Are Standing Desks Actually Bad For Your Health? 66
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."
not bad but not good either (Score:1)
"Standing was not found to reduce the risk of heart conditions such as stroke, heart failure and coronary heart disease, the researchers said."
Re: (Score:2)
Golgafrincians (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: Lots of jobs make people stand for long period (Score:1)
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: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: (Score:3)
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.
Re:What about walking, etc? (Score:4, 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.
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:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
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: Makes sense (Score:2)
I definitely use the up and down buttons to change positions. We need another study!
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:2)
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:2)
"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:2, Funny)
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:2)
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
Calling bullshit on "more than two hours a day" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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:1)
It sounds like you're making the same non-sequitur argument folks make when they say "eating paleo must be the best diet for us b
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.
Data Mining (Score:1)
This is an association between the group of people who stand for more than 2 hours and the group that doesn't. Those are not random groups and its not at all unlikely that there are other reasons for the differences between the two groups. Including that the group with 2 hours more standing includes a lot of people who are on their feet all day or have jobs that expose them to hazards or are poor and don't get good medical attention or eat worse diets or ....
This isn't really science, its mining datasets
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.
What is one to do? (Score:4, 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:1)
This is exactly what will eventually be discovered, probably some decades from now. It will turn out that being in a reclined position with your feet elevated past a certain level is actually the least damaging position for long-term stationary tasks... as anyone with powers of basic observation could have already told you decades ago.
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:1)
Perhaps there is a lying desk?
There are, but those are reserved for politicians offices.
*ba dum tiss*
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,
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:1)
Here, let me sum up. Standing desks have fuck-all to do with it.
Its more the 3000+ calories of crap we call “food” shoved in a pie hole that struggles to stand firmly against gravity, physics, doctors advice, and common sense.
A healthy human, can stand all doing a job. As plenty do. Without issue.
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:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Best comment here.
Obvious conclusion is obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Stand-up ovation for this study... (Score:3)
This was known from the beginning (Score:2)
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.
Just change up every once in a while. (Score:2)