I&#x27;m not dismissing the study. Seems like good work to me. It leaves a fascinating question unanswered, but that&#x27;s always the case. My complaint is about some of the reporting.<p>The press release says in part &quot;Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement&quot; etc. But the Guardian then writes that the study &quot;casts doubt on the value of sit-stand work stations&quot;, which is another thing entirely. That&#x27;s something the Guardian could write if the study looked at whether spending the day in one position or varying makes a difference.<p>Sit-stand desk reduce the maximum length of time you&#x27;re encouraged to stay in one stationary position. That may be helpful to your health, or not, but the study doesn&#x27;t look at that dimension.<p>(Also, FWIW, I personally don&#x27;t have a sit&#x2F;stand desk because of health concerns. I just like them. Maybe I won&#x27;t die a little earlier or later because of my desk and its motor, but I do have a more pleasant working day.)