Slashdot Mirror
Standing Desks May Not Be Healthier Than Sitting All Day, Say Scientists (fortune.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a Fortune article: Standing desks are the fashionable furniture of choice at the moment, but they may not really be the healthier alternative to, well, a chair. A review of studies into the benefits of "workplace interventions" to reduce sitting at work, such as sit-stand desks, are inconclusive, according to researchers from a Cochrane work group. That's because there's little evidence of the long-term effects of standing at your desk. "At present there is very low to low-quality evidence that sit-stand desks may decrease workplace sitting between thirty minutes to two hours per day without having adverse effects at the short or medium term," scientists wrote in an updated Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews study released this week.
Health effects, whatever. I feel better when I can change positions every now and then. Sitting all day leaves me feeling tired and my back gets sore (yes, I've tried lots of different chairs). With a sit/stand desk I change positions every hour or two, switching between standing, sitting on a moderately-ergonomic desk chair and sitting on an exercise ball. The latter is actually fairly hard work to sustain for a long time, but I think my core has gotten stronger for doing it. Standing eventually makes my feet hurt. No one position is ideal, but changing it up seems to work great.
it's impossible to slouch while walking
Have you ever met a teenager?!
I know that I have been sitting behind a computer screen for about 30 years of my life, and that now I suffer from chronic back pain. So, at home I switched to a standing desk, and at least on the weekends I have some relief.
I'll stop by in another 30 years and let you know how I've made out.
I don't understand people's obsession throwing money at an expensive adjustable desk. Just get a drafting table and a tall chair. Problem solved.
Big Chair, buying off scientists yet again.
The review article is not evaluating the health benefits of sit/stand. It's about whether an employee actually sits less if they have a sit/stand desk (or just uses it as an expensive sitting desk). The review says that it doesn't reduce sitting time by very much, which has nothing to do with health. In fact, the review article accepts the health benefits as a given: "Physical inactivity at workplaces and particularly increased sitting has been linked to increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity and overall mortality."
Don't draw any conclusions from the Fortune article. The Fortune author obviously has a bias, and is trying to support his point of view using an article that, in fact, contradicts him.
If you actually read it, the study is about whether standing desks reduce the amount of time you spend sitting.
It doesn't say anything about whether sitting is bad except in the "background" section, which says "Physical inactivity at workplaces and particularly increased sitting has been linked to increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity and overall mortality."
So, pretty much the opposite of what the article is implying.
I'm certain that it isn't healthier than sitting because both my father and my uncle worked 40 hours per week standing through their life, and both needed knee double replacement after retirement. Moving around is the correct action. Not standing nor sitting all day.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
Depends on what you are lead to believe that the musculoskeletal adjustments accomplish. If all you believe you are getting is a better posture and a good massage, then good for you. If your chiropractor utters the word 'subluxation', and tries to claim a vast variety of health benefits from adjustment that have nothing to do with bones and joints, the chiropractor is a quack of the first degree, and you've been had.
https://xkcd.com/1329/