Having gotten used to them at the office, I got one for my home because I could no longer bear having to sit all the time. It cost around $500, a beautiful desk with customized bezel and finish. There are many suppliers, I used this one: http://www.conset.dk
(My desk: http://imgur.com/A1eS2)
Get a tall drafting table, and a nice bar stool. Then you can get up or sit down to your hearts content all day. No waiting.
Ergo: feet flat on floor or a box, knee and elbow joints at 90 degrees back straight. Less clear-cut if back support helps (given sitting on a medicine ball due to the wriggling can be good, I don't know the best outcome)
It's Victorian-level counterweight technology, and it's absolutely brilliant.
It does seem ridiculously expensive for a motor to drive the desktop up and down. But I'm trying to fix a shoulder injury that seems to have gone chronic. We shall see...
I also put my monitors on an Ergotron dual monitor arm (http://www.ergotron.com/tabid/65/PRDID/355/default.aspx) so I can adjust the height of the monitors for sitting vs standing.
Overall I'm quite happy with the setup.
As far as power goes, my desk has a hidden power strip on the underside. It powers the lift feature for both legs (so there's only 1 wall plug), but you can also plug in your monitors so you don't need to have 10' cords on all your equipment. They also sell a power strip that can mount to the top of the desk, so again you don't need very long cords for all your peripherals (phones, chargers, etc).
For network cables you'll still need a cord long enough to travel to the standing height.
The big issue that I've seen is cost. If you buy something pre-built or motorized/adjustable over here, it's going to be a bit more expensive. I opted to take the do-it-yourself route for my home office, which is what a lot of my colleagues did as well.
Here's what mine looked like the day I installed it: http://i.imgur.com/TiYJrZi.jpg
Came in at about $75 bucks, including the stain/varnish/mounting brackets/boards/etc.
Lowes and Home Depot sell wood specifically for stairs that have a rounded edge (so you don't kill your feet/shins). The desktop is just two of these butted up against each others' flat side, screwed down into the bracket below. Each board was about $10. The computer shelf below is made out of a single stair board. A set of super basic $8 wall mounts will hold all of this up without an issue.
The whole thing is rock solid, attractive, durable, and if I took more time to do some cable routing, it'd look really "floaty" and free-standing.
His example is still esoteric as you didn't show us a motorized adjustable sitting/standing desk either.
The "generalizations" would be sitting desks, and an emerging interest in standing desks. A motorized adjustable desk, in America, remains esoteric.
That's because it is. In most offices, you have 1, maybe 2 people who use a standing desk. They're easy to spot because they stick out like a sore thumb. Those desks are almost always hand made too, because employers won't spend money on non-standard desks. Depending on how big the company is, you also may piss off the "workplace ergonomics expert" if you don't consult them before building your own desk.
I'm not defending cubespace at all, but this is what we have to work with.
YMMV, but the cubes were sort of an enabler in getting me started (since the investment was $0 and about 20 minutes of work adjusting things).
The thing I've struggled with a little is reminding myself not to slouch when using the stool. It may be worth buying one with a back, if you have the budget for it.
Also of note is the fact that this desk is only really comfortable for me since it's fixed and non-adjustable. That's not a big deal in this case since this is my office, though. I'm a shade over 5'4", so my desk wouldn't be much fun for anyone a few inches taller/shorter.
-5 for my observation skills today :) Thank you!
Probably best to leave out the garish tabletop and find your own, though.
As someone who weighs close to 300lbs, I can also tell you you won't find a good office chair rated for 300lbs for under $100. Go look at the specs on office chairs closely. Most of them will be rated for less than 250lbs with no more than a few hours/day of use.
If you want your own crappy top (planks? really?), the actual cost of a GeekDesk Max is $725-745. The non-max (275lbs lifting capacity) is $525-549. You want a vastly inferior product to save $225?
It's a 6.5' x 2.6' foot surface, it holds a lot more than a laptop.
Are you a programmer? Do you like it when a non-programmer tells you "just do X", because it must obviously be so simple?
Why, then, are you so sure that you can come up with a better design than mechanical engineers without even studying the problem?
It just feels like these ergonomic goods producing companies are selling chairs/tables with super high markups ($900-$1500) for ergo chairs - really?). Seems like you have a better handle on the production costs of a hight-adjustable table. How much does it really cost?
In the latter case, you would usually synchronize their controller clocks, and specify the motors/cylinders/whatever to both have a very tight positioning tolerance. Then you mount the surface being moved on a system of bearings that have enough freedom s.t. it will self center automatically, absorbing the tiny bit of misalignment that can (and WILL) occur.
However, in my experience it's almost always better to use two passive, i.e. non-lifting, supports along with one actuator in the middle that is twice as powerful. In heavy lift applications it often comes down to getting a single cylinder that is powerful enough without blowing the cost through the roof. Nevertheless, if you look at marine architecture, airport gangways, earth moving machinery etc. you will often see just a single lifting point.
And in three paragraphs we've gone from office chair pistons to front-end loaders! Yay HN! As I said... for what it's worth ;-)
Making shit is expensive unless you're doing it at scale, the majority of people don't care about adjustable desks so the marketshare is by nature a niche. You then have staffing costs, design costs, distribution costs.
Over 5 years, a $1000 desk is about $0.55/day. It's strange to me how many people think it's outrageous for such a critical tool to cost that much.
I suspect they're thinking about how a $100 desk is 1/10 that price, whether it's amortized over 5 years or not.
This is difficult to believe, given that new cheap office/task chairs start at that price. Do you have a link?
They probably wouldn't make a good drop-in replacement for office chairs since they aren't on wheels. On the other hand, footrests are nice...
To be clear, the IKEA table is probably made of a composite wood, not a proper slab of wood, but I agree with your point. Material cost should not dominate the price of a desk.
To be honest though, I think the value of a motorized desk is being overblown. I have just put my desk up on 4 stacks of office paper in the past; worked great. Everyone needs new expensive toys though...
That's what you say to suckers with your arm around their shoulders. I hope you don't mention that philosophy before you get the quote, because people are willing to sell you shit at any price.
I invite you to try to just break even selling adjustable 100kg steel desks to end-users at $150 each.
And no, ergonomic suicide is not an alternative to a proper desk with external monitor, keyboard, and mouse.
It isn't automatic (has a hand crank), but it works great!
I don't run it up and down all day, and taking a minute to crank the handle (which is removable) when I want to change positions, is not onerous.
Here is a picture of the handle: http://cl.ly/image/1e2k0a1Q2u38
I don't see why you couldn't leave the handle off (you insert the large allen wrench thing into the handle as part of assembly) and use a large-capacity bit grip, and a drill.
Might be a bit unwieldy though.
Somewhat expensive, but costs less than a geekdesk/etc.
I started really getting back/shoulder/arm pains a few years back, so I started standing up all day. In the beginning it was really hard, but after about one month you sorta get used to it and develop the necessary muscles.
Another thing I can recommend is getting one of the good standing mats. Best one I've found is this one:
They are comfortable standing on, and they make you change positition even more and excersize more different muscles in legs and knees.
It surprises me that guys will easily drop a thousand dollars every six to eight months on the latest phone, yet cheap out on their workspace. In fact I would be hard pressed to think of anything more worthy of my money than my desk and chair that I spend most of my day using.
Another thing is that most standing desks, including the one in the OP, seem to have a very small work area, which would be unacceptable to me (I like to draw stuff on paper).
I don't know if I could manage standing for long hours, but I imagine a nice stool, combined with adjusting into sitting for a few hours a day would do wonders.
However, the desks I use at both work and home run around $100-$130, it's hard to imagine spending $500+ on a desk with a bit more material and a simple up-down motor or manually adjusted height latches (or whatever).
In the meanwhile I'm working at a mix from home from my kitchen, my couch and a local coffee shop (with a nice easy walk to and fro) that seems to be helping.
Edit (reading through comments); I don't stand still; I walk in place.
No company I've worked in within the U.S. has had a standing desk or even an adjustable-height desk that I can remember. It's a rare sighting for most.
In the U.S. cubicles are the norm, and their desk height isn't usually adjustable.
As for ergonomics, in the past few years I was working for a large institution owned by an even larger company that was all well-funded, and even their ergonomic team (yes, they had one) was completely inadequate. When I asked if they would assist me with recommendations for simple monitor and macbook stands, they stuttered and then suggested outlandishly expensive equipment ($3000 USD) just for a monitor stand! That would never be paid for as part of our team budget. So, when I told them this, they just said, "Then try Amazon." They never came by to measure me or ask me any relevant questions to help. It was a total farce. I ended up using books to lift my monitor and laptop to the correct position.
So basically, yes it seems esoteric here and products are pushed that are too damn expensive. I'm glad that you and your crew have nice desks. Thanks for the link and pic.
I've been using a standing desk for a little over a year now and have many of the same observations as the OP. I also like to alternate between sitting and standing throughout the day to mix it up. I'm never going back. But, when you first switch, you are probably putting a lot of stress on muscles that have atrophied from sitting so much. If you switch patterns too abruptly, you're likely to end up with a muscle strain or back problems, or will start leaning on your desk, which can cause problems with wrist injuries/carpel tunnel.
I'm at an advanced level strength wise for overhead press, squats and bench press, and need a lot of core strength to handle my lifts, yet standing for a long time is still brutal because of my posture and lacking strength in various smaller muscles, as well as lack of flexibility in certain muscles.
It's getting better quickly (I don't use a standing desk, but I do specific work to improve my posture), but even for people who think they've got a steel core after exercise might get nasty surprises if they try to stand all day.
I started standing a lot for reasons outside of work a few months ago. After two weeks of standing more than sitting I developed something called meralgia paresthetica, which at best is neverending thigh numbness (fun for my cat who can claw my bare thighs without me feeling any of it) and at worst insane, awful pain that wakes me up in the middle of the night even with painkillers. It has multiple causes (standing, in my case) but I've had to try to lose more weight (I'm overweight) and buy a new wardrobe (avoiding tight clothing) to make sure those also-known-causes don't make the pain worse. The best case for me is if this eventually clears up on its own soon, the worst case is surgery with no guarantee of going back to what things used to be. None of the conservative measures really work right now, with the exception of the MMJ I started to use because it's the only reliable thing that will dull the pain at small amounts and just not make me think about any of the pain when I'm high as a kite.
On the bright side I can stand for hours on end without having a problem. But I would trade that to never have this problem again in a heartbeat.
If you start noticing _any_ problems, you really need to go to a doctor immediately and stop what you're doing. Take it easy in the beginning. Hopefully you'll have more luck than me. :)
Buy a stool so you can prop up while you're switching! Alternate frequently even after that like aliston says. I switched without a chair and it was a very uncomfortable/unproductive first week. In hindsight, that was a pretty stupid thing to do, just don't make the same mistake.
I want to get a motorized desk and switch between sitting and standing once an hour or so - something like that seems like the optimal solution.
It certainly can't be taken as a given, though, that if long sedentary periods are harmful, long periods of standing still are significantly better.
Before I started standing, I'd go out for lunch and come back around 1:00 or so. About 30 minutes to an hour later, I'd be fighting off hibernation. My post-eating-sleep-reflex thing was just absolutely overpowering. Even now, having to sit down for a meeting around that time of day has me close to nodding off.
When I stood, this was completely eliminated. I'm not a doctor, so I couldn't tell you why, but I am a lot more consistently alert/energetic while standing. This has been the big win for me over everything else.
For me, that's actually the critical difference.
I'll dispense with the full Bayesian treatment here, but what we have here is a case of the base rate fallacy (although not the form that is usually discussed): failing to account for the prior probability of the evidence. That is, we have some evidence, which is that the anecdotes we see are largely in favor of standing desks being helpful, and we need to account for how likely that evidence is regardless of whether standing desks are helpful.
Unfortunately, as our friends with the magnetic bracelets demonstrate, that probability turns out to be very high. If something works, we see overwhelmingly positive anecdotes. If it doesn't work, we see overwhelmingly positive anecdotes.
Why might this be? Well, for one thing, there is sensitivity to placebo effects, because have purely qualitative phenomena that are being reported only subjectively.
But even stronger is a selection bias that has to do with people's behavior in reporting and reading. Someone is unlikely to write about their experiences publicly who tries a standing desk for a while, finds no significant benefit, and goes back to a sitting desk. She won't find it interesting to talk about, and she may also be self-conscious that she didn't do it right, and would be inviting criticism. After all "I tried X and it didn't work" is, on some level, an admission of personal failure, and people aren't particularly prone to those. And if she does write it up, her write-up isn't likely to get all that much attention because "X didn't work for me" isn't a particularly interesting story.
But one who finds the standing desk to be a miracle cure for all of her problems is relatively likely to write about it, and people will take notice, because "making a simple lifestyle change improved my quality of life" is an attention getter.
For my part, my week with a standing desk just led to upper back pain (which is not unusual for me, but I am generally able to avoid).
Physically, this works out okay for mousing tasks, since those are one handed and offer a large degree of freedom. However, it just doesn't work for two handed tasks, like programming or writing, which anchor both of your arms, because your arms are critical for balance and, thus, movement.
I also found that this desperation to move around while standing affected me mentally. That is, when standing, I was fine doing short, low-attention tasks like responding to email or IM, since I coud move a little between each task. However, for longer tasks (again, like programming or writing) I found this to be maddening. I felt as if I was constantly being tugged and distracted by this urge to move.
"""In time, you will suffer from various types of pain and injuries at blood vessels.
Speak with a middle-aged barber with 30 years of "standing" experience, and ask him about his legs."""
I'm actually going to ask a few barbers. I'll tell you how it went once this kind of article pops up again (and it will).
Surgeons for example are not at significantly higher risk than the average person for development of varicose veins because they are generally making small movements fairly consistently.
A guard in a pillbox outside Windsor castle, on the other hand, would be at a higher risk because he is not supposed to be making the micromovements that will return the blood and reduce venous pressure, potentially causing valvular incompetence and dilated superficial leg veins specially if predisposed genetically.
Source: med student, asked lecturers about this specifically and have talked to numerous surgeons.
And as someone in the article mentioned, using compression stockings would obviate any concerns that a person may have
That said, my feet hurt at the end of the day, and I still need to sit from time to time to take the weight off my feet. Am looking into padded shoes, but it's interesting to see that Arshad didn't need any special padding after a couple years.
The problem with padding is that humans actually already have an extremely sophisticated active shock and balance system in our ankles and knees, and when you add a passive system like padding on the feet, you force that system to work harder and adjust in unnatural ways. Essentially, you're setting yourself up to always be walking on unsteady ground.
So you might want to first try going barefoot for a while, and see if that helps. If you aren't accustomed to standing barefoot for long periods, it will take some time for your body to adjust, but I suspect that you will adjust faster to that than to padding.
Also, I'm curious if compression stockings mitigate soreness when standing for prolonged periods. I talked to a surgeon who says they've helped him his feet feel better while operating hours at a time.
I do often wear a pair of padded sandals instead of just standing on the carpet, though. I have an anti-fatigue mat too, but the sandals work better.
The only drawback is that when I feel too tired in the first place, I have no desire and energy to even stand up in the first place. But maybe that's not a bad sign. It shows I should be resting instead of using my computer.
Do not half-ass a standing desk.
edit: amazon link http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005NJUQVG
To have a comfortable standing position, you really need to be able to move your monitor separately from the keyboard. Most monitors doesn't really allow you to adjust their height, even iMacs just allow you to tilt the screen, which isn't what you want. If you want to switch position during the day, you either need a really good desk where you can rise the monitor separately or a monitor where the "neck" extends.
If you don't want to use the keyboard, you can set it aside, of course. But it's there for you to use it if you like.
Most companies don't really think about it, providing adjustable desks, external monitors, dockingstations, etc. is just the norm.
You do it momentarily to look at what your manipulating, but its not very comfortable for extended periods, since it requires that you're either craning your neck to look at your lap or keeping your arms extended out in front of your body.
Working on a laptop only all day long is insane. You need to separate screen an keyboard, otherwise one of them will be at the wrong height! If you use a laptop, it means you need to add an external keyboard.
Everything else makes absolutely no ergonomic sense!
Example: http://www.ergotron.com/ProductsDetails/tabid/65/PRDID/320/l... You can sit and then stand up by just pulling the table up easily with one hand.
In my own office, I have to badger people to accept a monitor and separate keyboard. Usually they resist because "laptops are cool!", but after they actually try a bigger, separate screen and moveable keyboard, they would never be without them.
http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/freestyle2.htm (Freestyle2 VIP3; forget the "Ascent")
I'm sure the internet has more ideas in case you're not into running.
As with any of these types of issues it'll take dedication to fix, but if you truly can't stand for more than a few minutes the benefits should more than make up for that.
I wore running shoes, stood on a thin pad (the floor is hard tile), and took sitting breaks in a bar stool about 3 times a day for 20 minutes. I also had a bar about 15 inches off the ground for me to put a foot up on (this is a must as far I'm concerned).
Basically if you are wearing shoes you can walk/run in, they should be good enough for standing.
"Unlike most film editors today, Murch works standing up, comparing the process of film editing to "conducting, brain surgery and short-order cooking", since all conductors, cooks and surgeons stand when they work. In contrast, when writing, he does so lying down. His reason for this is that where editing film is an editorial process, the creation process of writing is opposite that, and so he lies down rather than sit or stand up, to separate his editing mind from his creating mind."
Maybe we should refactor standing up and write code sitting down?
(Typed while laying in bed, in a way that would certainly screw up my wrists if I did this long term.)
I am not an ergonomics authority.
Initially it seemed like my brain was so concerned with the change in routine that I was constantly reminding myself that something was amiss. Fortunately, what is new and novel eventually becomes the norm with enough time.
been to chiropractor recently and he shown me X-ray of my neck. This bending forward is actually an unnatural straightening of the neck where it normally would be curved. Cause for a host of issues now and in future.
There's almost nothing in the way of unbiased research which has shown the neck angle to be the problem they say it is.
Do you have immediate friends or family treated by chiropractor (i have), have you seen chiropractor yourself (i have). Can you point any specific respectable publication which dismiss chiropractors as a whole or shows significant presence of "unscrupoluousness"? Until that your groundless dismissal of the whole class of professional people and their practice is just it, groundless childish dismissal.
Start here: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3801081.htm
Shift over here for some overview:
Then jump into the hard science at SBM:
It's not acusing someone from a position of superiority if a profession has continually shown itself incapable of eliminating the pseudoscience in its practice, which is most of it. A claim could be made that Chiropractory is largely fraud based on their incredibly weak evidence base and the fact they are charging money for treatment that is no better than placebo.
Have a nice day!
that was, almost word for word, among the things that was explained to me by the chiropractor [when he shown me the disk deformation on my X-ray - abnormally straight neck and thus abnormally compressing the front side of the disks] :
"As the discs collapse and grow thinner, the head tilts forward and the neck begins to curve forward. This begins a process that may continue to progress for years. The weight of the head causes an imbalance of forces pushing the neck increasingly forward. This slowly leads to an increasing curve and may end with a kyphosis.
we were arguing diagnosis, hence the link that quick search brought.
I'm really surprised by the prejudice [especially baseless prejudice which is just plain offensive] against chiropractors that i met in this thread. I understand that you(+your family) had mixed experience and that provides basis for your opinion. My experience is completely different.
Even without going into personal experiences and opinions which as we see may vary (like in the case of regular medicine as well), the objectively most important fact here is that insurance covers chiropractors - this is ultimate and most important endorsement in the US :) - speaking from my personal experience of fighting an insurance several years ago when they refused to pay for a procedure an MD performed on me.
Wrt. my experience with chiropractors. My father was successfully treated for back pain by a chiropractor 30 years ago back in Soviet Union, and my wife got successfully treated for a joint issue here recently, and in my case everything has so far been consistent with my knowledge/understanding as well as with medical info i could find.
So, i don't see any reasons to worry or be suspicious with chiropractors beyond what would be typical and prudent in any other encounter with any other medical professional.
The prejudice is based on their ignorance of science. In fact, traditionally, chiropractics totally eschews science in exchange for philosophy. This leads to chiropractors using techniques that have been shown to be harmful, such as doing spinal manipulation to fix nerve impingement, which is contraindicated by numerous studies. Additionally, there are still many chiropractors that are anti-immunization, another scientifically baseless position, but one that is dangerous for both the individual and society.
Insurance coverage is not an endorsement whatsoever. It is the effect of heavy lobbying on the part of chiropractors. Remember, insurance is not incentivized to do what is best for the patient.
On the other hand, problems with the practice are widely documented: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/14/dangers-...
that is outright fantasy.
"NIH is made up of 27 Institutes and Centers, each with a specific research agenda, often focusing on particular diseases or body systems."
My experience with a specific NIH's center - NCBI - and their work clearly correlates with it, they [ ie. their own researchers] are doing fundamental science.
The rest of your statements goes the same way.
may be now you do. Couple comments up - you obviously didn't as you so eagerly agreed with tghw's doubting what abnormal cervical curvature can be a problem :)
yep, it was a sole basis of you doubt. Even though tghw was outright trashing neck angle problem, you still supported the trashing because diagnosis comes from chiropractor. Evidence based reasoning coming from a future medical doctor i guess ...
> Chiropractors are notorious
... and more of it.
Precisely. What is your problem with this? Chiropractic is a pseudo-profession. It is well established in scientific fields as a pseudo-profession and it has done very little to try and shed this image, besides making ad-homenim (if you can call it that) attacks against the rest of science screaming of prejudice.
You wouldn't hire a pseudo-coder to build a program for you and you shouldn't pay a pseudo-doctor to treat you.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you didn't even look at my references (that you asked for) regarding chiropractic.
That's okay. I understand you are a 'true believer', are not going to look at resources I have provided, and are not even really debating whether or not chiropractic is a worthwhile field of human endeavour; instead we are debating your belief. And I just want to say I am not challenging your belief, you are free to believe whatever you want. But I am not, in fact, suffering from Dunning-Kruger in this instance; I am not unskilled, in fact my entire tertiary study (10 years worth now) has been in science and healthcare. and the balance of evidence is against your position; which is what I supported tghw on; and was communicating to the greater audience on HN, including yourself.
To continue to claim that I am attacking chiropractic because I 'dont know' or 'don't believe' is an empty statement, because I understand the available evidence, and my statements in these posts have been consistent with the published scientific concensus.
Instead, one can look at NIH site:
After that we can look at your statements:
>Chiropractic is a pseudo-profession. It is well established in scientific fields as a pseudo-profession and it has done very little to try and shed this image, besides making ad-homenim (if you can call it that) attacks against the rest of science screaming of prejudice.
yep, man, calling it a pseudo-profession in the face of NIH is a definition of ad-homenim. As well as calling 'true believer' people whose opinion is supported by NIH, yet contradict your own. Speaking about 'true believers' :)
On your link: It is a summary of chiropractics, along with a summary of studies discussing what treatments may or may not help. It is lacking substance and has no new information that was missing from the SBM links.
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -Neil deGrasse Tyson
The guys clearly have an agenda, and their opinion of what is "non-scientific based medicine" clearly goes against NIH, a top medical research organization. One is free to pick a side, a top medical research organization or the alternative :)
> You totally failed to address the content of the article.
i didn't even planned on doing it. My word against SBM, even when NIH's word is supposedly not enough? Are you kidding?
>On your link: It is a summary of chiropractics, along with a summary of studies discussing what treatments may or may not help. It is lacking substance and has no new information that was missing from the SBM links.
exactly - summary by NIH is just some fluff that is "lacking substance". Man, i rest my case.
There are those I respect and there are those that are scam artists. The ones I respect are the ones that know the limits of their practice. The ones that are scam artists often use x-rays and neck angle to dupe people into "treatment" they don't need, using words like "natural healing power" and "life force".
The over-arching problem is twofold.
First, like many alternative treatments, there is very little real scientific research backing up their methods. Within chiropractics, they do studies, but they typically fail to meet scientific rigor in a number of areas, including controlling for bias and methodology.
Second, and much more worrisome, is that chiropractors are not medical doctors and are rarely trained to properly refer people when a problem is outside their area of expertise. I've seen this with both of my parents. My mother had knee pain, which the chiropractor (which was one of the ones I respected) insisted was an alignment issue. In reality, she needed a whole knee replacement, and suffered unnecessarily for a number of months before seeing an orthopod, because the chiropractor insisted he could fix it.
My father had severe shoulder pain, extending all the way down to his fingers, and eventually started losing functionality in that hand. Again, the chiropractor thought he could fix it. My father had a severely herniated disk which was impinging a nerve. Again, he suffered unnecessarily because chiropractors do not refer people when they're out of their element. Finally, a neurologist determined that surgery was the only way to fix the problem, which it did. He has regained 95% of the function of his hand.
I think chiropractors have their place and can help with some skeletal alignment issues, but there are significant problems with the industry as well, and people should be aware of them before going in.
Also, don't listen to people who say buy some expensive adjustable desk. I wrote about building my treadmill desk and other standing desks here: http://reustle.io/blog/cant-stand-sitting
I have arrived at a very interesting angle for my keyboard which I haven't seen elsewhere. I use the Kinesis Advantage and built a little wedge out of wood to stand it on so that the keyboard is pitched in the opposite direction than most. It is arranged to be much higher at the front than the back, almost vertical, so I can type without bending my wrists or elbows at all. Can't see the key caps in this arrangement but I can touch type with my eyes closed.
I also have a huge external touchscreen monitor designed for windows 8 that I managed to get working on the mac. It's much nicer to use than a mouse or a trackpad although making extremely precise mouse movements is hard and I keep a regular mouse around to use when needed.
MS Natural started doing "reverse tilt" since the first version and still going strong with it.
I use Kinesis Advantage too and had to build stand from cardboard and scotch tape to add reverse tilt - otherwise I get wrist pain. It boggles my mind that $300+ keyboard doesn't have this basic feature built-in (and don't even start me on split, why, why they removed splitted version with optional touchpad?).
The most important thing is that the keyboard height and slope match so your wrists are straight. In general, I prefer having my elbows more open because I find that minimizes arm fatigue, but having the elbows open would definitely not be a plus if it forced your wrists into extension.
The reason I arrived at the setup I have is because I got RSI and first switched to a standing desk where my elbows were bent, which caused even more pain. I was forced to try different positions until I arrived at the one that I use now, in which I tried to keep my joints in as neutral a position as possible.
Funny how I have this feeling that when using a standing desk one will have the continous urge to walk away. I just fail to imagine how someone will stand the entire day behind a desk; I have actually never heard of standing desks before being used for full time operations. What if you want to take a minute of? As in just lounging back in a traditional chair and look at the screen for a while? You walk a circle? For the life of me! What do you do if you have a break? Eat whilst standing?
I change up standing and sitting a few times a day. You burn about 100 calories an hour just from standing, so standing for about 6 hours a day you burn an extra 600 calories. Makes a difference. Plus, much better for your posture and lower back.
However, you shouldn't be looking down at your monitor. It should be at eye level. A monitor arm can help with that.
Something else that's great to add: a bicycle. I sold my car and commute by bike to/from work about 7 miles each way. The added leg strength is amazing, not to mention it tightens your core, which helps with back pain, and there are cardio benefits, too.
It's also a lot of fun. I look for excuses to ride my bike.
My computers are at standing eye level, I use a high stool for myself, and a lower stool for my legs.
Very important: I use plain sole slippers so my posture and muscles adapt to naked feet. Your muscles will adapt to whatever you use for hundreds of hours. If you always use shoes with heels you won't be able to use other things, and your back muscles will develop a strange posture for balancing your body, which will make your knees suffer. It is also much better for transpiration, no fungus, no odor.
At first I was the only one to use slippers at work, now everybody at my place does.
Over half of my time I stay on my stool, with my legs on the other stool, over half I stand up.
I love it, why? My back is always straight in both cases. You became stronger, your body is activated when standing up, as there is a reflex to relax when sitting down, when you stand up your heart needs more pressure, it is the natural thing to do for humans, we are designed for that.
BEWARE: If you try it, and you have trained your body to sit down for years it will take you at least 3 to 4 months for your new musculature to develop, so you need to plan a transition strategy. Buy a stool and go step by step.
Read books like this:
Now this is a little expensive setup, but I LOVE it, and feel it was absolutely worth the investment. I've been using it for a few years now. It is not motorized, since you only lift the keyboard mouse section, and it is couter blanaced by spring to make that easy. This actually makes it very fast and easy to switch and cheaper at the same time. I strongly prefer that over motorized or full surface movable desks.
Regardless of how you do it, almost everyone who can stand should have a standing/sitting desk that adjusts easily. It makes a big difference in your health and mood even if you rarely switch modes. Often when you need to switch you really need to switch.
1 - http://iamnotaprogrammer.com/Ikea-Standing-desk-for-22-dolla...
One positive, if you work things other than typing it's much easier now to sketch or assemble hardware. Typing etc is about the same. I do use a foot pad and it provides a noticeable difference.
One thing that was not obvious at first was that the biggest difference to foot fatigue/knots has been the type of shoe. I find that Converse 'Chucks' cause the least fatigue. Funnily enough I have the same shoes from Zara that OP has, and they were brutal on my feet in comparison to others.
Also to note, I thought that standing would reduce my levels of hip, calf, and ankle tightness after workouts... that hasn't been the case.
1. Eyes should face straight ahead, not down. This keeps neck in vertically aligned position
2. Elbows should be at 90 degree angle. This will reduce tension on biceps caused from elbows at an acute angle.
Soon thereafter, I made the switch to the standing desk via the $22 IKEA standing desk.
It's been great. Don't get me wrong, the first couple weeks sucked. Feet hurt, legs ached but eventually I adjusted. A fatigue mat helps, sometimes a wear shoes or padded sandles, sometimes barefoot.
I can't go back.
In fact, I tried to switch back, couldn't do it. Did it for a week, switched back to the standing desk.
I keep a fairly tall stool nearby, sometimes you just gotta take a load off, but its great.
Fortunately I work from home, however I might be in trouble if I have to find a new job.
I recommend giving it a shot if you've considered it. $22 is a pretty low price to pay. And if those anti-sedentary guys are right, maybe you'll live longer!
Make sure you keys are high enough to keep the discourage any pressure from leaning forward. Even more important if you use a mouse.
I originally had mine about 2-3 inches too low. After two weeks - major pain.
It's certainly odd watching them in video conferences as their heads bob up and down while we're all chatting. But it seems like a great way to stay fit.
You can sit and you can stand. And, you get lots of permanent room under the table that you would not have if the table was adjustable. I did one of our labs this way and it was fantastic.
If there is an iota of doubt in your mind, that sitting for long hours is somehow screwing up your back then please switch to a standing desk.
Looking at the post about the only I don't like is that Arshad's setup doesn't look ergonomic. I tend to have the keyboard about the same height as my waist with my monitor closer in height to my head. For me when I didn't have that setup, I began to have neck and wrist issues.
FWIW, I've had lower back issues for a long time, and this one change seems to have improved my condition more than the multitude of exercises and treatments I've tried over the years.
Anyway, when I use it in a standing desk configuration, I keep it much lower, so my arms just drop onto the computer. It's rather nice but I prefer to regularly (every hour or two) switch positions -- standing desk, lie down, sit on the floor...
edit: one negative I have noticed - which I hope goes away - is with concentration. I'm having a hard time switching between tasks. Once i'm on one, I'm fine, but for some reason my brain is resisting starting new tasks more than when I was sitting.
edit: I used http://iamnotaprogrammer.com/Ikea-Standing-desk-for-22-dolla... to get a standing desk for cheap
edit: funny, I also hacked mine together with Ikea parts. Looks pretty good too.