Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24532996

by gadders • 13 years ago

77 39 13 years ago

bbc.co.uk

krmmalik6• 13 years ago

I really like the idea of standing desks and have loved many of the other articles previously posted on this subject, too.

I don't know what it's like for others but being a freelancer going from hot desk to hot desk, client to client and doing most of the travel by car or train - This is very hard to maintain since everything has been designed for sitting.

I might try standing on the tube from now on though but i might look weird if it's relatively empty.

mgkimsal• 13 years ago

if it's mostly empty, you're only going to 'look weird' to a handful of other people... who aren't burning as many calories as you are.

krmmalik6• 13 years ago

You're right. I need to stop worrying about what others think anyway.

aestra4• 13 years ago

Don't be so self conscious! I see plenty of people standing on public transportation when there are seats. There are plenty of reasons why I can think of:

- They have a lot or big luggage or a backpack with them.

- They are only going 1 stop or two.

- They have a medical condition where sitting down and standing back up again is difficult, so it is easier to stay standing.

- They have been sitting all day at work and want to stretch their legs.

- They want to leave the seats for other people who wish to sit if the train fills up, whereas they don't mind standing.

- Standing is more comfortable for them than sitting.

- A lot of times they are reading, so I think reading might be easier standing than sitting perhaps, but I don't know because I have never tried to read on the train.

Nobody will question you.

krmmalik6• 13 years ago

Wow, great list. Thanks!

keithpeter• 13 years ago

Reason 3 includes chronic back pain in my case. It is just more comfortable to stand than to sit in the really cramped seating (I'm very tall).

kawsper• 13 years ago

I was going from Mile End to Barbican which takes around 20 minutes, and was standing up the whole way, sometimes the tube was empty.

No one looks weird at you.

krmmalik6• 13 years ago

Excellent. I'm going to do this on my next trip to Baker Street.

pfortuny• 13 years ago

You do not look weird on the tube. I do not know about the US but certainly, on the tube, there is no way to look weird, whatever you do. Or do not do.

Try it, you will find that sometimes it is much more fun to stand than to be seated.

krmmalik6• 13 years ago

You're right. I should try it. Thanks!

bencollier49• 13 years ago

A friend of mine would stand on the tube and attempt to remain upright whilst holding onto nothing at all, which I suppose might be good for legs, balance etc. He was into Yoga.

krmmalik6• 13 years ago

I had thought about trying that since it would be fun, but I was too scared to try it in case I embarrassed myself, but as others (above) have mentioned - I need not be so self-conscious.

eddiedunn2• 13 years ago

Or, to keep the blood sugar levels at a sane level, people could stop eating so much junk; protein and fat don't spike your blood sugar the way sugary carbs do.

edwardrs• 13 years ago

This isn't good advice either though. Many people eat way too many fats and often consume extra protein as well. Carbs should be your main energy source (~65% of your daily calories should come from carbs) with a lot of the rest coming from protein. The solution is to continue to consume large amounts of carbs, but change the source so that the carbs are complex which are generally nutrient rich and provide a great energy source for the body.

eddiedunn2• 13 years ago

Carbs are not essential, in fact you can survive and thrive without them. Fat and protein are essential, however.

Why do you say that carbs should be your main energy source? I've seen no sound scientific evidence to support that claim.

I don't eat many carbs any more, and I'm living a lot more healthily as a result. It works for me. However, please do note that I'm not interested in getting into a debate with you on this -- that's the reason I wrote "sugary carbs"[1], which pretty much everyone agrees are bad for you.

[1]: Glucose, fructose, wheat flour are the most common culprits

tocomment• 13 years ago

It mentions blood sugar control as a major problem with sitting. I wonder how much benefit could be achieved by simply taking a walk after each meal?

Cor• 13 years ago

Good article. I've always wondered how many more calories are burned while sitting versus standing. I'm quite surprised by how much of a difference standing makes, to be honest.

Unfortunately, for the moment, I simply cannot use a stand up desk full time. I spend around 8 months out of the year travelling. At home, I have a stand up desk, and I really love it. When I'm travelling, though, I spend most of my time sitting while working at a desk, which isn't too good.

One thing I've found useful is to stretch for 5 minutes for every hour of sitting. People look at me like I'm crazy, but it makes a demonstrable difference. Kelly Starrett goes into great detail about the effects of sitting and how stretching can help in his book 'Supple Leopard'; it's worth picking up, in my opinion. (http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Supple-Leopard-Preventing-Per...).

The couch stretch is particularly good at counteracting tight hips caused by sitting. (http://fitnerdz.com/2013/05/31/fitnerdz-couch-stretch/). Get into position, hold it for 100s, swap legs, hold it for another 100s, and repeat for every hour of sitting. It makes a huge difference to the legs, hips, and back.

henrik_w• 13 years ago

Taking a break every hour or so is also good for avoiding RSI. I had RSI pretty bad several years ago, but have recovered completely. Part of the solution was using a break program to help me remember to take breaks for stretches. Currently (OS X), I'm using RSI Guard, which does what I want. More details on my RSI problems and solution here: http://henrikwarne.com/2012/02/18/how-i-beat-rsi/

throwit1979• 13 years ago

On the topic of anecdotal RSI cures, I was symptom-free after starting a strength training program focusing on heavy compound lifts and olympic lifts. No rest periods or ergonomic quackery required.

gillianseed• 13 years ago

Yeah I had a similar bout two years or so back.

A colleague had suffered the same problem and gave me instructions like taking a hourly break and doing a stretching excercise (rotate palm downwards and hold it flat with outstretched arm bending slightly upwards against a wall while tilting the head in the opposite direction for thirty seconds in three repeats), worked wonders for me and I've not had any problems since (still doing those stretches, although not as rigorously).

jsilence• 13 years ago

While not doubting the general findings I'd like to add a pointer that it is not a high level of glucose that raises the risk of getting diabetes II and heart disease, but fructose.

See this lecture of Dr. Lustig on sugars and how they are being metabolized in our body: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

a8da6b0c91d• 13 years ago

A lot of smart nutritionists and biochemists seem to think Lustig is full of it.

http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/02/quick-commentary-on-dr-...

aestra4• 13 years ago

If you're going to be standing all day, stand on an anti-fatigue mat. They are used in industrial settings to reduce strain from standing, and they do make a big difference.

nodata• 13 years ago

For anyone wondering what these are, this was the best page I could find: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/mats.html

aestra4• 13 years ago

Sorry, OSHA guidelines advocates them in certain jobs.

Guidelines for Retail Grocery Stores

Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders

U.S. Department of Labor

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHA 3192-06N

https://www.osha.gov/ergonomics/guidelines/retailgrocery/ret...

Use footrests and anti-fatigue mats in areas where workers stand for prolonged periods. Standing on anti-fatigue mats, as compared to bare floors, provides a noticeable improvement in comfort.

There's a few designs. They usually look something like this: http://images.newpig.com/wcsstore/NewPigUSCatalogAssetStore/...

or behind a bar or in a kitchen they usually look like this: http://www.madmatterinc.com/images/comfort_flow_thumb_8vhy.j...

If you ever watch Bar Rescue with Jon Taffer he gets really upset if he goes into a bar and there isn't anti-fatigue mats behind the bar.

A lot of people put them in their kitchen for when they are on their feet preparing food or doing dishes.

http://www.amazon.com/Genuine-Joe-Anti-Fatigue-Beveled-3-Fee...

They are not well known enough. The difference you feel standing on bare floor all day vs an anti-fatigue mat all day is the difference between night and day.

a-priori• 13 years ago

I use a standing desk full-time and find that two anti-fatigue mats stacked on top of each other are better than one. But one is far better than none.

Haven't tried three yet. :)

angularly• 13 years ago

I try to stand up as much as possible - I probably stand 5-6 hours per day. I am using the kybun standing mat, and can recommend it. http://www.kybun.com/products-and-stores/kybun-products/kybo...

Get the big and thickest one, the small is just too small if you stand with legs slightly apart.

It trains your muscles while you stand.

powertower• 13 years ago

and some studies suggest that those who sit all day live around two years less than those who are more active.

Considering that truly unhealthy and sick people (who will soon die) probably sit more then they stand, if you remove those people from the dataset, wouldn't the interpretation become that sitting is actually extremely beneficial for the average person who will end up outliving a non-sitter person by several years?

yetanotherphd• 13 years ago

No, you can't just reverse the causal effect by guessing the bias caused by reverse causality :-)

If what you say is true (studies tend to try to account for these things, e.g. they can show that the effect of sitting exists even after accounting for exercise/activity on the job) then the correct interpretation is that we don't know the causal effect.

lambda2• 13 years ago

The studies most often cited to support this finding are studies of London bus drivers vs conductors (ticket takers) on the double decker London busses. They tend to be from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, start at similar young ages, and so on, controlling for many confounding factors, but the drivers spend all day sitting, while the conductors spent most of the day on their feet.

However, when trying to find the actual study to see if they had controlled for any pre-existing conditions, I found this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1008580/pdf/brji... which seems to indicate that in fact, people of heavier builds were more likely to become drivers than conductors, and conductors with heavier builds were more likely to switch to becoming drivers.

So actually, it seems that the original study may be flawed, in the way you describe. While it did study people from a young and healthy age, it hadn't considered pre-existing weight or genetic differences between drivers and conductors, and it looks like that may actually play a substantial role in the difference in findings.

driverdan2• 13 years ago

So why is sitting so damaging? One thing it does is change the way our bodies deal with sugar... but how efficiently your body does that is affected by how physically active you are

Terrible reporting here. This has nothing to do with sitting, it has to do with inactivity. You can have an active lifestyle and still sit all day. Later it states

blood glucose levels fell back to normal levels after a meal far more quickly on the days when the volunteers stood than when they sat.

So what? If you don't have a medical condition related to elevated blood glucose having meal related glucose levels take longer to return to baseline shouldn't cause problems. I'm not aware of any research stating otherwise. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There are problems due to sitting though, such as

a sharp reduction in the activity of an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase

and as they mentioned standing burns far more calories (the article said 50/h) which is a good thing.

I'm all for standing but it'd be nice for reporters to get their facts straight.

hackinthebochs3• 13 years ago

This is wrong actually. Sitting is an independent risk factor for death (i.e. independent of physical activity level): http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-07-09/...

The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression triggered by activity in your slow-twitch high-fatigue-resistant muscles which run on fatty acids, which has all sorts of benefits for metabolism, body composition, and overall health.

lambda2• 13 years ago

Note that if you take a look at the study mentioned, http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000828.full you find:

  Our analysis assumes that there is a causal relationship 
  between sedentary behaviour and mortality.

So, it doesn't actually demonstrate it; it finds a correlation, and makes the assumption that there is causation.

However, previous studies have shown that heavier people are more likely to choose sedentary jobs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1008580/pdf/brji... . So in fact, the causation may go in the other direction; people who are heavier, or less healthy in other ways, may be more likely to choose sedentary jobs or sedentary lifestyles.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has actually been able to demonstrate a causal effect based on changes in behavior. Does changing from a sitting desk to a standing desk actually help? I don't think that has been conclusively demonstrated.

driverdan2• 13 years ago

The reasoning is that standing activates enzymes and gene expression

That's my point. That there are reasons why standing is better than sitting but the article got them mostly wrong.

thehme• 13 years ago

If I was to stay long term at my company, I'd probably encourage the transition to work while standing, but this is not the case, and I also don't see much interest in the subject here. Therefore, I take consolation in that after work, I go home and work on my own projects while standing, for about 3-4 hrs, so I think I'm safe...according to the article. I concur with other comments about the need for just having an active lifestyle, which should definitely compensate for working at a place like mine, where sitting at a chair in front of your monitor is expected.

mingabunga• 13 years ago

I've been standing at a desk for almost a year now. I started because I do a lot of running (sprints etc) and your glutes go to sleep when sitting in a chair. Look at all the old people (especially women) with no butts. I'm sure it causes back pain etc to have no glut support there. Anyway, it helps to take short walks when desk standing to give the muscles a rest otherwise it can be quite fatiguing.

Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

Related Stories