
Review of Studies About Standing Desks - JohnHammersley
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3045217/evidence/everything-science-knows-right-now-about-standing-desks
======
carsongross
OT, but this image from the article:

[http://b.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imageca...](http://b.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/inline-
large/inline/2015/04/3045217-inline-i-1b-everything-science-knows-right-now-
about-active-desks-copy.jpg)

looks like hell made real on earth. Only thing missing are the demons forcing
workers trying to escape back into the pit of anxiety.

------
bsder
I see no mention of the fact that lots of people who swore by treadmill desks
also started swearing at them after about 6-9 months.

The problem is that your head is supposed to move when you are walking. When
you are working at a computer, your head has a fixed point that you are trying
to make stable. This is simply untenable posture and causes all manner of
problems.

I wonder if that kind of problem holds for just standing, though.

~~~
k__
Probably solved after the 4k VR displays arrive.

You would look rather ridiculous walking on a treadmill with a keyboard,
wearing a Rift or something. But I think this could be the optimal setup.

~~~
luke_s
Sadly not - I've got eye problems from staring at a screen 8 hours a day. Now
I have to use an app which forces me to look out the window every 10 minutes
and focus on something at a different distance.

------
madaxe_again
"did lose weight, though they experienced no changes in body composition, such
as body mass index"

They got shorter from using standing desks? Only way you can lose weight but
not change your BMI...

~~~
tempestn
Taken literally, yes, but I'm guessing what it actually means is lost _fat_.
Assuming similar mass was added in muscle, BMI would remain the same. (BMI not
being a terribly useful metric...)

~~~
paulojreis
Actually, BMI _is_ a terribly useful metric (and it's unfortunate bashing,
nowadays, is an echo chamber phenomenon in fitness circles around the web).

The study this is referring to has a small- _ish_ _n_ (36), so, no big deal
here - it seems that they took body composition measurements (among many
others) without a significant overhead, they even built a lab within the
premises of the corporation they were doing the study in. And they got very
rich data with it (although the difference in body fat didn't reach
significance, others such as waist circumference did).

But imagine that they were doing a different study. Something like a cohort,
longitudinal and distributed: studying various corporations which use standing
desks during a long, long time (a decade?). This would imply many different
people collecting data in different context and different times (and,
effectively, bothering even more people). Building labs or ensuring similar
equipment across the different sites would be very expensive and laborious -
not to mention error-prone! Just imagine the overhead of getting body
composition indicators - even something simple as asking people to measure
their waist, but during a decade across N sites.

In this kind of large study, a seemingly simplistic but nonetheless
standardized (and, in a way, normalized) indicator such as BMI is an extremely
helpful tool. Imagine you want to do an analysis not by weight, but by by
"obesity" ranges, or check if "obesity" status changed: getting body
composition is nearly impossible, but using the BMI pre-established ranges
(lean, normal, overweight, obese) will actually be feasible (you just need
height and weight!). And yes, although a bodybuilder will be considered
overweight or obese by BMI, remember this is a study with a large enough _n_
\- edge cases will eventually average each other and BMI will hold true for
the sample. The BMI will be a cost effective (and feasible) solution to
analyse something more than weight changes.

~~~
JupiterMoon
In that case BMI gets misused a lot. The bashing comes because whilst it may
be useful on a large statistically significant population it is nearly useless
at an individual level. One can take two people of identical BMI and one can
be actually very fat and the other very slim.

~~~
douche
The fact that it takes into account just height and weight is problematic. No
consideration of bone structure or body frame.

At my absolutely lightest, when you could see every rib sticking out, my BMI
was still comfortably in the range considered overweight. If I were to live
through the Bataan death camps, I might get down to skin and bone enough to be
in the normal range.

~~~
paulojreis
> The fact that it takes into account just height and weight is problematic.
> No consideration of bone structure or body frame.

That's a bug, not a feature, if you allow me to grab the expression from
software. It's problematic as any other indicator has "problematic" features.

My point being: when you assess any indicator, you can't look only at it's
ability to correctly reflect reality (validity). You'll also have to consider
other stuff: is it cheap? can I trust people to use it correctly? can it be
used consistently? Taking into account only height and weight will diminish
validity, but give you positive answers to these three questions. It's a
trade-off (and, IMHO, one that's being bashed excessively, considering the
empirical evidence saying it's not that "invalid" at all).

Compare it with e.g. skinfold estimation of body composition: skinfold
estimation is more valid, yet science shows us that it requires a highly
trained specialist for it to be reliable (i.e. to do it consistently; and even
with professionals, there's not much consistency). This is also _problematic_
, but - again - it's a bug, not a feature.

> At my absolutely lightest, when you could see every rib sticking out, my BMI
> was still comfortably in the range considered overweight.

... and that's you being an outlier, or close. :) I'm one as well; also
overweight, by BMI standard. But I have to consider that my care with
nutrition and fitness should also be close to outlier in nature, regarding
population in general.

Knowing this, you and I (and our physicians) will take it into account. And -
if the need arises - use another metric. I do both skinfold estimation of body
composition and waist circumference measurement but rely mostly on the latter
for tracking progress (I'm not a professional and, of course, it's _me_
measuring _myself_ , so I choose the method where I might mess up less).

~~~
douche
I'm not so sure that I'm really an outlier, to be honest. I think the data
that the BMI calculations are based on is outdated. It's the same numbers you
see from New York Life actuarial tables from the 40s and 50s, when big chunks
of the population experienced malnutrition.

Quite honestly, I have no idea how someone could be 6'2" and only weigh 148
pounds, which is the bottom end of "normal" BMI, according to the NIH[1].

[1]
[http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmi_...](http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmi_tbl.htm)

~~~
paulojreis
Although the formula is (way!) older, the BMI was imported to public health in
the 70s and the categories were devised by the NIH in 1985, slightly revised
in 1998.

I also feel the example you gave is extremely low, but less so if you consider
the subject as a female, don't you think? It has a BMI of 19, which, on men, I
feel most physicians would frown upon. Bear in mind _national_ standards; I'm
from Portugal, the normal here might be thinner.

As a curiosity, in France and Spain fashion shows can't _use_ models with BMI
> 18\. Your example minus 8 lb wouldn't even be allowed in fashion shows,
where people are _expected_ to be ungodly underweight. As such, I think a
physician would also interpret this as dangerously low value. Also, it seems
to me that this is a great example of how BMI can be very useful! Waist
circumference, percent of body fat or other body composition indicators would
actually be worse to indicate a underweight person in this case..

------
imakesnowflakes
I have been doing this for about a week. I don't actually have a standing desk
though. I just put the 24 inch display and my small mechanical keyboard on top
of my tower cabinet (Which is already on a table). This set up places the
display at my eye level and the keyboard at just below chest level. So I don't
actually have a place support my hands, and I just go 'hands down' after
typing something. And typing on the keyboard at a little below chest level
feels really great. Because you don't have to bend your wrists up, while
typing, as you would need to, if the keyboard was a bit lower (as shown in the
pictures in this post).

It actually feels great. (I have a chair on stand by though). The biggest
advantage I can see is that, it is easy to take a break and move around, when
you are already standing.

------
partomniscient
I wonder how one compensates for the Hawthorne effect?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect)

------
lloyd-christmas
I'd be curious about studies on something like programming. Many of these talk
about cognitive function and typing ability, but they don't mention the actual
tasks being done (that I can find). With all due respect to everyone else,
programming is a different beast altogether. I worked in finance at a computer
all day, and my requisite attention level for that job was significantly
different than when I switched to programming full-time.

~~~
doppelganger27
I would bet that the studies focused on cognitive function and typing ability
because they're objectively measurable, and much more repeatable than, say,
measuring the significance or difficulty of the tasks.

------
sixQuarks
look at the pictures of people using laptops with standup desks. Their head is
pointed down, that is terrible for ergonomics.

Proper standup desks should have a different height for the keyboard and the
monitor.

~~~
nabla9
Hanging 3 kg weight with neck muscles all day kills the neck.

I made interesting observation in the work few months ago.

All tall people (> 1.8 m) tend to use monitors and keyboards every time they
have opportunity. Smaller people are more comfortable using laptops in the
office. Tall people have to bend their head downwards more and they have to
give up terrible ergonomic position first.

~~~
k__
Yes, I'm tall and I can confirm this.

I try to get the center of my displays at the height of my eyes.

But I have a convertible notebook, so I will probably buy a keyboard and use
it in "tent-mode" in the future.

------
pluma
> In one year-long intervention that included lean, overweight, and obese
> workers, the 36 total participants lost an average of 3 to 7 pounds.

Now, that's a useless statement if I've ever seen one. The arithmetic mean is
pretty much meaningless if the group varies that much.

------
tempestn
Cool, nice to see. I've been wanting to convert my current sit/stand desk [1]
to a treadmill setup for a while, but I'd like to work out a way to maintain
the ability to relatively easily switch back to seated mode. Still need to
think on that a bit.

[1] [http://www.tempestblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/201508...](http://www.tempestblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/20150817_201303.jpg)

