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

Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#31

Post by angularly »

a-priori wrote: post #13
aestra wrote: post #9

If you're going to be standing all day, stand on an anti-fatigue mat. They are used in industrial settings to reduce strain from standing, and they do make a big difference.

I use a standing desk full-time and find that two anti-fatigue mats stacked on top of each other are better than one. But one is far better than none. Haven't tried three yet. :)

I try to stand up as much as possible - I probably stand 5-6 hours per day. I am using the kybun standing mat, and can recommend it. http://www.kybun.com/products-and-stores/kybun-products/kybo...

Get the big and thickest one, the small is just too small if you stand with legs slightly apart.

It trains your muscles while you stand.

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#32

Post by mingabunga »

I've been standing at a desk for almost a year now. I started because I do a lot of running (sprints etc) and your glutes go to sleep when sitting in a chair. Look at all the old people (especially women) with no butts. I'm sure it causes back pain etc to have no glut support there. Anyway, it helps to take short walks when desk standing to give the muscles a rest otherwise it can be quite fatiguing.

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#33

Post by lambda »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #29
driverdan wrote: post #21

> So why is sitting so damaging? One thing it does is change the way our bodies deal with sugar... but how efficiently your body does that is affected by how physically active you are Terrible reporting here. This has nothing to do with sitting, it has to do with inactivity. You can have an active lifestyle and still sit all day. Later it states > blood glucose levels fell back to normal levels after a meal far more…

This is wrong actually. Sitting is an independent risk factor for death (i.e. independent of physical activity level): http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-07-09/... The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression triggered by activity in your slow-twitch high-fatigue-resistant muscles which run on fatty acids, which has all sorts of benefits for metabolism, body composition, and…

Note that if you take a look at the study mentioned, http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000828.full you find:

  Our analysis assumes that there is a causal relationship 
  between sedentary behaviour and mortality.
So, it doesn't actually demonstrate it; it finds a correlation, and makes the assumption that there is causation.

However, previous studies have shown that heavier people are more likely to choose sedentary jobs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1008580/pdf/brji... . So in fact, the causation may go in the other direction; people who are heavier, or less healthy in other ways, may be more likely to choose sedentary jobs or sedentary lifestyles.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has actually been able to demonstrate a causal effect based on changes in behavior. Does changing from a sitting desk to a standing desk actually help? I don't think that has been conclusively demonstrated.

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#34

Post by aestra »

keithpeter wrote: post #28
aestra wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be so self conscious! I see plenty of people standing on public transportation when there are seats. There are plenty of reasons why I can think of: - They have a lot or big luggage or a backpack with them. - They are only going 1 stop or two. - They have a medical condition where sitting down and standing back up again is difficult, so it is easier to stay standing. - They have been sitting all day at work and…

Reason 3 includes chronic back pain in my case. It is just more comfortable to stand than to sit in the really cramped seating (I'm very tall).

I know someone who had surgery and for several months afterwards he wasn't allowed to sit. He could stand and lay down, but sitting wasn't allowed for proper healing.

Someone else I know had some kind of nerve problem in the back of her legs and she preferred to stand unless she was going to sit for a long period of time. I guess constant standing/sitting motion aggravated it.

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#35

Post by hackinthebochs »

lambda wrote: post #33
hackinthebochs wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong actually. Sitting is an independent risk factor for death (i.e. independent of physical activity level): http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-07-09/... The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression triggered by activity in your slow-twitch high-fatigue-resistant muscles which run on fatty acids, which has all sorts of benefits for metabolism, body composition, and…

Note that if you take a look at the study mentioned, http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000828.full you find: Our analysis assumes that there is a causal relationship between sedentary behaviour and mortality. So, it doesn't actually demonstrate it; it finds a correlation, and makes the assumption that there is causation. However, previous studies have shown that heavier people are more likely to choose sedentary jo…

I've seen quite a few more studies over the last year or so that come to the same conclusion. A google search returns many.

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#36

Post by driverdan »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #29
driverdan wrote: post #21

> So why is sitting so damaging? One thing it does is change the way our bodies deal with sugar... but how efficiently your body does that is affected by how physically active you are Terrible reporting here. This has nothing to do with sitting, it has to do with inactivity. You can have an active lifestyle and still sit all day. Later it states > blood glucose levels fell back to normal levels after a meal far more…

This is wrong actually. Sitting is an independent risk factor for death (i.e. independent of physical activity level): http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-07-09/... The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression triggered by activity in your slow-twitch high-fatigue-resistant muscles which run on fatty acids, which has all sorts of benefits for metabolism, body composition, and…

> The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression

That's my point. That there are reasons why standing is better than sitting but the article got them mostly wrong.

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#37

Post by edwardrs »

eddiedunn wrote: post #3

Or, to keep the blood sugar levels at a sane level, people could stop eating so much junk; protein and fat don't spike your blood sugar the way sugary carbs do.

This isn't good advice either though. Many people eat way too many fats and often consume extra protein as well. Carbs should be your main energy source (~65% of your daily calories should come from carbs) with a lot of the rest coming from protein. The solution is to continue to consume large amounts of carbs, but change the source so that the carbs are complex which are generally nutrient rich and provide a great energy source for the body.

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#38

Post by gillianseed »

henrik_w wrote: post #11
Cor wrote: post #6

Good article. I've always wondered how many more calories are burned while sitting versus standing. I'm quite surprised by how much of a difference standing makes, to be honest. Unfortunately, for the moment, I simply cannot use a stand up desk full time. I spend around 8 months out of the year travelling. At home, I have a stand up desk, and I really love it. When I'm travelling, though, I spend most of my time sitt…

Taking a break every hour or so is also good for avoiding RSI. I had RSI pretty bad several years ago, but have recovered completely. Part of the solution was using a break program to help me remember to take breaks for stretches. Currently (OS X), I'm using RSI Guard, which does what I want. More details on my RSI problems and solution here: http://henrikwarne.com/2012/02/18/how-i-beat-rsi/

Yeah I had a similar bout two years or so back.

A colleague had suffered the same problem and gave me instructions like taking a hourly break and doing a stretching excercise (rotate palm downwards and hold it flat with outstretched arm bending slightly upwards against a wall while tilting the head in the opposite direction for thirty seconds in three repeats), worked wonders for me and I've not had any problems since (still doing those stretches, although not as rigorously).

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#39

Post by eddiedunn »

edwardrs wrote: post #37
eddiedunn wrote: post #3

Or, to keep the blood sugar levels at a sane level, people could stop eating so much junk; protein and fat don't spike your blood sugar the way sugary carbs do.

This isn't good advice either though. Many people eat way too many fats and often consume extra protein as well. Carbs should be your main energy source (~65% of your daily calories should come from carbs) with a lot of the rest coming from protein. The solution is to continue to consume large amounts of carbs, but change the source so that the carbs are complex which are generally nutrient rich and provide a great e…

Carbs are not essential, in fact you can survive and thrive without them. Fat and protein are essential, however.

Why do you say that carbs should be your main energy source? I've seen no sound scientific evidence to support that claim.

I don't eat many carbs any more, and I'm living a lot more healthily as a result. It works for me. However, please do note that I'm not interested in getting into a debate with you on this -- that's the reason I wrote "sugary carbs"[1], which pretty much everyone agrees are bad for you.

[1]: Glucose, fructose, wheat flour are the most common culprits

Re: Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

#40

Post by hackinthebochs »

driverdan wrote: post #36
hackinthebochs wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong actually. Sitting is an independent risk factor for death (i.e. independent of physical activity level): http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-07-09/... The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression triggered by activity in your slow-twitch high-fatigue-resistant muscles which run on fatty acids, which has all sorts of benefits for metabolism, body composition, and…

> The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression That's my point. That there are reasons why standing is better than sitting but the article got them mostly wrong.

Yeah youre right, I skipped the last part of your post when it sounded like you disagreed that sitting was problematic in itself.
Post reply on HN