141–150 of 230 posts
The whole thing is bad. We're chimpanzees chained to desks and they're trying to figure out if it's the chair that's killing us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sad thing is that we could reduce the work week to three or four days and be perfectly fine. Yet we're not doing it.
Absolutely. I think shorter work weeks not only support mental and physical health but actually boost productivity!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember reading something that your baseline consumption when standing is 140 calories/h vs 120 when seating. Definitely too marginal to have any sort of impact on obesity.
If those numbers are accurate then it would equate to a difference of about 2lb (1kg) of fat per year. That's a pretty typical rate of weight gain for many adults.
20*40*52/7700=5.4 kg/year
Surprisingly large. Did I mess something up?
No?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans are nothing like chimpanzees physiologically. Homo sapiens has a semi-aquatic mammal build.
Perhaps we should transition to in-office swimming pools with floating desks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember reading something that your baseline consumption when standing is 140 calories/h vs 120 when seating. Definitely too marginal to have any sort of impact on obesity.
If those numbers are accurate then it would equate to a difference of about 2lb (1kg) of fat per year. That's a pretty typical rate of weight gain for many adults.
> The researchers found no association between time spent standing and the risk of cardiovascular disease, suggesting standing desks and similar work postures might not be enough to stave off the health problems associated with sitting around. I always assumed it was also probably pretty good for my back and neck - I'd love to see a study on that.
The title is a bit misleading, "standing desks don't improve risks of cardiovascular disease" would have been better. I would wager it did nothing for my chances of getting cancer, skin moles, or being hit by a car either, yet that doesn't mean they are "as bad as sitting" I personally switched only for my posture, and it mostly fixed my issues with neck and back. I never thought it had any other benefits than that.…
You should invest in good chair and desk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps we should transition to in-office swimming pools with floating desks
Comedy Central landed on that solution six years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwQRXSvgm5o
Here's an article [1] from a few years ago from Cornell ergonomics researchers that is still relevant the discusses the pluses and minuses of both sitting and standing desks. Here is their recommendation: > Sit to do computer work. Sit using a height-adjustable, downward titling keyboard tray for the best work posture, then every 20 minutes stand for 8 minutes AND MOVE for 2 minutes. The absolute time isn’t critical…
That essentially reads to me as "you can't both be focused on computer work and be active enough to be healthy" Break my concentration EVERY 20-30 minutes to move around for at least 2 minutes? That's at least halving my productivity. It's a total non-starter. It's the sort of advice that everyone pays lip service to, but almost no one is actually able to follow.
0 min: start working
10 min: refactored a few things, get a glas of water, look out of the window
40 min: started working on a particular though problem, somewhat stuck, get up and stretch a little while thinking
60 min: found a good solution to though problem, keep it in your head, goto kitchen get another glas of water
120 min: after an hour of uninterrupted flow the though problem is solved, stand up, get a cup of tea, think about whether it is really adequately solved
etc.
I program myself and found a change of perspective and bodily motion in the right spots can help concentration, not break it, especially in the long run. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you have a variable height desk, you can also alternate between sitting and standing, which can also help as you now have at least two different resting poses with slightly different kinds of strain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If those numbers are accurate then it would equate to a difference of about 2lb (1kg) of fat per year. That's a pretty typical rate of weight gain for many adults.
My math is a bit different. Assuming a 20 Cal/hr difference, a 40 hr working week, 52 weeks/year, 7700 Cal per kg of weight loss: 20*40*52/7700=5.4 kg/year Surprisingly large. Did I mess something up?