
Sitting down at work is no worse for you than standing up, study claims - kawera
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/13/sitting-down-at-work-is-no-worse-for-you-than-standing-up-study-claims
======
Arnt
Much of the reporting says (I summarise) "sit-stand work stations aren't
worthwhile" but that's not what the original study says. It says any
stationary low-energy position is likely bad because it's stationary and low-
energy. But the key difference between a sit-stand station and a chaired (or
fixed standing) is that one isn't in one stationary position all the time.
Rather, the position varies throughout the day.

<digression> And in my case, I notice that when I stand I walk over to the
window and curse bugs a lot more often than when I sit. Is that just me? It's
not exercise, just two steps each way. Or does the lack of a chair reduce the
initial friction moving two steps for many people? </digression>

The original study is at
[http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/09/ije.d...](http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/10/09/ije.dyv191.full)

~~~
aaron695
> but that's not what the original study says

If you look at the press release, people from the study do say that.

[http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_476860_en.ht...](http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_476860_en.html)

The study does agree with this, people who sit less die at the same rates in
the study. So one assumes they are standing-ish when not sitting and hence
standing more won't help you since it didn't help them.

They included some confounding factors like the fact participants where white
collar. But the reality is, so are most of HN.

Would really like a reason to dismiss the study but yet to find one other than
it conflicts with others and I don't like it's result.

~~~
Arnt
I'm not dismissing the study. Seems like good work to me. It leaves a
fascinating question unanswered, but that's always the case. My complaint is
about some of the reporting.

The press release says in part "Our study overturns current thinking on the
health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of
movement" etc. But the Guardian then writes that the study "casts doubt on the
value of sit-stand work stations", which is another thing entirely. That's
something the Guardian could write if the study looked at whether spending the
day in one position or varying makes a difference.

Sit-stand desk reduce the maximum length of time you're encouraged to stay in
one stationary position. That may be helpful to your health, or not, but the
study doesn't look at that dimension.

(Also, FWIW, I personally don't have a sit/stand desk because of health
concerns. I just like them. Maybe I won't die a little earlier or later
because of my desk and its motor, but I do have a more pleasant working day.)

~~~
Arnt
Perhaps that answer missed.

Consider three groups: 1: People who spend all day in one office, sitting down
writing code or doing something like that. 2: People who spend all day in one
office writing code, but with sit/stand desks. 3: People who have so many
meetings that they move as often/much as group 2.

The statistics in the study don't justify talking about the difference between
the first two groups, because the last two groups look the same.

(I'm still not complaining about the study.)

