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.

Comments

Standing Desks have their uses

[rjune]

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.

Re: Standing Desks have their uses

[HornWumpus]

Or wear pants, your call.

Re:Standing Desks have their uses

[jimbo]

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.

If you're backs farked up they're a god send.

[rsilvergun]

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

Re:"Science"

[hey!]

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.

Articles are overrated

[maxrate]

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

They're not overrated

[Monoman]

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.

Re:"Science"

[sjames]

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.

Re:"Science"

[Gavagai80]

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.