Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Standing Desks Are Overrated (nytimes.com) 108

Standing desks have become trendy in recent years -- so much so that they have been promoted by some health officials as well as some countries. Research, however, suggests that warnings about sitting at work are overblown, and that standing desks are overrated as a way to improve health. From a report: Dr. David Rempel, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who has written on this issue, said, "Well-meaning safety professionals and some office furniture manufacturers are pushing sit-stand workstations as a way of improving cardiovascular health -- but there is no scientific evidence to support this recommendation." Let's start with what we know about research on sitting, then explain why it can be misleading as it relates to work. A number of studies have found a significant association between prolonged sitting time over a 24-hour period and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. A 2015 study, for instance, followed more than 150,000 older adults -- all of whom were healthy at the start of the study -- for almost seven years on average. Researchers found that those who sat at least 12 hours a day had significantly higher mortality than those who sat for less than five hours per day.

For convenience and comfort, it's nice to have options if you have various aches and pains -- "Alternating standing and sitting while using a computer may be useful for some people with low back or neck pain," he said -- but people shouldn't be under the illusion that they're getting exercise. A 2012 study in JAMA Internal Medicine followed more than 220,000 people for 2.8 years on average and found similar results. Prolonged sitting over the course of a day was associated with increased all-cause mortality across sexes, ages and body mass index. So did a smaller but longer (8.6 years on average) study published in 2015 in the Journal of Physical Activity & Health. Another study from 2015, which followed more than 50,000 adults for more than three years, also found this relationship. But it found that context mattered. Prolonged sitting in certain situations -- including when people were at work -- did not have this same effect.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Standing Desks Are Overrated

Comments Filter:
  • Since they put the user in a statue-like position, I referred to them as "posers". At least two of the three posers in my office have resumed only sitting at their desks, after a year or two. I haven't checked in on the third guy lately...
    • Since they put the user in a statue-like position, I referred to them as "posers". At least two of the three posers in my office have resumed only sitting at their desks, after a year or two. I haven't checked in on the third guy lately...

      The third guy has probably died in his chair and nobody has noticed, yet.

  • This is why people rarely follow any kind of health science. Inconvenience yourself to follow some study today and it will likely be disproven in months.
    • Re:"Science" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Saturday November 24, 2018 @06:04PM (#57694394) Homepage Journal

      The problem isn't science. The problem is the public's understanding of science, even the reporters who are supposed to be covering science don't know how to understand scientific results.

      The world is complex, and evidence always at least appears contradictory when you start looking at a question. This means a study that says standing desks are good for you is useless when deciding whether to get a standing desk. A follow up study that finds standing desks to be useless is also completely unreliable.

      So basically news should never, ever report a study as proving anything.

      What you need to go on is either (a) your extensive and deep familiarity with all the literature on a question or (b) someone else who has that familiarity. Fortunately, some else's expert judgment is regularly available in something called a "systematic review [wikipedia.org] paper", which summarizes all the recent evidence on every side of a question.

      You very seldom see systematic reviews reported on in the press, although you see individual studies reported almost every day. It should be the other way around.

      • Well, the reporters for the most part aren't lying, they're not saying "proven", but there is a lot of misunderstanding.

        There are big problems though. The shotgun approach where you get a smattering of info from a variety of sciences, and no one is an expert on all of them and people won't be keeping track of the current state between one article and the next on a subject. A huge problem in my view however are the pseudo-sciences; people aren't good at the difference between a report on a real science stu

        • Re:"Science" (Score:4, Interesting)

          by sjames ( 1099 ) on Sunday November 25, 2018 @01:24AM (#57695708) Homepage Journal

          Part of the problem is extrapolation. For example, the subjects who sat more than 12 hours a day were in worse health by the end of the study. Reporter conclusion, "sitting kills". Further analysis may well show that those who started sitting more than 12 hours a day did so BECAUSE of ill health.

        • by thejam ( 655457 )
          Please don't endorse licensing. It replaces one problem (labeling experts) with others (determining criteria for labeling experts, determining who performs said determinations, temptation to entrenchment and corruption of those in positions to do these activities, infantilization of everyone else as they are now reliant on "licensed experts [sic]" and thus relax vigilance).
      • by Anonymous Coward

        The problem isn't science. The problem is the public's understanding of science, even the reporters who are supposed to be covering science don't know how to understand scientific results.

        But this is a well known (and exploited) property of the system though. The published study itself might have no glaring process or conclusion errors of its own, but after being run through the university press office, some nearly-science-illiterate science journalists, some totally-science-illiterate mainstream journalists, and finally the drooling-retard general public who takes health advice from the news, all context and caveats are long forgotten and the story morphs into "Quit your desk job or you'll

        • Haha! Worst of all in 10 years there will be a study that proves your in need of medical assistant. So the medical industry still wins. Lower back pain from standing to long :D
      • This means a study that says standing desks are good for you

        You *do* realize that you're greatly offending legless and paralyzed people stuck in wheelchairs. I feel offended, me with my two working legs -- you racist! Off with their heads!

      • Re:"Science" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gavagai80 ( 1275204 ) on Sunday November 25, 2018 @06:21AM (#57696148) Homepage

        Reporters could write 500 accurate articles for every sensationalist one, and the sensationalist article is the only one the public will ever read. Because it's interesting. Nitty gritty details that all add up to "we have some hints that a complex set of circumstances may be unhealthy but we're not sure" are not interesting to anyone but a scientist.

        • Reporters could write 500 accurate articles for every sensationalist one, and the sensationalist article is the only one the public will ever read.

          Nonsense. Accurate articles can be very interesting, even to non-scientists. That easily written sensationalist articles with clickbait titles full of falsehoods are read a lot is independent of that. Your argument amounts to saying that the lies published in tabloids are the only thing the public will ever read, because accurate reports on the lives of celebrities are not interesting. This is simply untrue. It is true that these articles compete which each other for eyeballs, however.

          The real problem lies

  • by rjune ( 123157 ) on Saturday November 24, 2018 @05:40PM (#57694300)

    I have desk that I can raise and lower. It is most helpful after lunch when I'm fighting the food coma that usually occurs. It is nice to move around and stretch your legs, but I could survive without it. A nice option, but not strictly necessary.

    • I have desk that I can raise and lower. It is most helpful after lunch when I'm fighting the food coma that usually occurs. It is nice to move around and stretch your legs, but I could survive without it. A nice option, but not strictly necessary.

      I don't know about the health benefits, but fighting the after lunch drag is definitely easier while standing. Also, there are times when when I am doing more thinking than typing and I find I can be more productive in a standing posture. Sometimes reading is easier while standing. The main thing is it enables to me to pace, walk to the whiteboard, go back to the desk, and immediately type stuff without having to sit first. It really is a productivity enhancer. A-plus, would recommend.

      • 100% agree. I've got one (used to use a bunch of boxes)--not for any health benefits, just because they were more comfortable than sitting all day.
      • by hbackert ( 45117 )
        love my standing desk at the office. But the important part is to be able to switch as needed resp. wanted: after lunch I prefer to stand. In the afternoon I prefer to sit. When thinking, I like to stand, but for mundane tasks sitting is better. Also I learned that standing all day is really bad for my shoulder. While sitting all day is bad for my back. There's zero exercise going on here though, but that was never my point why I wanted it.
        • by jimbo ( 1370 )

          Indeed, all of the people I've worked with that got a standing desk got it because of their back and having more options for work positions during the day. Nobody (I know) ever claimed it had other health benefits, that some people think so is new to me.

          Actually this is the point you also bring up about changing positions; I never had a standing desk, I always sat but I would change positions throughout the day; sitting straight (recommended position), switch chair back to front, lean back, sit on front edg

  • is the only way to go. You get exercise and the company can generate "free" electricity. /s

    I did notice, when I used to get up every hour or so, walk down 4 floors and walk back up it was way better than just sitting

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday November 24, 2018 @05:55PM (#57694362)
    You just can't sit that long with a bad back.
    • A lot of office chairs are crap, especially after a few years. I switched to a Tempur-pedic office chair and it is much better.

    • My back is farked up, and I can't stand that long. Walking makes my back seize up eventually, but standing does it rapidly. Mind you, sitting also can cause me pain, but I have an Aeron chair at home and that has helped immensely. (Too bad about how hard the seat is, though. I've saved my back at the expense of my ass.)

  • by maxrate ( 886773 ) on Saturday November 24, 2018 @06:21PM (#57694456)
    I have a standup desk (two years now). My back feels way better than it ever did. My point is, if something is working for you, keep doing what youâ(TM)re doing - no matter what an article says. I rarely sit at work now - I get more done. Itâ(TM)s working for me, I didnâ(TM)t think it would but I gave it a shot and Iâ(TM)m glad I did. It may or may not work for you. To each is own
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by skoskav ( 1551805 )

      You seem to be telling people to prefer anecdotes over clinical studies and recommended guidelines. Your comment could just as well be making the same argument for astrology, homeopathy or fake cancer treatments.

      The article and its cited studies are mainly delving into the context of cardiovascular disease, mortality and general health markers. As for your specific case of back pain, the author even seems to agree with you:

      [...], but like many things in life, they’re fine if you like them. And if it h

      • by maxrate ( 886773 )
        You're missing the point, that's not what I'm telling people at all. Lot's of comments on /. to read thru - my brevity seemed to fuel your need to dissect my truncated thoughts and address points I hadn't intended to elaborate on. The stand up desk improved my life as you have claimed yours as well. This article could easily put someone off purchasing one off it completely. For me, back pain is practically gone. When I get home, it's no longer painful to use the treadmill - meaning, better cardio funct
    • This. A lot of people seem to misunderstand standing desks because they have never really tried them. For starters, it's not about standing in attention for hours, but letting your body move and find its natural positions freely. To me, there's a huge psychological element in not being tied to a chair. It seems to help with attention deficit issues to some extent.

      One problem is that it takes a while to get used to standing desks to get all the benefit. For me it took a few months of alternating between s

  • Standing the whole day is no fun.

  • by Monoman ( 8745 ) on Saturday November 24, 2018 @08:07PM (#57694800) Homepage

    The problems is as always. Lazy people looking for an easy solution to a problem Standing all day has it's issues as well as sitting all day. They are not a replacement for exercise but they area great way to add variety to spending a day behind a desk.

  • It's kind of a merit badge in government to have one of these, for people who just want whatever they can get for free. Certainly a portion do need it but the amount of installs is clearly "oh me too!" In some offices anyhow.

    That being said, one very believable claim, is that they promote more walking, as you're inclined to just walk over to people to discuss things, rather than use workplace instant messaging. Or any other thing you might say "I cant be bothered" on. Well you're already standing, so defi

    • For me, I have more trouble doing long focused tasks while standing, so it is best when I have the shorter or less focused tasks to do— conference calls, writing emails, checking work, reading /., reviewing financial statements, etc. It does not work well when I need to spend four straight hours writing a technical report.

      As for flat feet, poor core strength, and age— those are all reasons to do something. Try standing on a balance board with proper insoles. Learn to tape your arches if it is r

  • I just converted my Ikea Jerker desk to standing height (still remains the most versatile computer desk of all time) due to lower back pain while sitting for long periods, and so far it's cured that problem. Also when I am waiting on short renders or compiles I tend to walk away or move around rather than start mindlessly surfing. Another advantage is that I can actually stand more in front of the monitor I am looking at the most rather than turning to face it from the center.

    I intend to purchase a high

  • For my old body, I can't idle for too long. My body will get stiffed, ached, unhappy, etc. I have to move around often. :(

  • I spend some time every day taking my laptop to a standing desk that has a treadmill built in.

    Pretty sure it's healthier than sitting all day.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's not. Your co workers will eventually get sick of your holier than thou, self righteous, virtue signaling bullshit and kick your vegan ass down the twelve flights of stairs you brag about jogging up every day.

  • I have a variable height standing desk at work. I asked for a desk inspection (which the company gives for free as it's scared of litigation for things like carpel tunnel). The inspector told me how to configure the desk correctly for both standing and sitting, and said that I should neither stand nor sit too much during the day. Mix it up. I sometimes do the morning sitting, the afternoon standing or whole days on either, and other combinations. There are also operational pros and cons of each (when standi

  • We weren't evolved to stand around, but to walk around. And then to lay around while waiting for something edible to come along. Laying down doesn't let you make good use of your arms, so we adopted sitting so that we could get work done. Of course, you can't do most modern jobs while walking, either.

    I used to be an avid walker, but these days walking hurts me because there is something wrong with my back. I like cycling much better for that reason, plus that it's more interesting because it's faster. Stand

  • Long live the hamster wheel cubicle!!

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Working...