<p><pre><code>  &gt; Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing
  &gt; isn&#x27;t any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad.
</code></pre>
Unfortunately the study [1] did not quantify standing at all! They only measured (self-reported) time spent sitting, so they really shouldn&#x27;t make any claims about standing desks or even standing generally. I suppose there is an implicit assumption that time not spent sitting is time spent standing, but that is pretty weak in my opinion.<p>Furthermore, I don&#x27;t think that aggregate time spent sitting is the right measure. We know that uninterrupted sitting is a known risk factor for deep vein thrombosis because since calf muscle contractions are important for preventing blood clots in the leg vasculature [2]. So a better measure would be the length of continuous sitting without breaks. It&#x27;s very plausible that 300 minutes of sitting with 10 minute breaks every 50 minutes might be healthier than sitting for 5 hours straight without any breaks at all (and then taking an hour break at the end).<p>1. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ije.oxfordjournals.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;early&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;09&#x2F;ije.dyv191.full" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ije.oxfordjournals.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;early&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;09&#x2F;ije.d...</a><p>2. I note that the calf muscles are continuously contracting while standing. So standing desks could be a good idea for persons with increased risk of DVT. Of course, standing desks might not confer any benefit over simply standing periodically. This should be studied directly.