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

Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#21

Post by ljk »

eikenberry wrote: post #15
zzalpha wrote: post #5

Story 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.

Also it's easier to move around habitually when standing up, or at least for me it's that way

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#22

Post by ljk »

djtriptych wrote: post #6
zzalpha wrote: post #5

Story 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.

Also it's better for the back since there's nothing to lean back on

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#23

Post by Someone »

djtriptych wrote: post #6
zzalpha wrote: post #5

Story 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.

Slightly off-topic: whenever that kind of argument comes up, I think of Rietveld's "sitting is something you do" (1) reply when people complained that sitting wasn't comfortable on chairs of his design (most famous example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_and_Blue_Chair)

Sit on such a chair, and I bet you will take more breaks than when using a standing desk.

(1) the literal translation would be "to sit is a verb", with word play on "verb" = "working word", but that is hard to translate.

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#24

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

vtlynch wrote: post #12
djtriptych wrote: post #6

Earlier 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

Why not? I have hip flexor problems and knee problems. I used to have a standing desk at work. Being able to constantly shift and go from sitting to standing was really good for me. The small movement prevented my muscles from getting too cold.

It was also great for my posture.

But then again, I didn't switch to a standing desk to decrease my mortality rate.

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#25

Post by RickHull »

zzalpha wrote: post #7
djtriptych wrote: post #6

Earlier 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.

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.

> now that the base assumption ("standing is better than sitting") has been invalidated.

This is not true. This invalid conclusion mirrors the lament that a commenter posted:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10389475

> The 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

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#26

Post by zzalpha »

djtriptych wrote: post #19
zzalpha wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

but it's also ok to formulate testable hypotheses in here.

That's a bit odd... you're basically advocating "[formulating] testable hypotheses" simply to post-justify a choice you've already made.

That's basically science backwards...

It's also human nature. We all love to rationalize. But we can at least see it for what it is. :)

Edit:

Incidentally, I have personally witnessed the fact that buying a bike has absolutely no correlation with frequency of riding it... ;)

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#27

Post by amelius »

Aren't people who spend their days sitting behind a desk also more likely to be more wealthy than, say, people who do heavy construction work all day long? Did they factor in the effects of this difference?

Perhaps the extra years gained from being more wealthy are negated by sitting all day.

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#28

Post by rhino369 »

credo wrote: post #3

This 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…

Those studies never really proved sitting was itself bad for you. Just correlated with bad health. Since standing without moving is just as bad, I'd hypothesize that sitting isn't bad for you at all.

Sitting just happens to be highly correlated with a sedentary lifestyle.

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#29

Post by CosmicHorrorSam »

zzalpha wrote: post #5

Story 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…

Cutting through likely sarcasm, those are INCREDIBLY AWKWARD. I tried to use a very similar device for quite some time, and it's just- impossibly awkward to use. 0/10 would not recommend.

Re: Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving

#30

Post by mingabunga »

credo wrote: post #3

This 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…

I think sitting might be bad for you in some ways. When you sit, your glutes are not activated so they become weak since they're not used (in the absence of any exercise) so your back suffers. At least if you stand, your glutes are used/activated. It might not increase your longevity but you'll probably have better posture.
Post reply on HN