study author Melvyn Hillsdon of the University of Exeter said in a statement. "Any stationary posture where energy expenditure is low may be detrimental to health, be it sitting or standing."
They had to do an entire study just to figure that out??
They arguably haven't "figured out" anything if they have to use the qualifier "may". For example, who knows but that pigs may have wings, one day?
Some people (not me, you understand) might say that any university that publishes supposedly epidemiological research of questionable use/quality may be more concerned with attracting funding than with adding to the body of useful human knowledge, but I couldn't possibly comment.
In any event, I would suggest that such research is probably irrelevant, and that the only research that made (and still makes) standing desks a no-brainer for management is likely to be that accounting "research" which could demonstrate indisputably that standing desks:
- require a lower area of floor space per employee, which enables higher density packing, which reduces the average fixed costs (rent and rates based on square footage of occupancy), thus enabling a higher average profit per employee to be achieved.
- enable reduced/minimised office set-up, downsizing/upsizing or relocation costs, and reduced/minimised downtime associated with same, compared to conventional offices.
There's no doubt that, for some people, the ergonomics of sitting versus standing will have different effects depending on their peculiar musculo-skeletal geometry/health - e.g., the guy who said he has eliminated his back pain by using a standing desk. You could examine this sort of difference by (say) sitting on a big ball instead of a chair (it can be very comfortable and encourages the spine to line up into near-perfect posture when thus seated).
However, this guy seems to be onto something entirely new: Effect of One-Legged Standing on Sleep.