Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the dont-care-I-work-in-a-vacuum dept.

There's a better way to use a standing desk

[...] some research suggests that even regular exercise—as much as 60 minutes per day—is not enough to offset the effects of sedentary workdays.

A standing desk, seems like a great way to combat this problem, since it's unlikely that computer use will decrease anytime soon. But turns out that when you do the opposite of sitting—standing for incredibly long periods of the day—well, that's bad for you, too. A highly-cited study out last year in the Journal of Epidemiology on 7,000 office workers found that, "Occupations involving predominantly standing were associated with an approximately 2-fold risk of heart disease compared with occupations involving predominantly sitting."

Alan Taylor, a physiology expert at Nottingham University, told the Chicago Tribune that the expansion and popularity of standing desks has been largely driven not by scientific evidence, but rather by popularity and profit.

Welcome to medical science.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:07AM (7 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:07AM (#645048) Homepage
    Yes, but how many? Probably between 0.01% and 0.05% of the world's population. So the proportion that will die is 99.95% - 99.99%. Or, to 3 significant figures - tada! - 100%. (This figure is smaller than the ecentricity of the earth's ellipsoid - if you object to this "100%", then you must also object to anything which considers the earth spherical.)
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:07PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:07PM (#645206) Journal

    Probably between 0.01% and 0.05% of the world's population.

    Or it may end being over 50%. We are after all doing science here.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:53PM (4 children)

      by Freeman (732) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @04:53PM (#645246) Journal

      On what planet are you living? The planet that says we're all of a sudden going to solve the world's hunger problem, cure all diseases, and just get along? There's no way 50% of the world's current population is going to live to be a hundred or more years old. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2005/11/longevity-secrets/buettner-text [nationalgeographic.com] Note there that one of the longest lived societies average 78yrs for men and 86yrs for women. Assuming, 50% of the population lived exactly to 100 years old, and the other 50% lived exactly to 70 years old, the average life expectancy would be 85 years old. It would be a monumental feat to get an entire country to have 50% or more of the population to live 100 years or more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy [wikipedia.org] Let alone the entire world. For some countries, it would be nigh short of a miracle. Some countries have life expectancies in their 50s with "Health-adjusted life expectancy" being in the 40s.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 28 2018, @05:24PM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @05:24PM (#645262) Journal

        The planet that says we're all of a sudden going to solve the world's hunger problem, cure all diseases, and just get along?

        Apparently you haven't noticed. We've made massive inroads on all those things. For example, global lifespan was 31 years [who.int] (slide 7) in 1900 to 72 years [worldbank.org] in 2015. Currently, the number of centenarians doubles every 13 years.

        As to getting along, the deaths per capita from wars is considerably lower than it's been in centuries and trending lower. The developed world in particular has remarkably few deaths from war with no war between two such countries since the end of the Second World War.

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday February 28 2018, @05:53PM (2 children)

          by Freeman (732) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @05:53PM (#645275) Journal

          At birth is a different statistic than we were discussing as we were discussing average life expectancy for the world's population as it exists. Though, it's encouraging that the average life expectancy at birth is increasing.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:17PM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 28 2018, @06:17PM (#645284) Journal
            Sure, but it's a related statistic that shows improvement. While I don't consider it highly likely, there is still a chance that medicine will be revolutionized in the near future to enable people to have much longer life spans so that indeed, most people living now will live longer than a century.
            • (Score: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:33PM

              by Freeman (732) on Wednesday February 28 2018, @09:33PM (#645412) Journal

              Whether or not we have a medical revolution / invention that would allow that. It's not likely that it would trickle down to the more mature population of the world' poor people in time to produce those kinds of results. As far as steadily increasing life expectancy, sure that sounds possible.

              --
              Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 01 2018, @10:16AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday March 01 2018, @10:16AM (#645702) Homepage
      Nobody, not any of the non-fringe researchers in the field, has a model that leads to such a prediction. Therefore, no, not 50% in the timeframe we're talking about. We are after all doing science here. Here's a nickel - go learn how science works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxdBRKmPhe4
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves