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

141–150 of 184 posts

Re: A standing desk for $22

#141

Post by brown9-2 »

jaredstenquist wrote: post #84
sliverstorm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against the concept of "investing in your health". That said, while there have of course been studies that show sitting isn't so hot for your health, have there been studies that actually show standing desks are good ? Varicose veins are not high on my list of to-dos, you know.

It seems that the important part is that you're moving throughout the day. Personally, when I'm switching between standing and sitting throughout the day I have more energy and tend to move around a lot more. If I didn't do this, I'd end up sitting for periods of 4+ hours at a time. As a CTO I manage development and technology for the company, which means I'm up and around the office (and out) for meetings and touchi…

But if you are already moving around constantly what danger are you avoiding? The problem is prolonged sitting.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#143

Post by idleloops »

excuse-me wrote: post #78
ef4 wrote: post #24

I used a similar setup for quite a while, but the big drawback is that you can't conveniently switch between standing and sitting. Now I have a crank-operated height-adjustable desk that I really like, and it only cost $588. I bought this base http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005NJUQVG and attached an Ikea pine tabletop ($60).

given the relative cost of a keyboard and an extra pair of monitors over the electric adjusting desk - does anyone just have a doubleheaded dual height system ?

How about doing some hack on a gas lift chair base?

Re: A standing desk for $22

#145

Post by tych0 »

ranebo wrote: post #8

Desks on top of desks never felt safe to me. My recommendation (as it always is anytime these standing desk articles appear) is the Frederik from IKEA ( http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/60111123/ ) Ok it's not $22 but I've picked up two now on special for less than $80.

I was afraid of this too, so I just bought an unfinished door from home depot (for $22 oddly enough), and some crappy filing cabinets from the local university that were the right height. Set door on filing cabinets => done. I could bolt the door to the filing cabinets if I really wanted to, but it's stable enough as is.

The other advantage of using a door is that they come in various sizes (both width and height), so you can get one that matches your workspace size. You can also stain them some cool color or buy some fancy wood grain if you're into that sort of thing.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#147

Post by BenSS »

Far too unstable for my tastes, especially with an iMac. I paid slightly more and got an 11" high coffee table from Ikea for $40 to drop on top of my existing desk. it has worked out really well for me, and provides more storage under. Clear work surface!

Re: A standing desk for $22

#148

Post by felideon »

idleloops wrote: post #142

At home I use a keyboard stand (or rather a stand designed for an electric piano), it's adjustable for both sitting and standing, and you can easily put it away.

Wait, what do you put on top of it to hold the (presumably) laptop? I say 'presumably' as you usually need two heights on standing desks: one for the keyboard and one for the monitor which should be higher.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#149

Post by fghh45sdfhr3 »

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…

While we're throwing personal anecdote around: Male, 30, 6'1'' and 170 lbs. Had lower back pain, switched to a standing desk and the pain disappeared in a few months, and now several years later, I still stand most of the day and can not imagine going back to sitting most or all day.

Re: A standing desk for $22

#150

Post by rada »

bokonist wrote: post #103
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…

"and there's even stronger evidence that low-BMI people live longer," Not true. If you go by the raw numbers, your BMI of 17.6 puts you at the same death risk as someone who has a BMI around 30 (which is borderline obese): http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S014067360960318... Article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673609... Both higher than typical BMI and lower BMI are associated wi…

Per your article, "below the range 22.5-25 kg/m2, BMI was associated inversely with overall mortality, mainly because of strong inverse associations with respiratory disease and lung cancer" (italics mine) i.e. if your BMI is low, average mortality is comparatively high, but only because of smokers. (Study recruitment year looks to be 1979 when there were a lot more smokers).

Moreover, your study recruited people at age 46 (mean) and followed them through their death. Meaning, a whole lot of people got older, got sick, subsequently lost weight and died. Unless proper adjustments were made, the low BMI-high mortality connection is rather unproven.

For a similar example, see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.55.5.268...:

The main concern regarding the newer CDC analysis is that it did not adequately account for weight loss from serious illnesses such as cancer and heart disease. Including such individuals in the analysis created the false appearance that being overweight protected against death during the follow up.

and

The newest CDC analysis also failed to account adequately for the effect of smoking on weight. Smokers tend to be a little lighter than nonsmokers, although the negative health impact of smoking far outweighs that of a few extra pounds. As a result, the Flegal study underestimated the risks from obesity and overestimated the risks of leanness.

Regardless, I don't think we are on different pages since you acknowledged that no one really knows which direction the causality goes.

Post reply on HN