Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A standing desk for $22

iamnotaprogrammer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 184 posts

Re: A standing desk for $22

#91

Post by vikvik »

goodside wrote: post #54

I used to be an advocate of the standing desk. I bought an adjustable-height Fredrik workstation from Ikea, tried multiple heights to find the most comfortable, and stuck with it for six months. It didn't work. Even after months of practice, I found it harder to concentrate while standing and doing it any longer than a few hours would invariably result in back pain. I found myself turning to "sitting tasks" like movi…

This is very good to know. I wonder if having a bar stool can help.

I used to work on a shop floor where you had to be on your feet all day with just a lunch break in between wherein you get to sit. The first few days where killer, but the second week onwards the body just gets used to standing and walking all day.

One part of my rotation was through QA where we had tall tables to work on. We were provided tall stools to sit, and we usually worked half standing half sitting.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#92

Post by beagle3 »

For $50 at amazon (+free shipping, yay for Prime), I got a hospital style bedside table. It's small, and not perfectly stable, but it is quite stable, easily adjusted (some models go from 22" to 48" - make sure you get one that goes to 40" if you get one), and comfortably hosts a 17" laptop and a mousepad.

Plus, it has lockable wheels, so it can move around. And you can use it as a bedside table, when you feel like feeling decadent.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#93

Post by olliesaunders »

nick_urban wrote: post #74
goodside wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are mountains of evidence that BMI correlates positively with the incidence of lower back pain. I have no history of LBP outside of the context of using a standing desk. Further, most of the purported benefit standing desks is to prolong lifespan, and there's even stronger evidence that low-BMI people live longer, so the suggestion that I should gain weight and sacrifice a clinically validated approach to livin…

BMI is a misleading indicator in this case. It doesn't differentiate by body composition at all (e.g. fat vs muscle). I doubt very much that adding muscle to an underweight person would decrease that person's life expectancy. Probably it would improve it (the health benefits of exercise are well known). Either way, it would improve his quality of life.

I don’t think this is true. Pretty much the only proven thing you can do if you want to live longer is calorie restriction. Supposedly this is because the fewer calories you consume the less exposure your body has to free radicals that are important in aging. The corollary of this is that building muscle, which requires eating a lot, is inferior to being a skinny rake for longevity alone. Then, if you eat barely anything, you would be better with only a small amount of exercise.

And, just to rule out any suspicion of bias, know that I have a job where I’m constantly lifting weight, I have my own strength exercise regime outside work, I drink protein shakes, and I eat quite a lot for my frame.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#94

Post by xiaoma »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #80
Evgeny wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read this article just yesterday: http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/lowest-morta... This is basically a reference point to support the opinion that was stated here: BMI is not the only thing that matters. Take a look at the two numbers circled in red. The one on the left is the lowest-mortality BMI not adjusting for fat mass or fat-free mass: a reasonably high 27.4. The one on the right is the lo…

To put this in perspective, 6'0 and 130 is a BMI of 17.6 which is off the charts. He is well below the ideal lean BMI of 21.6.

Hmm... maybe you're used to an environment with a lot of overweight people.

Anything under 18.5 is considered "underweight", just as anything over 25 is considered "overweight". 17.6 is only off by .9 points. He's less off the charts than someone 6'0 and 195lbs (BMI of 26.4)

Re: A standing desk for $22

#96

Post by olliesaunders »

goodside wrote: post #67
sgaither wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're obviously not overweight but you're pretty light for that height, so I wonder if someone with a lower center of gravity would suffer fewer back issues? What if you used a laptop that you could move from standing desk to couch from time to time? Like after every 40 minutes?

I tried sitting down periodically. It just reinforced how much more comfortable it was to sit than to stand. I find it completely implausible that being thin would making extended standing harder. Flies in the face of everything I've ever read about back problems, which overwhelmingly afflict people with higher BMI. Also, I'm quite young, and have no history of back or muscle pains of any sort outside of what was bro…

We’re only focusing on the BMI issue because that was revealed by the original comment. Goodside could have spikes placed on the ceiling that dug into his head only when standing. If this was the case we’d be barking up completely the wrong tree. I’m pretty sure he’s not that stupid but my point is, without being present to make an assessment we have absolutely no idea what could be going on. It’s like trying to fix your parent’s computer over the telephone with them operating it.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#97

Post by bpbp-mango »

abossy wrote: post #56
tzs wrote: post #49

The article he cites on the dangers of prolonged sitting is about research on prolonged sitting. That is indeed bad for you. However, so is prolonged standing. You are best off, and you can save $22, by keeping your normal desk and GETTING UP every 20 minutes or so and moving around. This avoids the problems with prolonged sitting, without incurring the serious risks of prolonged standing. See: http://ergo.human.corn…

Nobody I know is capable of standing for an entire workday. A drafting stool is absolutely required, and it's often the trickiest part of the configuration; for men taller than six feet, it's very difficult to find an inexpensive drafting stool that is sufficiently tall to match the height of your desk. [1] e.g., http://www.amazon.com/Boss-Drafting-Stool-Foot-Black/dp/B001...

> Nobody I know is capable of standing for an entire workday.

I used to work in a supermarket and would stand for nearly the entire day apart from a short tea break and lunch break. All the other employees would too. It's not uncommon.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#98

Post by b3b0p »

bronson wrote: post #44
ericson578 wrote: post #41

I'd like a desk that can change easily between sitting and standing.

I bought a Steelcase Airtouch back in Dec. LOVE IT. Stable, looks great, effortless up & down, no waiting for loud electric motors. I paid $1250. Expensive but worth the money IMO. I find I spend 20% of my time standing, 80% sitting. Being able to switch at any time is key.

I've looked into these. I'm leaning towards a Geek Desk for one reason: The pedestal in the middle, does it not get in the way of your legs at all?

Re: A standing desk for $22

#99

Post by sunsu »

I switched to a standing desk a year ago and will never go back. The biggest benefit is that it completely got rid of my wrist pain. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why though.

The first couple of months were rough on my back, but adding a nice standing mat helped that a lot...as well as doing some back excercises like back extensions and dead lifts.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#100

Post by reedlaw »

olliesaunders wrote: post #93
nick_urban wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMI is a misleading indicator in this case. It doesn't differentiate by body composition at all (e.g. fat vs muscle). I doubt very much that adding muscle to an underweight person would decrease that person's life expectancy. Probably it would improve it (the health benefits of exercise are well known). Either way, it would improve his quality of life.

I don’t think this is true. Pretty much the only proven thing you can do if you want to live longer is calorie restriction. Supposedly this is because the fewer calories you consume the less exposure your body has to free radicals that are important in aging. The corollary of this is that building muscle, which requires eating a lot, is inferior to being a skinny rake for longevity alone. Then, if you eat barely anyt…

I doubt that eating less and getting less exercise will really lead to longer life. It would be hard to measure such a thing, but my guess is that with less exercise and eating there would be a corresponding decline in happiness which alone could knock years off a person's life.
Post reply on HN