Keep in mind that physical exercise and mental concentration both deplete a common resource pool of glucose in the brain. There are robust, well replicated experiments that show it's significantly harder to perform any mental task while exercising. Daniel Kahneman has a great everyday demonstration of this: While walking with a friend, ask her to multiply two two-digit numbers and see if she slows down. (You can also try it on yourself while jogging at the upper limit of your ability -- it's very noticeable.) Check out the experiments of Roy F. Baumeister for more info.
This isn't to say walking desks are necessarily a bad idea. It's possible that, at low walking speeds, the health benefits of exercise outweigh the impairment of your concentration.
I have to wonder if training and repetition might make a difference there; for instance, after a week of doing computations while walking, can your friend now multiply faster? The mind is an efficient adapter. It would also be interesting to discover what qualifies as exercise in those studies, and if the benefits of increased circulation and possibly a clearer airway based on improved posture, which presumably also increase brain function, could offset the glucose depletion.
I'm curious if there has been any research into walking slowly on a treadmill, though. The upper level of your ability to job is far more demanding physically. And it's also a bit demanding mentally as your body is busy mapping a route, looking out for stones or cracks you might trip on, etc. Walking slowly on a treadmill with your desk in front of you could yield a very different result.
But maybe it's better in terms of posture for your body, over all? You may burn the same number of calories, but you're up straight, and your joints and muscles are doing something. I'm sure that must be beneficial on its own
It's not how much energy is burned in your muscles, it's how much energy is burned in your brain. Walking at any speed requires more mental processing than you'd expect, just to make sure you don't trip on your own feet. E.g., here's a study showing that even very slow walking (1.77km/hr) prevents you from typing quickly on a cell phone: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1085798
I'm not questioning the 'exercise makes it harder to do some tasks', as your example shows, this is pretty much a given.
But it's not so much about calories, it's about brain workload, walking requires a mental effort that subtracts from whatever else you're doing at the same time. More glucose won't help.
And if typing is difficult, what to say of activities requiring fine motor control, like drawing. They're almost impossible!
Not to mention the insulin/glucagon system controls blood sugar very precisely, you'll rarely have a lack of glucose in the sugar unless you really exercised a lot
> E.g., here's a study showing that even very slow walking (1.77km/hr) prevents you from typing quickly on a cell phone
Isn't that because you're looking at a screen and can't see where you're going? :p
I would count that as a definite factor (not having read the study), but, I can imagine that even without the screen, people walk slower when typing, as concentrating on the words is distracting a faster walk.
"I lost 3 lbs and a percent of body fat in a week"
I always wonder when I see this - are other people's weights that stable? I can lose (or gain) 5-10 lb in a week without doing anything different, other than weighing myself at different times of the day, drinking more or less water, various other things.
I'm skinny, and other than the weight of the food I eat / defecate, my weight will not fluctuate at all. I can eat whatever I want, however much I want, and not gain weight. I was able to gain 5 or so pounds, but only after I ate whey everyday and did a lot of lifting.
I might be able to gain if I tried some ridiculous whey / protein diet and workout regimen, but I don't care that much. However, for the past 5 years, my weight and waist/hip size has not fluctuated at all, regardless of what I eat or excercise. Though I'm sure age will relieve me of this gift.
Let me guess, you're in or around your mid-twenties now? Don't be surprised to find yourself waking up one day only to notice that your metabolic rate has dropped to zero.
Some of us are luckier. I'm in my mid 30's and while I've added a little belly fat and an inch to my waist nothing else has really changed. If I can stick to an exercise routine (I'm really bad at this) it all disappears very quickly.
> I can eat whatever I want, however much I want, and not gain weight.
According to my subjective observations, people who claim to have this mystical property are very hyperactive or very good at (involuntarily) skipping meals.
Ok, IIRC the maximum amount of fat you can lose in a week is around 2lb (or 1kg)
You can absolutely lose more than that, if you restrict your calories or doesn't reach macronutrient requirements you may lose lean mass.
Of course you can clock more than 2lb easily (on a first week):
- You lose muscular glycogen because of a caloric deficit - this means you also lose water
- If you weighted yourself while 'heavier' because of digestive system/bladder contents and then weighted yourself at the end of the week while relieved.
I am also skeptical of the values his armband gives for caloric expenditure.
2lb isn't the maximum fat you can lose in a week; it's the maximum fat you can lose safely in a week without engendering muscle loss (at non-obese weights). If you are obese or morbidly obese, you can lose significantly more than 2lb/week safely (indeed, the Biggest Loser is basically just a televised fat camp showing how this works in practice).
I have the same Withings scale that he mentioned in the article. I can swing a full 5 percentage points a day on my body fat reading depending on how hydrated I am.
Walking desks are inefficient and overkill for the ergonomic concerns of desk work.
The practical solution is to have a properly adjusted [1] workstation and get up to walk around for ~5 minutes every hour. On a treadmill, you will lose more than 5 minutes due to inefficiency anyway. And the 5 minute break you take can be used productively (meet with a co-worker, make a phone call).
Having a standing desk in addition to a sitting desk and switching between them throughout the day can also be very beneficial.
The key is movement: there is no active blood flow to your spinal discs, they need movement or microtrauma will accumulate. There are also no nerve endings in your discs, so you don't feel anything until there is already serious damage.
>The key is movement: there is no active blood flow to your spinal disks, they need movement or microtrauma will accumulate. There are also no nerve endings in your discs, so you don't feel anything until there is already serious damage.
That's why a walking desk is preferable. I can walk at a slow pace for hours but standing in one place becomes tiresome after 15 minutes.
While I like the idea behind walking desks, this article does not do a great job explaining exactly "why every office should switch to walking desks".
He spends a lot of time discussing calories burned and weight loss, but that's really not the primary motivator for getting a walking desk. If your goal is simply weight loss, you're probably better off going to the gym and doing higher intensity exercise several times a week.
The point of a walking desk is that sitting in an office chair for extended periods of time negatively affects your health even if you exercise regularly, i.e. one hour in the gym isn't sufficient to offset the eight hours you spend sedentary. So by walking (albeit at a slow pace), you're reducing the time spent being sedentary.
I personally think that walking desks are a bit impractical and rather extreme. However I did install a standing desk in my office which has made a noticeable difference in my (working) life. I don't use the desktop there as my primary machine - I still have my regular sit down desk in another corner of the room. But I like being able to get up and walk around every now and then without interrupting my workflow.
Thing is, it's cloud technology (Dropbox, gmail, etc.) that makes it all possible. I get exactly the same picture of my work from pretty much any machine conngected to the Internet. That, and wifi. And cheap second computers...
In a similar vein, I'm trying to figure out why tech types keep thinking that their experiences are comparable to everyone else's.
Hint: not every office desk job just involves sitting and typing on a computer all day. I'm sure some jobs (perhaps even many) might be suitable, but certainly not all desk jobs at "every" office.
An observation of a sample size of 1, is not a scientific basis for any greater population. He did not do a study, this is an anecdote. From his headshot he does not look like he was already out of shape. It is likely some people could not handle this, or are more likely to get injured.
It may be good for some, but clearly he should not be giving out medical advice based on his personal experience. Also, is it even healthy for his body type of loose so much in one week?
Wouldn't it be better if people just didn't sit behind the desk, got up for a while, took a mental break, and went to a gym? There are likely productivity side effects of trying to exercise, work, and type at the same time.
Exactly, the type of thinking behind that chart casts doubt and caused me to stop reading. Just getting to standing desks is a big leap for most cultures. And I say this as someone who had their treadputer setup featured on lifehacker 7 years ago.
He burned an extra ~eight hundred calories with his walking desk.
I'd rather exercise for an hour and burn that amount.
Still, I think we can all agree that burning more calories is good: but I'd rather my company emphasis physical fitness in more 'real' ways than simply giving you a walking desk.
Relying on the results of the first week and presenting them as some misleading charts, are not the best way to encourage people to buy these desks. It is obvious this is an advertising article. In next few months your body will consider this as a habit, adapt to the situation, hit a plateau, stop burning extra calories and you start gaining weight despite the fact you are walking everyday (The postman syndrome !!). unless you change the intensity of your exercise, which is not possible at all while you are working. I am sure there are plenty of researches on postman syndrome that you could include.
So why don't you just talk about the actual benefits for body, and skip the weight loss part?
Qouting from this page:
"I like relaxing runs, but if you do the same slog every day, you can suffer from what's sometimes called "postman's syndrome"—named for those who do the same walk every day and yet their bodies never change. Your muscles become so efficient at a movement over time that if you do it day after day and eat the same way, you never overtax your system and burn more calories to lose weight."
Basically it says postmen lose weight during the first months of their work, cause they started a new activity. But after a couple of months they start gaining weight as their body get used to walking everyday :)
I walk at a little over 4mph (never really lost the military 120 paces/minute cadence, but my stride is naturally longer than the regulation 30 inches), and I regularly catch and pass full-sized people who are dressed for a run and act as if they're jogging. I can't see the point of breathing harder and getting there later, let alone putting on special clothing to do so, but yes, for some people at least, 4mph is a light run.
It's kind of annoying to read comments like this if you run regularly. If you run intervals, you periodically take breaks where you jog very slowly. It's super awkward moving slowly, but sweating to death and breathing heavy from your last interval. Also, if you get started running long-distance (half or full marathon), 4-5mph seems to be a reasonable beginner pace. Not everyone is always doing speed work.
If it's any consolation, I'm not taking about intervals, I'm talking (mostly) about people who are fooling themselves utterly. There are more than a few folks out there who never get above a good walking clip (and every bit of clothing in the kit is always sparkling like new with conspicuously-displayed brands).
I have a walking desk in my home office.
I personally don't care about weight.
I do care about moving more. I notice that I can concentrate much longer. (I think it's because my blood has a better circulation.)
I don't know if it's a good thing for everyone, I know it helps me. I have installed it 24 december and today 3 March, I have already walked 750 Km. All of that while working.
This title is ridiculous, and walking desks are outclassed by simple standing desks. You don't need to be walking for 8 hours a day to get the type of results this guy claims to have gotten (by the way, bodyweight fluctuates 5-10lb in a day either way pretty easily). Doing a sprint style working for 20 minutes a day will give you great results and is short enough to fit into your day.
if you are going to be walking in front of your desk it seems foolish to use electricity to power both your computer and the "walking simulator" or treadmill. Why not just have an non-powered treadmill that is capable of generating electricity for the rest of the workstation with the energy you expend?
This isn't to say walking desks are necessarily a bad idea. It's possible that, at low walking speeds, the health benefits of exercise outweigh the impairment of your concentration.