Slashdot Mirror


Standing Desks Are Overrated (nytimes.com)

Standing desks have become trendy in recent years -- so much so that they have been promoted by some health officials as well as some countries. Research, however, suggests that warnings about sitting at work are overblown, and that standing desks are overrated as a way to improve health. From a report: Dr. David Rempel, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has written on this issue, said, "Well-meaning safety professionals and some office furniture manufacturers are pushing sit-stand workstations as a way of improving cardiovascular health -- but there is no scientific evidence to support this recommendation." Let's start with what we know about research on sitting, then explain why it can be misleading as it relates to work. A number of studies have found a significant association between prolonged sitting time over a 24-hour period and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. A 2015 study, for instance, followed more than 150,000 older adults -- all of whom were healthy at the start of the study -- for almost seven years on average. Researchers found that those who sat at least 12 hours a day had significantly higher mortality than those who sat for less than five hours per day.

For convenience and comfort, it's nice to have options if you have various aches and pains -- "Alternating standing and sitting while using a computer may be useful for some people with low back or neck pain," he said -- but people shouldn't be under the illusion that they're getting exercise. A 2012 study in JAMA Internal Medicine followed more than 220,000 people for 2.8 years on average and found similar results. Prolonged sitting over the course of a day was associated with increased all-cause mortality across sexes, ages and body mass index. So did a smaller but longer (8.6 years on average) study published in 2015 in the Journal of Physical Activity & Health. Another study from 2015, which followed more than 50,000 adults for more than three years, also found this relationship. But it found that context mattered. Prolonged sitting in certain situations -- including when people were at work -- did not have this same effect.

51 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Posers by kackle · · Score: 1

    Since they put the user in a statue-like position, I referred to them as "posers". At least two of the three posers in my office have resumed only sitting at their desks, after a year or two. I haven't checked in on the third guy lately...

    1. Re:Posers by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      Since they put the user in a statue-like position, I referred to them as "posers". At least two of the three posers in my office have resumed only sitting at their desks, after a year or two. I haven't checked in on the third guy lately...

      The third guy has probably died in his chair and nobody has noticed, yet.

  2. "Science" by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    This is why people rarely follow any kind of health science. Inconvenience yourself to follow some study today and it will likely be disproven in months.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:"Science" by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem isn't science. The problem is the public's understanding of science, even the reporters who are supposed to be covering science don't know how to understand scientific results.

      The world is complex, and evidence always at least appears contradictory when you start looking at a question. This means a study that says standing desks are good for you is useless when deciding whether to get a standing desk. A follow up study that finds standing desks to be useless is also completely unreliable.

      So basically news should never, ever report a study as proving anything.

      What you need to go on is either (a) your extensive and deep familiarity with all the literature on a question or (b) someone else who has that familiarity. Fortunately, some else's expert judgment is regularly available in something called a "systematic review paper", which summarizes all the recent evidence on every side of a question.

      You very seldom see systematic reviews reported on in the press, although you see individual studies reported almost every day. It should be the other way around.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:"Science" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, the reporters for the most part aren't lying, they're not saying "proven", but there is a lot of misunderstanding.

      There are big problems though. The shotgun approach where you get a smattering of info from a variety of sciences, and no one is an expert on all of them and people won't be keeping track of the current state between one article and the next on a subject. A huge problem in my view however are the pseudo-sciences; people aren't good at the difference between a report on a real science study and some bullshit. Ie, nutritionists are not scientists and have no licensing requirements, whereas dieticians do have licenses in many instances. So if someone says "drink 8 glasses of water a day to be hydrated", it's not coming from any serious scientist and yet it's repeated by many like it's a fact.

    3. Re:"Science" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't science. The problem is the public's understanding of science, even the reporters who are supposed to be covering science don't know how to understand scientific results.

      But this is a well known (and exploited) property of the system though. The published study itself might have no glaring process or conclusion errors of its own, but after being run through the university press office, some nearly-science-illiterate science journalists, some totally-science-illiterate mainstream journalists, and finally the drooling-retard general public who takes health advice from the news, all context and caveats are long forgotten and the story morphs into "Quit your desk job or you'll be dead at 40!" Clickbait articles get written, CNN interviews are booked, the university gets great publicity, and the scientists get fame and tenure. All by design and without anyone in the process ever manipulating any facts any more than their respective professions traditionally allow.

    4. Re:"Science" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Actually, standing desks have been around for quite some time (as in "centuries"), as even a cursory glance at the Wikipedia article on the subject would tell you.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:"Science" by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Part of the problem is extrapolation. For example, the subjects who sat more than 12 hours a day were in worse health by the end of the study. Reporter conclusion, "sitting kills". Further analysis may well show that those who started sitting more than 12 hours a day did so BECAUSE of ill health.

    6. Re:"Science" by thejam · · Score: 1

      Please don't endorse licensing. It replaces one problem (labeling experts) with others (determining criteria for labeling experts, determining who performs said determinations, temptation to entrenchment and corruption of those in positions to do these activities, infantilization of everyone else as they are now reliant on "licensed experts [sic]" and thus relax vigilance).

    7. Re:"Science" by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reporters could write 500 accurate articles for every sensationalist one, and the sensationalist article is the only one the public will ever read. Because it's interesting. Nitty gritty details that all add up to "we have some hints that a complex set of circumstances may be unhealthy but we're not sure" are not interesting to anyone but a scientist.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re: "Science" by ckonestroh · · Score: 1

      Haha! Worst of all in 10 years there will be a study that proves your in need of medical assistant. So the medical industry still wins. Lower back pain from standing to long :D

    9. Re:"Science" by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Reporters could write 500 accurate articles for every sensationalist one, and the sensationalist article is the only one the public will ever read.

      Nonsense. Accurate articles can be very interesting, even to non-scientists. That easily written sensationalist articles with clickbait titles full of falsehoods are read a lot is independent of that. Your argument amounts to saying that the lies published in tabloids are the only thing the public will ever read, because accurate reports on the lives of celebrities are not interesting. This is simply untrue. It is true that these articles compete which each other for eyeballs, however.

      The real problem lies in news outlets being commercial entities. Their responsibility is to make money, not to inform the public, which leads to publishing the lowest quality shit they can get away with. This is why public funding for journalism is very, very important.

  3. Standing Desks have their uses by rjune · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have desk that I can raise and lower. It is most helpful after lunch when I'm fighting the food coma that usually occurs. It is nice to move around and stretch your legs, but I could survive without it. A nice option, but not strictly necessary.

    1. Re: Standing Desks have their uses by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or wear pants, your call.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re: Standing Desks have their uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have one guy who was smug at first about getting a standing desk, his smugness faded when we gave him a ribbing every time we did see him sitting down "getting tired are you?"

      When the remodeled out office they standardized on making everyones cube have a desk that is adjustable height, but because the cube walls are not full height it is awkward to stand up and be staring right at the person in the next cube and many people don't like the feeling of someone looking over their shoulder all day either. From what I've seen maybe 10% of employees actually use them.

      As for myself, if I wanted to be on my feet all day I wouldn't work in an office to begin with. The only thing I've found useful is raising it up when you need to show someone something on your screens, it ends up being less awkward than someone leaning over your shoulder or trying to find another chair and then cramming it into your already small workspace.

    3. Re:Standing Desks have their uses by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      I have desk that I can raise and lower. It is most helpful after lunch when I'm fighting the food coma that usually occurs. It is nice to move around and stretch your legs, but I could survive without it. A nice option, but not strictly necessary.

      I don't know about the health benefits, but fighting the after lunch drag is definitely easier while standing. Also, there are times when when I am doing more thinking than typing and I find I can be more productive in a standing posture. Sometimes reading is easier while standing. The main thing is it enables to me to pace, walk to the whiteboard, go back to the desk, and immediately type stuff without having to sit first. It really is a productivity enhancer. A-plus, would recommend.

    4. Re:Standing Desks have their uses by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      100% agree. I've got one (used to use a bunch of boxes)--not for any health benefits, just because they were more comfortable than sitting all day.

    5. Re:Standing Desks have their uses by hbackert · · Score: 1

      love my standing desk at the office. But the important part is to be able to switch as needed resp. wanted: after lunch I prefer to stand. In the afternoon I prefer to sit. When thinking, I like to stand, but for mundane tasks sitting is better. Also I learned that standing all day is really bad for my shoulder. While sitting all day is bad for my back. There's zero exercise going on here though, but that was never my point why I wanted it.

    6. Re: Standing Desks have their uses by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      I'm in the same situation ( Adjustable desk because of back problems ), and we just lined up our monitors accordingly, so that my colleague doesn't have to see my junk when i'm standing, and I don't have to see his stupid face when I'm sitting.

    7. Re:Standing Desks have their uses by jimbo · · Score: 2

      Indeed, all of the people I've worked with that got a standing desk got it because of their back and having more options for work positions during the day. Nobody (I know) ever claimed it had other health benefits, that some people think so is new to me.

      Actually this is the point you also bring up about changing positions; I never had a standing desk, I always sat but I would change positions throughout the day; sitting straight (recommended position), switch chair back to front, lean back, sit on front edge of chair, fold a leg under me and I suspect that may be why I don't have back problems, changing position often - or I may just be lucky.

  4. Standing desk with treadmill by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    is the only way to go. You get exercise and the company can generate "free" electricity. /s

    I did notice, when I used to get up every hour or so, walk down 4 floors and walk back up it was way better than just sitting

  5. If you're backs farked up they're a god send. by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You just can't sit that long with a bad back.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: If you're backs farked up they're a god send. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Who thinks standing in one place counts as "exercise" any more than sitting in one place does? I've never seen anyone make such a claim.

      BTW, I got one 4 or 5 years ago, and standing for part of the day has been amazing for my back.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re: If you're backs farked up they're a god send. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I've heard it claimed it burns 50-100% more calories than sitting motionless, which is hardly in the same class as exercising, but better than nothing.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re: If you're backs farked up they're a god send. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      I have one, and have (/had) lower back pains. When I stood all day (about half of it balancing on an inverted Bosu) it really did help core muscle strength. Standing with knees locked obviously does not.

      The real problem for me was that I lacked the focus when standing for that part of my job— writing a report became very hard.

      Now my back is pretty good, mainly because I learned to stretch the specific muscles that caused problems in a way that did not further inflame the sciatic nerve. While I still stand a few hours per day, my favorite use for the desk is lowering it down to minimum height and taking a nap underneath it.

    4. Re: If you're backs farked up they're a god send. by UsuallyReasonable · · Score: 1

      Same here. I only stand about 10 minutes an hour, but experience has shown that even that amount of unwinding from the sitting position has been VERY positive for my lower back.

    5. Re: If you're backs farked up they're a god send. by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Well its the swaying from one foot to the other because your feet start screaming in pain that's the exercise..Not saying that with a smirk either i have had bad feet all my life and sign the pain ......Back pain sure it help for a while until the pain starts shooting down your legs. And then its too late, nothing helps

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  6. Articles are overrated by maxrate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a standup desk (two years now). My back feels way better than it ever did. My point is, if something is working for you, keep doing what youâ(TM)re doing - no matter what an article says. I rarely sit at work now - I get more done. Itâ(TM)s working for me, I didnâ(TM)t think it would but I gave it a shot and Iâ(TM)m glad I did. It may or may not work for you. To each is own

    1. Re:Articles are overrated by skoskav · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You seem to be telling people to prefer anecdotes over clinical studies and recommended guidelines. Your comment could just as well be making the same argument for astrology, homeopathy or fake cancer treatments.

      The article and its cited studies are mainly delving into the context of cardiovascular disease, mortality and general health markers. As for your specific case of back pain, the author even seems to agree with you:

      [...], but like many things in life, they’re fine if you like them. And if it helps alleviate some back and neck pain, so much the better. It’s just that most people probably don’t need them.

      For the record, I've been using a sit-stand desk at work (~80% of the day in standing mode) for four years, and I can't really detect any health difference. Though I appreciate that while sleep-deprived, standing up will prevent me from dozing off.

    2. Re:Articles are overrated by maxrate · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point, that's not what I'm telling people at all. Lot's of comments on /. to read thru - my brevity seemed to fuel your need to dissect my truncated thoughts and address points I hadn't intended to elaborate on. The stand up desk improved my life as you have claimed yours as well. This article could easily put someone off purchasing one off it completely. For me, back pain is practically gone. When I get home, it's no longer painful to use the treadmill - meaning, better cardio function for me over all. When I sat all day at work, I thought of Newtons Law: objects at rest, remain at rest - that was me! Sitting supported my laziness. Now that I'm on my feet all day, the decision to walk in my place of work to get things done isn't a difficult one. I used to sit and procrastinate on any task that needed me to get my fat, lazy ass out of my chair. That's gone now. Last I checked walking improves cardio function, not sitting. My fit bit records 1800 more steps per day. I can only hope a fellow /. computer nerd/office worker reads my comments and decides to take the plunge and try it. It might make them feel better - and that's what matters the most. You've been doing it for 4 years now. If your boss is buying you the desk (not outta your pocket) and using it makes your life marginally better by merely passively using it - then why not? Varicose veins/heart disease comments in the article FUD (in my opinion) - remember when eating butter was bad for you? now they are saying it's fine? They tell you to eat a healthy diet but people still get cancer? We are all fucked - just do something that makes you feel better in the here and now so quality and enjoyment of life improve. No back pain = getting out and doing more. Life is short. Again, everyone is different & about the only thing doctors can actually universally agree on it that exercise is good. The stand up desk is a catalyst for that (at least for me). I come home at the end of the day and feel significantly less tired. It took me a couple of months to push thru and get used to standing while thinking, was worth it.

    3. Re:Articles are overrated by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      For not irritating your back in the first place, not slouching is huge. But when you simply can’t sit, that isn’t even an option. I needed to stand exclusively for about two years. So nice to be able to sit comfortably again, but I am still happy to have positional flexibility.

    4. Re:Articles are overrated by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      This. A lot of people seem to misunderstand standing desks because they have never really tried them. For starters, it's not about standing in attention for hours, but letting your body move and find its natural positions freely. To me, there's a huge psychological element in not being tied to a chair. It seems to help with attention deficit issues to some extent.

      One problem is that it takes a while to get used to standing desks to get all the benefit. For me it took a few months of alternating between sitting and standing, though I still prefer sitting by a table for many things -- there's no need to choose either-or. I started with ad-hoc setups with a stool or a table on top of a regular desk, and I only got a real standing desk about a year ago.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  7. My barber could have told you that by nospam007 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Standing the whole day is no fun.

  8. Get a better chair by Burdell · · Score: 1

    A lot of office chairs are crap, especially after a few years. I switched to a Tempur-pedic office chair and it is much better.

  9. They're not overrated by Monoman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problems is as always. Lazy people looking for an easy solution to a problem Standing all day has it's issues as well as sitting all day. They are not a replacement for exercise but they area great way to add variety to spending a day behind a desk.

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
  10. Positives certainly but also a fad. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    It's kind of a merit badge in government to have one of these, for people who just want whatever they can get for free. Certainly a portion do need it but the amount of installs is clearly "oh me too!" In some offices anyhow.

    That being said, one very believable claim, is that they promote more walking, as you're inclined to just walk over to people to discuss things, rather than use workplace instant messaging. Or any other thing you might say "I cant be bothered" on. Well you're already standing, so definitely more movement occurs.

    However as someone with obscenely flat feet, poor posture, weak core, now in my 40s I'm noticing how most of my life, standing is very uncomfortable for me. I tend to sink into a hip and put all my weight to one side. Sometimes changing side. I imagine a standing desk would destroy me very quickly.

    Finally it's all fine and dandy for a manager or someone with a need to move about and chat here and there, but I imagine the engineer types here on Slashdot are going to be concerntrating potentially for hours and hours on end. I need to think and ponder and test. I'm not so sure they suit the coder or sysadmin types of use case of a computer. Can anyone here vouch?

    1. Re:Positives certainly but also a fad. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      For me, I have more trouble doing long focused tasks while standing, so it is best when I have the shorter or less focused tasks to do— conference calls, writing emails, checking work, reading /., reviewing financial statements, etc. It does not work well when I need to spend four straight hours writing a technical report.

      As for flat feet, poor core strength, and age— those are all reasons to do something. Try standing on a balance board with proper insoles. Learn to tape your arches if it is really bad. That said, I have gone from a size 12 to a 13-14 in the past four years as my feet get flatter— might need something more supportive than my flip-flops.

  11. I'm reading this article from a standing desk... by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 1

    I just converted my Ikea Jerker desk to standing height (still remains the most versatile computer desk of all time) due to lower back pain while sitting for long periods, and so far it's cured that problem. Also when I am waiting on short renders or compiles I tend to walk away or move around rather than start mindlessly surfing. Another advantage is that I can actually stand more in front of the monitor I am looking at the most rather than turning to face it from the center.

    I intend to purchase a high task chair to go with it so I can sit or stand as the mood strikes. For now I have a stool from the shop.

    I also found it immediately necessary to purchase a foot pad, as I am barefoot when in the office upstairs typically.

    While I was at an office supply store looking for the high task chairs, I did sit in a few regular chairs that were super comfy and made me think "Gosh, if I had this chair I might not need a standing desk" but I think it's still nice to have the option to go back and forth.

    It's been a few weeks now and we'll see how it plays out. So far I like it, and I still have my recliner for sitting and reading.

    A friend who works for Google says that his entire office has the convertible sit / stand desks and they like them. He has also converted two of his three jerker desks at home to standing height.

  12. Can't idle too long. by antdude · · Score: 1

    For my old body, I can't idle for too long. My body will get stiffed, ached, unhappy, etc. I have to move around often. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  13. Standing desk with a treadmill by SirMasterboy · · Score: 1

    I spend some time every day taking my laptop to a standing desk that has a treadmill built in.

    Pretty sure it's healthier than sitting all day.

    1. Re: Standing desk with a treadmill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not. Your co workers will eventually get sick of your holier than thou, self righteous, virtue signaling bullshit and kick your vegan ass down the twelve flights of stairs you brag about jogging up every day.

  14. You're still bent by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that's the problem, at least for a lot of folks with back problems.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. AKA everything in moderation by gilgongo · · Score: 1

    I have a variable height standing desk at work. I asked for a desk inspection (which the company gives for free as it's scared of litigation for things like carpel tunnel). The inspector told me how to configure the desk correctly for both standing and sitting, and said that I should neither stand nor sit too much during the day. Mix it up. I sometimes do the morning sitting, the afternoon standing or whole days on either, and other combinations. There are also operational pros and cons of each (when standing you can see people coming from further away, but have less desk space to use).

    I'm not too bothered about my mortality, just my short-term musculoskeletal health. I should point out though that I've heard about the varicose veins thing and so I secretly wear compression socks to work now.

    --
    "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    1. Re:AKA everything in moderation by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      Everything in moderation, including moderation.

  16. Re:Standing all day almost, if not much, worse. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Even something as simple as a peddler under your desk

    If you can't find one of those try a hawker, a costermonger or a colporteur.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. Standing desk irrelevant; walking desk annoying by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    We weren't evolved to stand around, but to walk around. And then to lay around while waiting for something edible to come along. Laying down doesn't let you make good use of your arms, so we adopted sitting so that we could get work done. Of course, you can't do most modern jobs while walking, either.

    I used to be an avid walker, but these days walking hurts me because there is something wrong with my back. I like cycling much better for that reason, plus that it's more interesting because it's faster. Standing for long periods is right out.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Maybe for you by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    My back is farked up, and I can't stand that long. Walking makes my back seize up eventually, but standing does it rapidly. Mind you, sitting also can cause me pain, but I have an Aeron chair at home and that has helped immensely. (Too bad about how hard the seat is, though. I've saved my back at the expense of my ass.)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Re:Standing all day is really not good by UsuallyReasonable · · Score: 1

    If you have sufficient lower back pain it unquestionably affects your ability to walk comfortably.

  20. ./ fails to apply proper headline by del_diablo · · Score: 1

    No anon, article is terribly transplanted from whatever it originally was.
    Sitting is bad, so the article says. Standing works fine.
    What the headline wants to convey, and fails to do: Standing is inferior to walking. But if you are jailed in a office, you can't just walk around. So saying they are overrated is... weird.

    This is about long term disease rate for the work force, where the ./ headline misses the point so badly i wonder what terrible sensationalist bot wrote it.

  21. The office - standing desk by burningcpu · · Score: 1
  22. The standing desk it dead! by WorBlux · · Score: 1

    Long live the hamster wheel cubicle!!