a Burger King punishment. It is their management decision to limit the water cup size to make attempts to have soda in water cups impractical.

    While stealing soda in Burger King sounds like a ridiculous idea, this option has been considered and addressed by reducing paper cup for water size.

    1. Re:Little cup is not a punishment by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it makes water in water cups just as impractical. I get that theft is an issue, and I'm all for finding solutions to that.

    2. Re:Little cup is not a punishment by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      -_-

      1. Burger King isn't healthy by nature; don't expect that to ever change.

      2. The fact customers are refilling their drinks vs. having them filled behind the counter (either soda or water) supports the first statement.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Little cup is not a punishment by itzly · · Score: 1

      Bring your own bottle, and drink it outside.

    4. Re: Little cup is not a punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could ask for a large water cup, it's about 30 cents at most places.

    5. Re:Little cup is not a punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've worked in many restaurants, fast food and night clubs (management).

      In fast food, the most expensive part of your drink is the cup. That's why you get the cheapest cup when you want water. They don't really care much if you cheat and fill it with soda. The cup is what they're selling. In fact, when they do inventory at night, it's the cups they count, not the volume of the soda that went through the lines.

      And they can easily count the volume. Every bar does this with the alcohol and beer sales.

      Oh, in the bar, the most expensive part of that tap beer you just bought isn't the beer. It's washing the glass. Most glass breakage happens in the washing process. In other words, they have a strong financial incentive to not wash very well, if at all. But don't worry, they tell themselves that the alcohol kills any germs anyway....

      Yet another reason to cut back on drinking alcohol (at least in bars).

  52. how about jogging in the city ? deadly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see joggers and bicyclists getting hit by garbage trucks and cars all the time. I will live with what I do. I feel great since I started working out when I wake up and after I eat supper.

  53. Being Alive Shown to be Deadly. by McFly777 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Being Alive Shown to be Deadly.

    After several years of exhaustive research, scientists have found that the greatest single contributor to death is being alive. "In 100% of the cases, the subjects death was preceded by a period of being alive," said one researcher. Even after eliminating other potential contributors, such as accidental death, suicide, etc. and adjusting for the age of the subject, the statistics remain strong. "If you are alive today, then you may die tomorrow."

    With the rise of Obamacare, these findings could become even more vital, due to the potential effect that such details could have on the total cost of the program. "I think the insurance industry has known this for years, and has been keeping it away from public knowledge," said one official under condition of anonymity. One possibility would be to establish initiatives to curb the spread of being alive. "By reducing the number of people who are alive, we could significantly decrease the number of deaths, regardless of cause. This could amount to trillions of dollars in government savings, but I am not sure if the general public would be willing to give up on such a well established habit," he continued.

    --

    McFly777
    - - -
    "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
    1. Re:Being Alive Shown to be Deadly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: Being alive is dying

      One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered living community when IDC confirmed that the living market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all people ever born. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that the living has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Being alive is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive pulse test.

      You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict being alive's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Being alive faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the living because being alive is dying. Things are looking very bad for being alive. As many of us are already aware, the living continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

      All major surveys show that the living has steadily declined in market share. Being alive is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the lining are to survive at all it will be among life dilettante dabblers. Being alive continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, being alive is dead.

    2. Re:Being Alive Shown to be Deadly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being Alive Shown to be Deadly.

      After several years of exhaustive research, scientists have found that the greatest single contributor to death is being alive. "In 100% of the cases, the subjects death was preceded by a period of being alive," said one researcher. Even after eliminating other potential contributors, such as accidental death, suicide, etc. and adjusting for the age of the subject, the statistics remain strong. "If you are alive today, then you may die tomorrow."

      With the rise of Obamacare, these findings could become even more vital, due to the potential effect that such details could have on the total cost of the program. "I think the insurance industry has known this for years, and has been keeping it away from public knowledge," said one official under condition of anonymity. One possibility would be to establish initiatives to curb the spread of being alive. "By reducing the number of people who are alive, we could significantly decrease the number of deaths, regardless of cause. This could amount to trillions of dollars in government savings, but I am not sure if the general public would be willing to give up on such a well established habit," he continued.

      I first saw this joke during the Clinton administration. If I were able to read ancient Greek or Latin, I suspect I could find even older references to this joke. However, they would not mention Obamacare.
      It's a good joke, but I don't think old jokes should be modded "Insightful".

    3. Re:Being Alive Shown to be Deadly. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      And, in related news, as I've mentioned before, breathing cause death.

      Fact: 100% of all dead people were habitual breathers.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Being Alive Shown to be Deadly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, Hitler

    5. Re:Being Alive Shown to be Deadly. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not so. The best estimates of the number of humans who have ever lived are something like 100-120 billion. Given that there's something like 7 billion alive today, only 93-94% of people have died.

      Note that this means that "everybody dies" is not verified even at a 5% confidence level.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Being Alive Shown to be Deadly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why u make me cry? T_T

    7. Re:Being Alive Shown to be Deadly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up 1000. You forgot that worrying about everything you eat, and everything you do, shortens life expectancy. Government funded studies on how to live longer also has the side effect of lowering your income, which also shortens life expectancy.

  54. study proves academics have to much free time by peter303 · · Score: 1

    to publish half-baked studies with no proof of causation

  55. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't like bananas?

  56. How come the reverse isn't necessarily true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After several years of exhaustive research, scientists have found that the greatest single contributor to death is being alive. "In 100% of the cases, the subjects death was preceded by a period of being alive," said one researcher

    If you ever visited any cemetery you would noticed that there are 'people' who have been dead for a very much longer period than the living still living their lives

    Why then the dead don't come alive?

    WHY ???

    1. Re:How come the reverse isn't necessarily true? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      /Oblg. /sarcasm In some religions they do :-)

  57. Something I used to to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "X is found not to help." "What about X? Is this okay?"

  58. Will Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put your computer on top of a box. Kick your chair out from under your ass.

    Come on, really - it wasn't that hard, now was it?

  59. Sit on an exercise ball by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

    That would be my recommendation. It takes as little space as a chair. I have a dark gray one that blends nicely in the office environment, and I didn't need to change anything -- I even kept my chair for visitors.

    Does sitting on a ball helps your health? I don't know of any studies, but speaking for myself, when I sit on a regular chair for more than a couple of hours I get low back pain. With a ball I can work 10-12 hour days without any pain. (My theory is that's because the pressure point is constantly moving a little.) I'm constantly making little movements so I don't feel stuck. It works the abs for sure. It's fun -- when I'm thinking about a problem I can roll on my back and be lying on it and it definitely helps. I also bounce on it when I'm thinking or do balancing poses. I can do situps to shake up a little. When I'm tired I can lean on it at 45 degrees angle and it feels restful. It helps straighten my posture.

    The downside is the posture -- I tend to slouch if I can't lean on something. To prevent that, I wear shoulder support straps when I work. That's why it improves my posture, otherwise would degrade it.

    Another upside -- I can carry my "chair" with me anywhere (e.g. when I'm going overseas for a month). In that sense it's the opposite of a standing desk. I used a standing desk for about four years, but started having back pains with those as well. Similar reason I guess -- not much change in the pressure point.

    I've been sitting on the ball for about 7 months now. It took me about a month or two to break in completely, during which I'd sometimes switch to the regular chair. Now it feels great and my body always prefers the ball.

    You need the right size ball; they come in 75, 65, and 55cm diameter. I'm 6'0 and I use the 75cm. They are probably all similar in quality, but this is the one I use and can recommend: http://www.amazon.com/GoFit-75.... I have one for the office and one for home. For shoulder support I use this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CM..., size Large (even though I wear mostly Medium for regular clothing). Hope it helps.

  60. Now I see why those peasants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... live a very healthy and fulfilling lives, until their death at 39. Makes all the sense the world.

  61. Nice study, but what are the parameters.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they take into account that people that sit all day might also be sipping on high sugar drinks all day. I can't imaging that just sitting increases risk of diebetes by 90%. I'm sure there are other factors involved.

    1. Re:Nice study, but what are the parameters.. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

      Did they take into account that people that sit all day might also be sipping on high sugar drinks all day. I can't imaging that just sitting increases risk of diebetes by 90%. I'm sure there are other factors involved.

      Thank you for bring up this point. It seems obvious, and yet...

      I can see some validity to the "Sitting for extended periods is bad for you" argument. -Even when lying in bed for 8 hours a day, (well, those of us fortunate enough to be getting proper sleep), involves naturally shifting around rather than just lying down in one position.

      I find I'm naturally a bit squirrelly when seated at my work desk. I'll often find myself perched on the chair cross-legged for periods of time or in other weird positions, (along with just regular 'sitting'). I don't know if that's good for me, but it feels right.

  62. Fine. by russotto · · Score: 2

    If I stand for any length of time, my knees hurt. My back hurts. Walking isn't so bad, but standing... ugh. Better to die a little earlier than be in pain all the time, no matter what health researchers think.

    1. Re:Fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should look into why your knees hurt when you stand.

      Are you overweight?

      Do you have weak muscles on the inside of your knees? I do, and that causes quite a bit of pain.

      Definitely worth looking into.

    2. Re:Fine. by russotto · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should look into why your knees hurt when you stand.

      No real mystery there; arthritis. Probably related to inline skating.

  63. Just had my physical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm almost 40 and have sat over 70% of my life. My physical was clean as a whistle. I thank my parents for the great genes. Thank goodness they weren't made in china (and neither was I)

  64. Let's not listen! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    The increasingly anti-science stance exhibited in threads like this is becoming tiresome.

  65. Awesome picture showing effects of being sedentary by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    This image should three MRI's, of three individuals. Two triathletes, one old, and a sedentary old man. Can't really argue with this.

    http://www.swiss-miss.com/wp-c...

  66. More bad news for paraplegics by src1138 · · Score: 1

    I suppose all wheelchair-bound people are just asking for trouble.

    I was all ready to write a scathing post highlighting some of the more stupid points of this "study" - then I saw that the study was done in Canada.

    Great job hosers!

  67. Correlation by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're saying that correlation is a leading cause of causation?

    1. Re:Correlation by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      or, or... does correlation only correlate with causation? /s

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  68. another "Meta" study by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    the soft sciences have a hard enough time reproducing the results of even one study and yet these guys (and they are not alone) are doing meta analysis of many other studies. Uncle. I would love to see how they calculated their error bars.

  69. Re:Cause, or effect? ... Speak for yourself! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "BRAAAAINz......."

  70. Wendy's Triple existed by 1984 by erikscott · · Score: 1

    I'm positive the triple existed in 1984 (the last year I lived in a particular city, so I remember it well). It was probably on the menu around 1981 or so - the year that Wendy's came to Our Fair City. The triple was considered obscene, and hence became the traditional end-of-season meal from high school wrestlers. :-)

  71. Re:standing desk is incompatible with head-down wo by rhodium_mir · · Score: 1

    The US Federal law requires providing you with 2 10 minute breaks, in addition to your 30 minute lunch.

    It should, but it does not and only a handful of states require breaks.

    --
    You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
  72. Re:standing desk is incompatible with head-down wo by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    > The overseers want to be able to look across the sea of cubes with low walls and see everyone's head bent down,

    Uh, if everyone is standing, all that has changed is that everyone's head has move up 1 or 2 feet.

    > The nail/person that stands up gets hammered down.

    Nonsense. Find a better company that knows how to respect people and is willing to _invest_ in their employee's health.

  73. I'd rather die than use that desk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol that Ikea Björkudden looks like a repurposed shipping pallet...

  74. Definite Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been sitting on my butt as a programmer/analyst/manager for 30 years now. The chairs I sat in ranged from cheapo office chairs to ergonomic high-end seats. I used to take hourly smoke breaks but quit smoking about 10 years ago. Now I take breaks about every two hours for a little walk. I also now spend my weekends doing outdoor projects where I stand and walk, etc...

    I have Sciatica, knee pain, neck pain and occasional 'guy' problems. Doc told me it is probably from sitting on my butt for so many years.

    Compare that with my two brothers who both work standing most of the day. The only issues they have is high cholesterol and they are going bald.

    It does seem to help by standing all day at a tall desk sometimes. Sitting for long periods of time is a long term issue and has real consequences.

  75. Bad science reporting as usual by gulliver.m.smith · · Score: 1

    They didn't report the period and the "normal" rate of dying. If the normal chance of dying in one year is 1/10000, a change to 1.2/10000 nothing to worry about. Their result might be statistically significant according to the rules of statistics (which apparently are deeply flawed too), but it certainly looks like noise. Even the doubling for diabetes is probably insignificant.

  76. All Day All Inclusive by tmjva · · Score: 1

    What part of "All Day" does regular exercise fit in?

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  77. Frequent breaks by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    The daughter wonted us to take care of her little dog for a weekend. A few months later she "forgot" to pick him up again.
    Now we have a 7 pound Yorkshire Terrier that wants to go outside and mark his territory every 2 or 3 hours!
    It seems to have helped us both, with muscle tone and cardiac condition.

    So get yourself a small dog with firm opinions on schedules, it can save your health! 8-)