Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
washingtonpost.com
Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#2Phew.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#3This is a (somewhat) misleading headline and report.
The report refers to a study which says that sitting is no worse than standing without moving the body.
However, the report does nothing to contradict past studies which show that sitting is bad for the body (in comparison with standing up and walking every n minutes).
A better way of reading the study would be to say that "sitting" and "standing without moving" are equally bad. A lot of other research suggests that sitting for hours is definitely worse than taking a break every hour (or n minutes) and walking for a couple of minutes in that break.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#4Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement rather than the time spent sitting itself,
I have a sit/stand desk. I think I'm more likely to take a short walking break if I'm already standing. In this case, the study merely moves sitting from being a direct cause to being an indirect cause.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#5Story is far more nuanced than the title suggests:
"Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement rather than the time spent sitting itself,"
Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing isn't any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad.
Guess it's time to get one of these!
http://www.amazon.com/DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser-Whi...
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#6Story is far more nuanced than the title suggests: "Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement rather than the time spent sitting itself," Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing isn't any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad. Guess it's time to get one of these! http://www.amazon.com/DeskCycle-Exercis…
I argue that standing is better because the bias towards movement is higher. You can (and will) shift your weight around and take more frequent breaks, simply because you don't have to stand up to do so. That might be enough.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#7Story is far more nuanced than the title suggests: "Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement rather than the time spent sitting itself," Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing isn't any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad. Guess it's time to get one of these! http://www.amazon.com/DeskCycle-Exercis…
I argue that standing is better because the bias towards movement is higher. You can (and will) shift your weight around and take more frequent breaks, simply because you don't have to stand up to do so. That might be enough.
You could argue that, but given there's no evidence to support it, it's at best colloquial advice.
And to be perfectly blunt, that sounds more like an attempt to go back and justify the choice of a standing desk after the fact, now that the base assumption ("standing is better than sitting") has been invalidated.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#8This is a (somewhat) misleading headline and report. The report refers to a study which says that sitting is no worse than standing without moving the body. However, the report does nothing to contradict past studies which show that sitting is bad for the body (in comparison with standing up and walking every n minutes). A better way of reading the study would be to say that "sitting" and "standing without moving" ar…
Ok, we replaced the title with your description, in accordance with the HN guideline, "Please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait."
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#9Related discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10378944
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I argue that standing is better because the bias towards movement is higher. You can (and will) shift your weight around and take more frequent breaks, simply because you don't have to stand up to do so. That might be enough.
You could argue that, but given there's no evidence to support it, it's at best colloquial advice. And to be perfectly blunt, that sounds more like an attempt to go back and justify the choice of a standing desk after the fact, now that the base assumption ("standing is better than sitting") has been invalidated.
I use a standing desk with multiple terminals laid out so I walk between them. I also agree that while standing you are more likely to take walking breaks or step away for a moment. I also feel like when I'm standing I'm a lot more active then when sitting.
Finally, when I sit I have a habit of slouching while standing I tend to have a much better posture even for extended times.
While a bad back isn't death inducing (usually), we should consider all the benefits of standing over sitting, not just the fact that you may or may not die.