For some of us, standing is necessary for back pain etc. So its more complicated.
Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
11–20 of 60 posts
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#12Story 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.
I dont think shifting your weight around really counts as movement
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#13This 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…
> standing without moving the body.
But this is also hard to do unless you're John Carmack giving a talk.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yes, I'm sure all of this is true.
For you.
You are an anecdote, not data.
I'm sure I could just as easily trot out examples of folks with bad backs or knees because of extended standing, or due to bad standing posture.
I could probably also find examples of people with circulation problems or other issues as a result of extended standing.
We were sold on the idea that standing, alone, versus sitting, will offset the life shortening effects of being sedentary. Given this study seems to contradict that, the picture is a lot more nuanced.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#15Story 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…
One of the common reasons I always here for standing desks is that you burn more calories standing and thus helps to reduce weight vs. sitting. This still seems to be true and would seem to provide a secondary health benefit over sitting, in terms of weight loss.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#16The work looks useful and valuable to this area of study. But WaPo and other media outlets persist in a ubiquitous and terrible trend in science reporting, especially those associated with lifestyle and healt : "Here is a study which has different findings than the other studies we've been reporting on, all that research is now overturned! Burn your standing desk!" Of course, in a few months, someone will publish another study calling this one into question, and they'll tell us all to go out and buy new standing desks. As we all know, science doesn't work that way. This study needs to be put into context with other studies, if it contradicts those studies, that needs to be discussed, future studies that might resolve the discrepancy should be identified, limitations on the applicability of this study and on the ones it contradicts should be pointed out, changes in the model we use to understand the effects of mobility and posture on health should be discussed, etc. etc.
Instead, we get serial repetitions of "standing is bad", "standing is good", "it doesn't really matter". I have to look at a calendar to figure out if the caffeine in my coffee is slowly killing me or turning me into a focused super-intellect. Won't someone please, please tell me if I should be ingesting wine and/or chocolate this week?
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#17Story 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…
Personally I find standing helps me focus more. When I sit I get sleepy. Especially after lunch
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#18The work looks useful and valuable to this area of study. But WaPo and other media outlets persist in a ubiquitous and terrible trend in science reporting, especially those associated with lifestyle and healt : "Here is a study which has different findings than the other studies we've been reporting on, all that research is now overturned! Burn your standing desk!" Of course, in a few months, someone will publish ano…
It's unfortunate that we can't directly measure anything to determine if standing is helpful or even how bad sitting is for the body.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yes, I'm sure all of this is true. For you. You are an anecdote, not data. I'm sure I could just as easily trot out examples of folks with bad backs or knees because of extended standing, or due to bad standing posture. I could probably also find examples of people with circulation problems or other issues as a result of extended standing. We were sold on the idea that standing, alone, versus sitting, will offset the…
Actually you're not sure you could do that. When do people ever stand perfectly still for hours on end? We get the difference between anecdotes and data, but it's also ok to formulate testable hypotheses in here.
Anyway this is like saying "Buying a bike won't make you thin". Yes, you have to ride the bike. But the availability of a bike in your house greatly raises the chance that you'll ride on any given day. It's indirect, but still a pretty good idea.
Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving
#20Earlier 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.
I dont think shifting your weight around really counts as movement
It does. That's what yoga is.