Not to be at all dismissive of the findings and their significance, but this was a study funded and interpreted by a company that sells posture support products. Not done in conjunction with an academic research lab, but done on a company generated survey with no public access to the results. Call me a skeptic - not of the findings, but of the research methodology.
FTFY. No, really, sitting on your ass may be uncomfortable but it's not 1) addictive 2) marketed heavily to teenagers 3) causing life-long debilitating diseases 4) cheap and abundant.
Soda is extremely cheap and abundant. You can buy 2L bottles for under a dollar everywhere, and it's the express lane to obesity if you drink versions with calories in them. It's even social, where people provide it at parties and offer it to other people, creating a social pressure to consume it. Obesity is spreading throughout the USA at alarming rates, with over %70 of the population being overweight and ~%35 being actually obese!
Actually, I can see arguments that it is all four of those.
1) Being sedentary is not directly addictive, but it is self-perpetuating. Being sedentary reduces your overall energy levels, and that leads to more sitting. There are also a ton of psychologically addictive activities that require sitting.
2) What about playing video games, watching movies, Facebook (or whatever the kids do these days), etc.? And don't forget studying. We actually force teenagers to sit for 6-9 hours a day for 75% of the year.
3) There's a good bit of evidence that supports that chronic sitting does, in fact, cause long term harm.
While one can contort your four points to fit a sedentary lifestyle, I agree with you that soda fits them all trivially. I also agree that soda poses more of a direct and immediate threat to personal health, as it's a leading cause of obesity and also a major source of sugar, which itself is a leading cause of diabetes.
That said, there's still one thing smoking has over soda as well: second hand smoke is both annoying and harmful to nonsmokers. There's not an analogue to this for drinking soda or sitting.
It's a long-shot but the sugary bullshit crusade has affected every other source of food and water -- sweeteners are added to every possible thing. Real honey, for example, is difficult to find because most honey sold in grocery stores is just honey-flavored corn syrup.
Trying to avoid the sweet-foods avalanche is very difficult because it's everywhere.
I use a standing desk for 100% of my workday, but I'm getting really tired of the "humans weren't meant to sit" line. Humans weren't really meant to do anything, we evolved over time to adapt to situations as they happened. We can stand, we can sit, we can run. The only problem is that specializing in one area for 8 hours a day means neglecting the other areas, and that's where the problems come in. The key is not to say "humans weren't meant to sit", but "humans lose muscle tone and flexibility if they only sit" or something more quantifiable.
It's a metaphor. We use lots of metaphors when talking about evolution. They're useful. We say features of organisms were designed and have purposes. It's all metaphor; nothing to get upset over.
No, it's not useful, it's exactly this kind of sloppy language that has so many people so confused about evolution to begin with. I'm not upset, so you mind your own feelings and don't worry about mine.
In that case we should probably go ahead and throw out the word "evolution" as well. After all, etymologically speaking it's a metaphor with strong teleological connotations. Worse yet, it also hints at predestination. All in all, I'd say it's much more troublesome than "meant to".
PROTIP: Rather than getting cranky about someone using a subtly different meaning for a word from the one you tend to prefer, instead just mentally substitute a word or phrase that falls within your linguistic comfort zones while still capturing the author's intended meaning.
For example, in this case just mentally substitute the phrase "well adapted for" for "meant to".
If you like writing so sloppily that others have to guess your intention, that's your style, it isn't mine; there's nothing wrong with pointing out incorrect usage of words.
You always have to guess their intention — natural human language is inherently imprecise. You simply choose to protest in this case rather than allowing your mind to find a reasonable meaning for their words as you would in most other cases.
For example, you use the word "speaking" here, but nobody is actually speaking. This presents us with the choice of guessing your intent or pitching a fit. (BTW, apparently incorrect usage of words is your style. It's OK — occasional lack of precision is actually the entire human race's style.)
Corrected. I didn't protest anything, I corrected, and it wasn't some random thing, his usage wasn't simply wrong, it was wrong in the way most people are confused about the theory and it needed corrected. One should never write about evolution as if it were intelligent. It's bad enough most of the people in this country don't believe in it, as if facts require belief.
Should be "as if it /were/ intelligent." Neglecting the subjunctive mood isn't some random thing, and it isn't simply wrong, it's wrong in the way most people are confused about English grammar and it needs to be corrected.
In basic training, the lines were grueling coming from a computer background. The motto is 'hurry up and wait', and most of that waiting is done in a uniform line. After a few weeks, I noticed I did not bend my knees or twitch around as much.
Five years later, I transferred to a standing desk after sitting in labs and office chairs for three years. After that three week point, once again, I noticed the uncomfortableness of it fade away. Standing desks nearly insta-improve posture if you setup your angles correctly.
The real problem with chairs: most people do not take the time to adjust the arms, height, angles, monitor angles, and keyboard/mouse position for correct posture. Usually, the adjustments are made for comfort. Temporary comfort does not equate to long term comfort. Our CIO suffers from extreme back problems in his older age.
It can be at first, but it just takes some conditioning. The more you do it, the more your muscles will adjust to it. An added benefit is that you likely be less tired standing in line too.
Check your arches, you might be standing with a wrong posture. I used to get tired really quickly if I stand for longer than 10 minutes and with the first steps in the morning [0]. A physiotherapist helped me fix it with exercises and stretching.
This one looks like they at least asked about sitting specifically, which is better than most ("watching television" is a standard survey question, so often it is just assumed that "watching television" == sitting and look for correlations from there). There are a few limited studies that do direct experimental manipulation of sitting without breaks vs. sitting occasionally interrupted and suggest that further study might be useful. I would be surprised (but maybe not too suprised) if there weren't more detailed longer term studies in progress involving hardware monitoring devices and other clever setups that could make more detailed correlations that could be useful.
So far, studies are just saying "here is some evidence that activity level does not have an extremely simplistic correlation with health." Puting it like that, it doesn't seem that surprising (or useful).
As far as I know, the evidence is very conflicted on whether using a standing desks is actually better than sitting. Apparently, standing still is still sedentary.
Standing still exercises the leg muscles. That, in turn, improves blood circulation.
Having said that, I think the 'sitting kills you' meme is mostly a fad. Yes, sitting perfectly still for hours isn't healthy, but if the way 'normal' office people sit were as unhealthy as the current fad implies, we would have seen that from life expectancies of white collar vs blue collar workers decades ago.
Also, there are different ways of sitting. For example, a couch potato is quite different from an Italian talking while sitting.
As to the evolutionary claims: most animals are incredibly lazy, with sprints in between. Looking at our close relatives, chimps and gorillas, I see days of sitting and lying with some strolling and an occasional run in between. Looking at wolfes, an animal similar to humans in the sense that is is specialized in long distance running, I read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#Behaviour that gray wolves run about 25 km/day on average. At a modest 5 km/h, that leaves them 19 hours to, basically, do nothing.
Maybe, we should bring back the Roman way of lying down on a sofa at a table?
Standing is a fair bit more active. You legs and core muscles are engaged.
I am a naturally fidgety person, so at my standing desk I am constantly shifting my weight from foot to foot, and making other small movements. I am by no means running a marathon every day, but I'm definitely not sedentary either.
Standing raises my heart rate, which is about 50bpm sitting and 70 standing. In an 8 hour day, that's about 10,000 extra beats, which is about as many extra beats as riding my bike for 20 minutes. That translates to around 100 extra calories burned a day, just by doing nothing! (That's a pound a month, or so.)
I also spend about 8 hours a week on my bike, so 20 minutes is relatively insignificant, but I'll take free weight loss any day. The benefits on posture are not to be dismissed, either.
While I find software development as very personally rewarding job, I spend a lot of my free time contemplating existential problems. The sad personal revelation I have had is that technology is ruining the human race race.
My friend said on Facebook a while back that "Relationships are harder now because conversations become texting, arguments become phone calls & feelings become statuses and tweets." It occurred to me that isn't the case at all - relationships have always been hard; we now just have all these ways to avoid nurturing them.
In the same way technology is giving us an excuse to not work on our physiological wellbeing, and I can't help but agree with this article (even though they didn't make that association).
I think it's time for a new "brogrammer" movement where we instead focus being on healthy (which I am seeing a few examples of - inspiring to say the least).
Posture has been a big concern for me. I've improved mine a lot over the years with Esther Gokhale's excellent book (http://amzn.com/B003M9YTYY). Recently I also installed an app that forces me to take a five minute break every 30 minutes. So I'm really excited to see a startup in this space. I'm not sure if just wearing the device will be enough though...sitting up straight can also be bad for your back if you don't do it right. Just one example: pulling your shoulders back causes strain; you need to roll them back. Even so, I'm glad someone's working on this!
Perkash said that Lumoback’s goal is use technology in a way that helps, rather than destroys, our body.
This is just awful journalism. First, the typo should not be there (it's the fifth paragraph!). Second, the choice to let the press release/feature drive the story is just too much. Third, that statement would've been killed in any high school English/journalism class for being obvious/redundant/unnecessary. "You mean they don't want us to destroy our body? How great of them - I'll take two, please!"
No surprise though - she posted four "articles" today and four yesterday: http://venturebeat.com/author/rebeccaggrant/. The only way you could really do that is if you (a) read the press release, (b) fired an email off to the press contact asking a few basic questions or read the company's media kit, then (c) wrote the article based on that info alone. You don't have time to actually do any "real" journalism when you are on a "four article per day" quota.
What about lying down? A few years ago, BBC covered a scientific study[1] showing that sitting at a 135-degree angle dramatically reduced spinal disk movement. Anecdotally, I found that this sitting position, midway between sitting and lying down, is most comfortable for prolonged periods of time. Maybe at my next workplace I'll insist that my office be fitted with a lounge chair.
I have pain in my lower back constantly due to poor posture while sitting. I was hoping to find some good feedback on those who have used lumoback ? Please chime in.
For those like me, I'll recommend this book. It made my life slightly less painful "8 Steps to a Pain-Free Back". Look it up online. I'm not affiliated with them in any way.
Anecdotal evidence time: I'd never in my life had "good posture" - I was able to sit/stand that way if I focused on it, but as soon as my concentration slipped I'd be back to my old slouching or hunched over ways. So I never understood how people with good posture were able to do it.
Then, about 1 year ago (age: early 30s) I started experiencing pretty bad back pain. I'd get out of bed and it would take 10 minutes before I could stand up straight, due to lower back pain. Similarly, when I stood up after sitting for more than 30 minutes or so, it took a while to "straighten out"
I tried stretches and a new mattress to no avail, before trying the advice of a co-worker: powerlifting. And holy shit! Within 3 months of deadlifts and squats, my back pain was totally gone. Furthermore, I now understand how some people have good posture - It just happens when your back and supporting muscles are strong enough. No focus required.
Anyone else having my kind of problems should look into that. If you've never done it before, pay a trainer so you can learn the proper form. Remember, it's a marathon and not a sprint - if you start at a lower weight than you can do, it's not really a problem, because the goal should be to make gym-going a lifelong habit.
Same anecdote! I hate hearing friends tell me that they don't squat because their knees hurt. Dude, your knees hurt because you don't squat!
Mine did too, until I learned 1) the proper way to perform complex human motions like lifting something from the ground and 2) increased all of the muscles from my core to my legs that are involved with those complex movements.
> I hate hearing friends tell me that they don't squat because their knees hurt. Dude, your knees hurt because you don't squat!
This is not strictly true. What works for you does not necessarily work for others, and hassling them for not doing something that hurts them isn't going to help.
I've been lifting for almost three years (started Dec 2010). I have very good form which I learned from a friend who was very experienced in lifting (and corroborated by several trainers and random dudes at the gym saying "wow, nice form!"). Before I started lifting I had been running for about 10 years (started running in middle school, didn't start lifting until after college). Everything was going great. Lifting three days a week, running another three days a week, and resting completely one day.
Then one day I took a weird step while running and my right knee started hurting. It's never stopped hurting. Two X-Rays, an MRI, two physical therapists later and they don't have any idea why I'm in constant pain (literally constant pain, I'm constantly aware of my knee hurting). I still lift, still with good form, still moving lots of weight around, but my knee still hurts. I can't run anymore, though, as that aggravates the injury.
And before you say it, I hurt my knee after I had been running in vibrams for three years. I was running 6-7 miles 3x a week in vibrams and all it took was one weird step to totally ruin that.
After the injury, on a PT's advice, I tried switching back to "normal" running shoes. They didn't help at all. I played around with my gait, trying to run with a wider stance since they were guessing my narrow gait was putting stress on the bad point in my knee; that didn't help. Stretching doesn't help, drugs don't really help (the most effective drug so far is Aleve). Lifting seems to have no effect on my knee. I tried not lifting or running for three months and my knee still hurt. I picked lifting back up and it made no difference to my pain levels.
Anyway, I'm just trying to say that we all have different physical ailments that cannot necessarily be solved by general advice. Maybe your friends' knees hurt because there's something wrong with them and lifting will make it worse.
I have a very nice adjustable GeekDesk provided by my employer, but I haven't lowered it to a sitting position for months. I generally have no problems standing for long periods of time (assuming I have enough padding in my shoes), but my back will complain if I spend too much time prone (due to an injury 35 years ago).
What I really need is more exercise, but when is that study going to come out? I'd love to add a treadmill to my work rig ;)
A Silicon Valley health startup run by 20-somethings conducting its own private "study" and inventing the "Silicon Valley syndrome" while barking "Sitting is the new smoking".
Of course there is some truth to those problems, but this hyperbolism makes them look like a joke to me..
As someone with a really fucked up back (1), I work full time from home. I have three stations. I have a normal 30" tall desk, a 45" tall standing desk, and a recliner that I use in conjunction with one of those lap board-desk things.
Mixing it up is the key. One thing isn't necessarily better than the other 100% of the time.
I still haven't found a chair I like, so my actual desk is what I use least. Maybe 2 hours a day.
(1) I have two bulging discs, one extruded disc, and one fractured disc. This is all L5 through L2, at the very bottom of my back.
Why do horrible pieces like this end up on the front page? From the article:
"'Personal posture trainer' startup LumoBack released the results of a study today that examined 'Silicon Valley Syndrome,'...The results are shocking: 60 percent of participants reported that they have experienced adverse health effects as a result of technology."
So a company that did its own study found that their service would help 60% of people? Big surprise.
But there's more wrong with this. "60% of participants reported ... adverse health effects ... of technology." 60% out of how many? And does that mean that 40% of users reported no bad effects at all? I mean even if you don't feel back pain and posture problems, you probably get eye strain when looking too long at a screen from time to time. Of course, eye strain isn't a hugely debilitating problem, so counting it with more serious things is deceptive.
I've read a bunch of these type of articles over the past 3-4 years; the better articles make it clear(er) that there is nothing resembling evidence for these claims (which isn't to say it is impossible that there could be some truth). OTOH, I've found the workrave and redshift applications to be very useful to me. I encourage software and OS designers to consider what is possible and useful to a person sitting in front of a computer and how to integrate this. It seem like a minimally explored realm of applications that a good number of people may just like independent of any psudo-medical hand waving.
64 comments
[ 47.2 ms ] story [ 310 ms ] threadLove this line, in the same vein as your comment.
FTFY. No, really, sitting on your ass may be uncomfortable but it's not 1) addictive 2) marketed heavily to teenagers 3) causing life-long debilitating diseases 4) cheap and abundant.
Ok.
> 2) marketed heavily to teenagers
Its compulsory for teenagers (via mandates for school), as well as marketed heavily to them (in terms of sedentary occupations.)
> 3) causing life-long debilitating diseases
> 4) cheap and abundant.
No, sitting on your butt is actually both of these.
1) Being sedentary is not directly addictive, but it is self-perpetuating. Being sedentary reduces your overall energy levels, and that leads to more sitting. There are also a ton of psychologically addictive activities that require sitting.
2) What about playing video games, watching movies, Facebook (or whatever the kids do these days), etc.? And don't forget studying. We actually force teenagers to sit for 6-9 hours a day for 75% of the year.
3) There's a good bit of evidence that supports that chronic sitting does, in fact, cause long term harm.
4) What's cheaper than sitting?
That said, there's still one thing smoking has over soda as well: second hand smoke is both annoying and harmful to nonsmokers. There's not an analogue to this for drinking soda or sitting.
Trying to avoid the sweet-foods avalanche is very difficult because it's everywhere.
However, I'm not sure how to be equally productive without sitting in front of a screen.
Should we throw out the word "theory" because creationists refuse to understand it?
For example, in this case just mentally substitute the phrase "well adapted for" for "meant to".
For example, you use the word "speaking" here, but nobody is actually speaking. This presents us with the choice of guessing your intent or pitching a fit. (BTW, apparently incorrect usage of words is your style. It's OK — occasional lack of precision is actually the entire human race's style.)
Should be "as if it /were/ intelligent." Neglecting the subjunctive mood isn't some random thing, and it isn't simply wrong, it's wrong in the way most people are confused about English grammar and it needs to be corrected.
blah blah blah.
I get tired standing in line or even just trying to sit with good posture in my office chair.
As a 22 year old, though, I expect I will need to make changes if I want to maintain my physical condition while spending all my time at a computer.
Five years later, I transferred to a standing desk after sitting in labs and office chairs for three years. After that three week point, once again, I noticed the uncomfortableness of it fade away. Standing desks nearly insta-improve posture if you setup your angles correctly.
The real problem with chairs: most people do not take the time to adjust the arms, height, angles, monitor angles, and keyboard/mouse position for correct posture. Usually, the adjustments are made for comfort. Temporary comfort does not equate to long term comfort. Our CIO suffers from extreme back problems in his older age.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantar_fasciitis
(1) http://www.natap.org/2010/newsUpdates/SittingTimeCauses.pdf
So far, studies are just saying "here is some evidence that activity level does not have an extremely simplistic correlation with health." Puting it like that, it doesn't seem that surprising (or useful).
Having said that, I think the 'sitting kills you' meme is mostly a fad. Yes, sitting perfectly still for hours isn't healthy, but if the way 'normal' office people sit were as unhealthy as the current fad implies, we would have seen that from life expectancies of white collar vs blue collar workers decades ago.
Also, there are different ways of sitting. For example, a couch potato is quite different from an Italian talking while sitting.
As to the evolutionary claims: most animals are incredibly lazy, with sprints in between. Looking at our close relatives, chimps and gorillas, I see days of sitting and lying with some strolling and an occasional run in between. Looking at wolfes, an animal similar to humans in the sense that is is specialized in long distance running, I read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#Behaviour that gray wolves run about 25 km/day on average. At a modest 5 km/h, that leaves them 19 hours to, basically, do nothing.
Maybe, we should bring back the Roman way of lying down on a sofa at a table?
I am a naturally fidgety person, so at my standing desk I am constantly shifting my weight from foot to foot, and making other small movements. I am by no means running a marathon every day, but I'm definitely not sedentary either.
I also spend about 8 hours a week on my bike, so 20 minutes is relatively insignificant, but I'll take free weight loss any day. The benefits on posture are not to be dismissed, either.
My friend said on Facebook a while back that "Relationships are harder now because conversations become texting, arguments become phone calls & feelings become statuses and tweets." It occurred to me that isn't the case at all - relationships have always been hard; we now just have all these ways to avoid nurturing them.
In the same way technology is giving us an excuse to not work on our physiological wellbeing, and I can't help but agree with this article (even though they didn't make that association).
I think it's time for a new "brogrammer" movement where we instead focus being on healthy (which I am seeing a few examples of - inspiring to say the least).
*written on my cell, excuse any typos.
A smoke break is a break from sitting. Smoke for your health!
Perkash said that Lumoback’s goal is use technology in a way that helps, rather than destroys, our body.
This is just awful journalism. First, the typo should not be there (it's the fifth paragraph!). Second, the choice to let the press release/feature drive the story is just too much. Third, that statement would've been killed in any high school English/journalism class for being obvious/redundant/unnecessary. "You mean they don't want us to destroy our body? How great of them - I'll take two, please!"
No surprise though - she posted four "articles" today and four yesterday: http://venturebeat.com/author/rebeccaggrant/. The only way you could really do that is if you (a) read the press release, (b) fired an email off to the press contact asking a few basic questions or read the company's media kit, then (c) wrote the article based on that info alone. You don't have time to actually do any "real" journalism when you are on a "four article per day" quota.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudendal_neuralgia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6187080.stm
For those like me, I'll recommend this book. It made my life slightly less painful "8 Steps to a Pain-Free Back". Look it up online. I'm not affiliated with them in any way.
Then, about 1 year ago (age: early 30s) I started experiencing pretty bad back pain. I'd get out of bed and it would take 10 minutes before I could stand up straight, due to lower back pain. Similarly, when I stood up after sitting for more than 30 minutes or so, it took a while to "straighten out"
I tried stretches and a new mattress to no avail, before trying the advice of a co-worker: powerlifting. And holy shit! Within 3 months of deadlifts and squats, my back pain was totally gone. Furthermore, I now understand how some people have good posture - It just happens when your back and supporting muscles are strong enough. No focus required.
Anyone else having my kind of problems should look into that. If you've never done it before, pay a trainer so you can learn the proper form. Remember, it's a marathon and not a sprint - if you start at a lower weight than you can do, it's not really a problem, because the goal should be to make gym-going a lifelong habit.
Mine did too, until I learned 1) the proper way to perform complex human motions like lifting something from the ground and 2) increased all of the muscles from my core to my legs that are involved with those complex movements.
This is not strictly true. What works for you does not necessarily work for others, and hassling them for not doing something that hurts them isn't going to help.
I've been lifting for almost three years (started Dec 2010). I have very good form which I learned from a friend who was very experienced in lifting (and corroborated by several trainers and random dudes at the gym saying "wow, nice form!"). Before I started lifting I had been running for about 10 years (started running in middle school, didn't start lifting until after college). Everything was going great. Lifting three days a week, running another three days a week, and resting completely one day.
Then one day I took a weird step while running and my right knee started hurting. It's never stopped hurting. Two X-Rays, an MRI, two physical therapists later and they don't have any idea why I'm in constant pain (literally constant pain, I'm constantly aware of my knee hurting). I still lift, still with good form, still moving lots of weight around, but my knee still hurts. I can't run anymore, though, as that aggravates the injury.
And before you say it, I hurt my knee after I had been running in vibrams for three years. I was running 6-7 miles 3x a week in vibrams and all it took was one weird step to totally ruin that.
After the injury, on a PT's advice, I tried switching back to "normal" running shoes. They didn't help at all. I played around with my gait, trying to run with a wider stance since they were guessing my narrow gait was putting stress on the bad point in my knee; that didn't help. Stretching doesn't help, drugs don't really help (the most effective drug so far is Aleve). Lifting seems to have no effect on my knee. I tried not lifting or running for three months and my knee still hurt. I picked lifting back up and it made no difference to my pain levels.
Anyway, I'm just trying to say that we all have different physical ailments that cannot necessarily be solved by general advice. Maybe your friends' knees hurt because there's something wrong with them and lifting will make it worse.
http://www.amazon.com/Chair-Rethinking-Culture-Body-Design/d...
It is also worth noting that Humans were not meant to stand for 8-12 hours a day non-stop either.
What I really need is more exercise, but when is that study going to come out? I'd love to add a treadmill to my work rig ;)
Of course there is some truth to those problems, but this hyperbolism makes them look like a joke to me..
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2443316
Mixing it up is the key. One thing isn't necessarily better than the other 100% of the time.
I still haven't found a chair I like, so my actual desk is what I use least. Maybe 2 hours a day.
(1) I have two bulging discs, one extruded disc, and one fractured disc. This is all L5 through L2, at the very bottom of my back.
"'Personal posture trainer' startup LumoBack released the results of a study today that examined 'Silicon Valley Syndrome,'...The results are shocking: 60 percent of participants reported that they have experienced adverse health effects as a result of technology."
So a company that did its own study found that their service would help 60% of people? Big surprise.
But there's more wrong with this. "60% of participants reported ... adverse health effects ... of technology." 60% out of how many? And does that mean that 40% of users reported no bad effects at all? I mean even if you don't feel back pain and posture problems, you probably get eye strain when looking too long at a screen from time to time. Of course, eye strain isn't a hugely debilitating problem, so counting it with more serious things is deceptive.
This is a terrible article.