Are Standing Desks Actually Bad For Your Health? 133
A new study counters the widely held belief that standing desks are good for your health, discovering that it does not reduce the risk of diseases such as stroke and heart failure. In fact, it "found that being on your feet for more than two hours a day may increase the risk of developing problems such as deep vein thrombosis and varicose veins," reports The Guardian. The findings have been published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. From the report: To establish if standing provided any health benefits, the researchers studied data from 83,013 adults who are part of the UK Biobank health records database. These people did not have heart disease at the start of the study and wore devices on their wrists to track movement. The team found that for every extra 30 minutes spent standing beyond two hours, the risk of circulatory disease increased by 11%. Standing was not found to reduce the risk of heart conditions such as stroke, heart failure and coronary heart disease, the researchers said. "The key takeaway is that standing for too long will not offset an otherwise sedentary lifestyle and could be risky for some people in terms of circulatory health," said Dr Matthew Ahmadi, of the University of Sydney's faculty of medicine and health. "We found that standing more does not improve cardiovascular health over the long-term and increases the risk of circulatory issues."
Lots of jobs make people stand for long periods. (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, it "found that being on your feet for more than two hours a day may increase the risk of developing problems such as deep vein thrombosis and varicose veins," reports The Guardian.
So, when do we see the class-action lawsuits for anyone working as a checkout clerk? There's no real reason those people need to be standing instead of sitting. Workers in certain countries having stools at their station they are seated at instead proves that.
Re:Lots of jobs make people stand for long periods (Score:4, Insightful)
Aldi seems to be the only store that allows cashiers to sit, at least in the USA. The rule is probably based on some fallacy of appearing lazy because they're seated.
Re: Lots of jobs make people stand for long period (Score:2)
Most cashiers have options for sitting, WalMart, Kroger, Food Lion, not sure where you see anyone that doesnâ(TM)t. The problem here is standing still in front of a desk which is causing issues with blood flow. Cashiers and others that work âoeblue collarâ move quite a bit, they donâ(TM)t stand in a single position for hours on end.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think that sitting while moving items over a barcode reader could lead to other problems like lower back and repetitive motion injuries.
I have never been a cashier, but I can imagine that I would rather not be sitting to perform that function because I have a greater range of motion when standing.
Re: (Score:2)
Most cashiers have options for sitting, WalMart, Kroger, Food Lion, not sure where you see anyone that doesn't.
Since when? When there is actually a cashier manning a checkout and not just self checkout kiosks, I never see the cashiers sitting. When I used to work at Kroger decades ago there were no chairs/stools and no sitting.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked as a cashier at a grocery store for a few years. I wouldn't have been as good at the job if I was sitting down. Maybe with a fundamental redesign of the whole station to accommodate sitting it could be 80-90% as effective.
Re:Lots of jobs make people stand for long periods (Score:4, Informative)
You haven't been to Aldi. The receipt isn't even in your hand yet and they're already scanning items for the next customer.
Re:Lots of jobs make people stand for long periods (Score:5, Interesting)
They should use two baskets. At some Japanese supermarkets they have an empty basket at the till that they transfer your stuff to as they scan it. You then pay and take the basket over to a packing area where you put what you bought in your bags. Your original basket becomes the new empty one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lots of jobs make people stand for long periods (Score:4, Interesting)
They should use two baskets. At some Japanese supermarkets they have an empty basket at the till that they transfer your stuff to as they scan it. You then pay and take the basket over to a packing area where you put what you bought in your bags. Your original basket becomes the new empty one.
My local Aldi has a movable lever that segments the area after the till. If you haven't loaded your bags yet by the time you pay, they just move the lever over and throw the next person's stuff into a segregated area while you pack.
Presumably if you are so slow that they can serve a whole extra customer in the meantime they just take you out the back and shoot you ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. I just wish they would adopt scan-as-you-shop.
Re: Lots of jobs make people stand for long period (Score:2)
Re: Lots of jobs make people stand for long period (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lots of jobs make people stand for long period (Score:2)
I literally prefaced it with "in my opinion" therefore the post is also the citation. get your eyes checked
Re: (Score:2)
What happens to the other 1/3 of your shopping?
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, it "found that being on your feet for more than two hours a day may increase the risk of developing problems such as deep vein thrombosis and varicose veins," reports The Guardian.
So, when do we see the class-action lawsuits for anyone working as a checkout clerk? There's no real reason those people need to be standing instead of sitting. Workers in certain countries having stools at their station they are seated at instead proves that.
At most stores, checkout clerks aren't checking out all the time. Either they take shifts of an hour or two at the register and then do other tasks, or in smaller stores, they're at the register when needed and doing tasks like tidying up when no one is at the counter. The latter is especially prevalent at places like Walgreens.
Re:Lots of jobs make people stand for long periods (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
What does the length of time in front of a register have to do with whether they sit or stand
I use a standing desk. The first hour is fine.
Then, standing gets less comfortable, so I either go for a walk or sit down for the next hour.
I don't think that's true. (Score:3)
Where are you getting your info from? I work for a small chain of grocery stores and our full time checkers work 8 hour shifts checking all day. They of course get breaks every two hours but they're definitely checking their whole shift, that's their job after all. We do have some people who will swap up to the registers when it's busy but probably 95% of the time it's all people whose job description is "checker" and that's what they do for their shift.
Pretty sure that's how the whole industry is in the US
Re: (Score:3)
Here in Egypt, every cashier constantly sits. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one stand at all.
In the Carrefour’s, the chairs are on an elevated platform so they appear at your eye level.
In the cheaper stores, they’re jsut there a meter or so below you.
Never makes a difference. I’m glad they can sit.
In Dubai, they stand about 90% of the time. Only Carrefour has chairs, from what I can see. The same elevated-height ones you find in Egypt.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK all checkout staff seem to sit - or at least have the option to sit if they wish. Some prefer to stand, some of the time at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Sitting still for long periods of time is bad for your circulatory system.
Turns out, same applies to standing still for long periods of time.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most standing desks allow you to change from standing to sitting and back.
I bought an adjustable-height desk on Amazon years ago, and I love it.
I switch about once an hour.
Re: (Score:3)
Moving seems to be the key. Staying still, sitting or standing, for 8 hours a day isn't good for you.
Several benefits (Score:3)
Exactly!
My standing desk* takes 1–2 seconds to shift between different heights, so it's very easy to switch between standing and sitting. I've been standing for 1½–2 hours each day (not always consecutively) — which by an amazing coincidence seems about the optimum according to that survey.
There are other benefits, though. I first got it after hurting my back, and found that standing really helps with that. (Disclaimer: back problems vary, this is not medical advice, etc.) And s
Re: Makes sense (Score:2)
Wait... there are padded stools with armrests but no back support? That's such an odd and specific mix of comfortable and uncomfortable (I'm assuming if there was a backrest it wouldn't be called a stool but maybe I'm wrong).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Makes sense (Score:2)
I definitely use the up and down buttons to change positions. We need another study!
Re: (Score:2)
I worked 10 years in retail, and if I was stocking, I could work a 10-12 hour shift with no problems, because I was constantly moving. (30k+ steps a day). But if I got stuck running a register, I my body would be in agony in a few hours, even with the ‘anti-fatigue mats’. My back, legs, and feet would be screaming and no amount of fidgeting in place would relieve it. Actually moving around is key.
Good because they are adjustable (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually standing all day is not a good thing. Just sitting all day is in a preset position is not a good thing. But being able to switch back and forth with whatever height works for you? That's gold.
Sit / Stand Desks (Score:4, Interesting)
Who are these studies for?
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of people, thinking about it.
People who do desk work for long periods might want the benefits and detriments quantified.
The makers of standing desks would like studies that say they're good.
Health Insurance companies would like to know for possibly offering discounts if they save medical expenses.
Businesses the same for reducing worker sick leave.
Governments that provide universal Healthcare, or even just medical for their own employees.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a sit/stand desk and home and work. The one at work is a spring loaded gizmo that sits on top of a normal desk that I can raise and lower. The one at home is has a motorized table top.
They are not a not a panacea, but they both have relieved the amount of back pain I previous experienced from sitting long periods of time.
I have no idea if there are other health benefits. I did read the book Get Up!: Why Your Chair Is Killing You and What You Can Do About It by James A. Levine that claimed it did
Re: (Score:3)
"Who are these studies for?"
It's called science. It turns out that trusting some random nutter saying "OMG, it's obvious..." isn't all that reliable.
I knew they were a bad idea... (Score:2)
...the first time I looked at them.
Standing in one place for hours is painful.
Walking around is fine
Re: I knew they were a bad idea... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: I knew they were a bad idea... (Score:2)
Any one position is bad (Score:2)
I have a standing desk, but I never stand for very long. It's just nice to take a break from sitting every now and then.
This makes sense (Score:2)
Is it just me? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I saw standing desks that lazy part of me said "no way". The self improvement part of me said "maybe we should give it a fair go". In the end I knew I don't concentrate well standing, so I gave that idea a miss. Now to hear they don't help I don't fell so guilty about that choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me who finds it hard to concentrate when standing?
No, I've definitely noticed the same thing - I suck at writing code when I'm standing. So, now, I try to coordinate my standing time with tasks that aren't as mentally taxing, like getting caught up on email or generating documentation.
Re: (Score:2)
you know I'd never really though about it until you mentioned, but now you did, yes 100% that's exactly what I do. Pull up a chair...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I'm one of those people that likes to walk around when thinking about a problem, and I'm also pretty sure I'm not alone. I have some level of ADHD traits (though no diagnosis) and I find it easier to concentrate with a standing desk, as it allows my body to move around a little. It also allows these micro-breaks of walking around the room much more easily. I'm not sure how well this would work in a shared office, though, I guess it could get quite annoying to some people.
A standing desk makes the w
Re: (Score:2)
I started using a "walking workstation" at work (basically, a desk with a treadmill) for an hour a day, because they have them available here and it seemed like an easy way to get a little exercise. I found it very difficult to concentrate on anything at first. But as with many things, I got used to it and now it's pretty much just as easy for me to concentrate on stuff on the walking workstation as it is sitting at my desk.
Re: (Score:2)
I do a lot of mathematics...definitely cannot do it standing although I can think through problems abstractly when walking the stairs for 30 minutes in the morning....cannot do detailed calculations but I tend to get ideas that way I do not get while sitting.
Re: (Score:2)
All changes of routine take practice to master (Score:2)
Is it just me who finds it hard to concentrate when standing?
Yes and no. If you gave it a few weeks of earnest effort?...not sure what to say, I'm sure it's not "just" you, but I think most can adapt. It took me awhile, but I can work just as well in either position Is it "better"...eh...not really, IMHO. It's MUCH better for collaboration. Your boss can step in your cube and you can show him something quickly and be done faster...more people can gather without grabbing chairs and it's easier to get closer to see the screen...and since they're standing, they tend
Calling bullshit on "more than two hours a day" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Calling bullshit on "more than two hours a day" (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they were walking.
"Male and female hunter-gatherers would typically take 16,000 and 17,000 steps (about eight miles) per day, respectively"
https://link.springer.com/arti... [springer.com]
That probably does not count desperate sprints to avoid bigger predators ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Snerk- but probably less bigger predators, other than fellow humans, and more aggressive herbivores.
You can fend off most predators with a spear. They dont want to get hurt, after all. Pissed off or scared herbivores are much more willing to accept injury. Boar spears, for example, have a cross piece to prevent them from just running up the spear to still maul you.
Re: (Score:2)
Primitive humans most likely stood still very little. They were either lying or sitting, or stood up in motion. They did nothing that resembled working on a standing desk.
What is one to do? (Score:5, Funny)
So we shouldn't sit, and we shouldn't stand. Perhaps there is a lying desk?
Re: (Score:2)
So we shouldn't sit, and we shouldn't stand. Perhaps there is a lying desk?
Just find a lake and have a floating desk.
Re: (Score:3)
"Perhaps there is a lying desk?"
Its called a pulpit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to be at a desk, putting your feet up on it is probably the healthiest thing you can do, cardiovascularly anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrible for your lower back though...
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what position that part of you is in.
Feet up on your desk and chair back reclined to prone might be bad for your boss' blood pressure though.
Re: (Score:2)
So we shouldn't sit, and we shouldn't stand. Perhaps there is a lying desk?
The four metres from my bed to my desk is the only commute I have.
Technical background. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is some background info on the subject for those interested.
Once again, and "as always" lately, the study being reported is valid and meaningful (about a relatively minor issue), but the reporting is sensationalistic.
Personally, I "can't stand" standing desks. My son won't do any desk work without standing at one. It's personal preferences, so do what makes you happy and productive. The "health risks" are generally minor, and they are 100% entirely preventable with the simple measure of wearing compression stockings.
But, by way of technical background, here is the medical stuff:
The heart pumps blood through arteries to peripheral tissues, gas and fluids exchange in the capillaries, and spent blood returns through the veins, to the chest where it is "refurbished" then recirculated. The biomechanics and the potential diseases and disabilities that can occur are night and day different between arteries and veins. When the article says "circulatory disease" and "circulatory health", it is lumping it all together in a way that may play to laymen reporting, but is not technically meaningful.
When the arteries get diseased, such as the main degenerative disease of atherosclerosis ("hardening of the arteries"), life-sustaining arterial circulation is diminished, which can lead to (1) exercise induced angina (muscular pain and weakness when blood supply is insufficient for metabolic demands), and infarcts (dead !) if there is sudden complete occlusion due to blood clots forming on the atheromas, such as stroke and heart attack. Non-degenerative diseases of blood hypercoagulability and of autoimmune vasculitis cause similar risks for people in any age group. When these same degenerative or pathological processes affect the root of the circulation, the heart, the risks and misery are compounded. Also, the heart and major arteries operate under high pressure (the range between systolic and diastolic, integrated as the "map", mean arterial pressure) which if too high leads to pressure and shear stresses in the arteries which is a major contribution to the pathogenesis of these diseases (along with other risk factors such as smoking, diabetes, hyperlipidemias). These serious life-and-limb threatening disorders are hallmarks of arterial disease, and this is what is implied when talking about "cardiovascular disease".
In contrast, the veins are not subject to these diseases. They operate at low pressures. Vascular pressures must always be judged relative to ambient atmospheric pressure. A systolic pressure 120 torr in the aorta means 120 mm Hg over atmospheric. In the complementary vein, the vena cava, pressures are 5 torr. This is reflected in the mural thickness, thick walled arteries versus thin walled veins. According to LaPlace's Law, mural tension, cylinder radius, and luminal pressure are related by T = Pr, so venous pressures being lower have lower mural tension. Vascular thickness is controlled by tensile stresses on the tissues, so arteries adapt by getting thicker, but arteries and veins and all vessels in between have the same mural stress by adjusting the numbers of layers of cells. But with low pressures, mural stresses that lead to tissue injury, inflammation, and atherosclerosis are absent in the veins.
The veins have a different issue. We, humans, stand upright. Blood that has circulated to the lower extremities must then move uphill against gravity to return to the heart. Negative pressures in the right atrium, "suction" during diastole, are insufficient to counteract the hydrostatic pressure of the 1-2 meter column of blood in the veins while we are standing. The effect is that blood in the feet and legs will start to accumulate and engorge the veins and increase pressure - unless there is an accessory mechanism to keep venous blood moving uphill against gravity back to the heart. That happens in two ways. First are the venous valves. In the veins, there are two-leaf "bicuspid" valves every few centimeters that direct flow back to the heart, preventing reflux or backwash. Second is the muscular pump of the legs. Normal walking causes contraction of the leg muscles, and because the leg veins pass through groups of muscles, this action squeezes the veins, expelling blood from them which, because of the valves, goes in one direction only, back to the heart. Nature is brilliant. But, this mechanism can go wrong in various ways, and that is how veins get disordered.
"Venous stasis" refers to conditions of altered, static, stagnant, reversed, incompetent flow in the veins, either because the valves are destroyed (venous incompetence) or there has been enough damage to veins to diminish their aggregate cross sectional area and outflow thereby raising venous pressures (venous insufficiency). Regardless the various causes that lead to this, the common pathway is an interplay of higher pressures than veins are engineered to withstand, micro sometimes macro blood clots, and inflammation, all of which amplify and trigger each other, resulting in scarring, stiffness, and flow restrictions which beget more clots,inflammation, and pathological alterations. High venous pressures also cause edema as hydrostatic pressures cause fluid to leak through the vessels into the tissues. At minimum, this can cause unsightly or achy varicose vein or persistent swelling that interferes with shoes and clothing. But for some people, it eventuates in a state of chronic venous hypertension, high pressure in the veins, which causes not just persistent severe edema but also a state of chronic panniculitis (inflammation of the soft tissues) including problematic chronic skin ulcers. Blood stasis causes blood to clot, and recurring micro-thrombosis aggravates the inflammation. In this state of "chronic venous disease", large veins are already obliterated, so there it is rare to have large clots that might embolize, so patients are miserable but safe from sudden death. On the other hand, for those who do not have chronic venous disease, but who have conditions of prolonged stasis, such as sitting too long at a desk or on an airplane, they can get vein clots from low flow (from the prolonged leg-dependent posture without the muscular punmps being active), clots which can dislodee, flow back to the heart, and from there to the lungs, causing sudden circulatory arrest and death.
Venous disease and arterial diseases are profoundly different. Arterial diseases cause infarcts, meaning blindness, kidney failure, amputations, etc., or outright death. Acute venous thrombosis can also cause death from embolization, but it is an acute biomechnical condition, not a disease. Chronic venous diseases never cause death, but they can cause enough misery in your life to make you wish you were dead. Either way, venous problems relate to stasis - venous stasis and postural stasis (non-moving subject with legs down) leading to venous clots, edema, and the secondary events that eventuate in the pathology just described.
Soldiers standing at attention for prolonged periods famously can pass out from impaired venous return as blood accumulates in the legs due to lack of the muscular pump. But, they rarely get clots, and that per se does not cause chronic venous disease. People sitting cramped in a car or airplane with knees bent (crimping the popliteal vein and causing venous outflow obstruction) can get clots, as is commonly publicized in the media. These are real events even though not common. But, people standing at a desk have a different situation. They are not constrained by protocol (soldiers) or space (air passengers), so they move and wiggle and fidget, and the muscles work, and the risks are minimized.
The study at hand reveals that if subjects remain standing "too long", over two hours, then the stasis risks increase, including acute dvt (deep venous thrombosis) and eventual varicose veins. This is both surprising and not surprising. That prolonged standing might cause some edema and risk of varicose veins is basic knowledge. But, the paper concluded an 11% increase in risk for every half hour beyind two hours, including venous thrombosis. This is not surprising in that it is basic pathophysiology of venous diseases, but the numbers are higher than most anyone would have guessed - that is the surprising part.
So, this is interesting, relevant, even important. Standing more than two hours has a risk. But, we already know this. From soldiers. From surgeons and nurses who stand at operating tables for many hours with minimum movement. Same for certain factory and line workers. Now, we can add standing desks to the list of at-risk scenarios. But, keep in mind, that this is a venous problem, not arterial disease, with entirely different implications, despite how the lay reporting conflates the issues.
And, this problem is entirely preventable by - (1) take periodic breaks to walk around, (2) take periodic breaks to get off you feet and elevate your legs (which allows accumulated blood to flow back to the heart and reduce any incipient edema), (3) wear compression stockings which compress the veins and thereby counteract venous engorgement, 100% totally and reliably preventing any of these problems. Compression stockings are readily available at any general store, retailer, pharmacy, and there is a whole industry devoted to custom fitting them. Use them, periodically walk around, and your standing desk is safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a health and safety concern of the workplace, primarily. One would hope HR departments are well versed and provide the listed remedies for their employees.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you want them to grab a whip and chase standing workers around to get the blood moving?
Re: (Score:2)
Best comment here.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just step away from the desk and walk around every once in a while, which has been shown to reduce fatigue and improve productivity [npr.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In case of varicose veins, calories play only a minimal role if at all. The issue is that blood needs to go up against a gravity well from feet to heart. And if you don't move your legs, there's no pumping action and blood starts to pool at the bottom, eventually expanding the veins there.
And while gravity does interact with fat in a negative way just as it does with blood, it doesn't mean that being fat is the same problem as standing still for too long at a time as a matter of routine.
This is why a lot of
Re: (Score:3)
I think an early beta of ChatGPT could have done a better job of summarising what was said than you just did. Based on your summary I can only conclude you did not read a single word of what was written.
Obvious conclusion is obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's disingenuous to believe that "caveman" humans ever stood up for significant amounts of time.
Walking? Absolutely. Running? In short bursts, yes. But standing? No.
Just look at any tribe, primitive culture, cultural reference, camping trip, or historical dwelling.
When they are prepping food, they're sitting on the ground.
When they're stoking fires, they're sitting on the ground. When they're making pottery, they're sitting on the ground. When they're doing anything at all, they're sitting o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we weren't evolved to sit, then we wouldn't be able to sit, that's my hypothesis.
Your hypothesis is silly since we were evolved to be hunter/gathers and our rate of development to a sit-down society is orders of magnitude faster than any evolutionary process could adapt to.
We were not evolved to sit all day. In fact we were not evolved to stand all day either. Your joint pain isn't a reflection of evolution of mankind, it's a reflection of your personal individual health. There are billions of people out there literally on their feet all day without joint pain.
By the way I'm with you. I
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and by the way our own development of technology is not the same thing as our physiological evolution; we've short-circuited much of that ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno about anyone else around here, but this 'standing desk' stuff never made any sense to me whatsoever, and in fact I quit a job I had in part because they expected me to be on my feet all the time, which was murder on my back and joints, especially knees. If we weren't evolved to sit, then we wouldn't be able to sit, that's my hypothesis. By all means, do get up and move around as many times a day at work as you feel is necessary, though.
I doubt they so-called health benefits are there... but the thing that has really turned me off a standing desk is everyone I've met who has one is an absolutely massive wanker and I don't want to be like that.
A vegan, a Mac user and someone who uses a standing desk walk into a bar... Which one speaks first.
Re: (Score:2)
A vegan, a Mac user and someone who uses a standing desk walk into a bar... Which one speaks first.
The bartender
Re: (Score:2)
Standing desks never made sense to me either. Since standing all day is a problem, and sitting all day is a problem, it seems the best solution is to sit to do your work and then go walk a mile every couple hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Stand-up ovation for this study... (Score:3)
This was known from the beginning (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been known for a long time. Google sucks now so I can't find the article, but an interview with one of the people who did the landmark study that found sitting all day was bad for you compared to people who were not seated all day basically said the wrong message was taken from the study. He even pointed out that the people in the study who were standing had more active roles in their organisation and moved around more.
It was never about sitting / standing. It was about sedentary vs non-sedentary. The author of the original study heavily criticised taking immobile sitting people and turning them into immobile standing people. He even suggested if you're in a position that limits you to the option of sitting or standing that you should switch it up every hour or so.
MOVE PEOPLE MOVE. That was the whole point of not sitting.
Just change up every once in a while. (Score:3)
Standing or Standing Still? (Score:2)
I'm curious if standing in general is the problem, or standing mostly still? I find when I'm seated, I don't move a whole lot, but when I'm standing I'm taking small steps, swaying to the music and just generally moving a lot more than when I'm sitting.
No way out (Score:2)
Next "they'll" be telling us that we all need to be on treadmills. Until they decide that something else is the healthy way to spend your time.
Re: (Score:2)
Treadmills? No no.. they'll kill you if you fall off. Peloton bikes is the answer... Obviously... oh... wait... bad for the testicles...
Excuse me while I brew another pot of coffee
Re: (Score:2)
Coffee is bad for you too... no! Wait!... It's good for you again. I'm so glad it's good for you again, because... yeah. Treadmills? No no.. they'll kill you if you fall off. Peloton bikes is the answer... Obviously... oh... wait... bad for the testicles... Excuse me while I brew another pot of coffee :-)
Yup - everything is going to kill us, so we should at least pick something fun!
Patent WAY pending. (Score:2)
Could have told them that (Score:2)
Heart disease is caused by diet, not posture. And standing in one spot isn't exactly exercise.
Having said that I do use a standing desk for 3-4 hours a day and it seems to help with neck and shoulder and arm strain if nothing else.
One thing "standing only" is good for us keeping (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also assume there's ramp up time before that rule can be followed consistently in meetings. But I have to admit the meeting would look more fun.
But I'm not letting someone borrow MY phone to juggle.
Ask any hairdresser (Score:2)
They have known that for 100,000 years by now.
Standing always vs Sit/Stand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Golgafrincians (Score:2)
Re:not bad but not good either (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't good for your back and legs to stand constantly. The best thing to do is to change position regularly. Repetitive movements and static positions aren't good for the body.
Re:What about walking, etc? (Score:5, Informative)
No. You are meant to be moving. That way the blood doesn't pool up in your legs. The veins don't have muscles and need the contractions in the surrounding muscles to keep the blood moving.
Also people fainting from standing too long is a thing. It often happens in military formations during boring ceremonies.
Re: (Score:2)
It often happens in military formations during boring ceremonies.
Cutting back on the boring ceremonies would reduce fainting and improve reenlistment rates.
Re: (Score:2)
I can not dispute that assertion. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Also people fainting from standing too long is a thing. It often happens in military formations during boring ceremonies.
Speaking from experience, the only people who fell out of formations were the morons who locked their knees... which EVERY recruit is warned about prior.
Re: (Score:2)
The full paper does not have two groups. For each participant (80,000 of them) they have accelerometer data so they know how many hours/minutes they spend standing in a typical week. The graphs show the risk of disease occurrence as function of the time spent as continuous variable.