I used to be an advocate of the standing desk. I bought an adjustable-height Fredrik workstation from Ikea, tried multiple heights to find the most comfortable, and stuck with it for six months.
It didn't work.
Even after months of practice, I found it harder to concentrate while standing and doing it any longer than a few hours would invariably result in back pain. I found myself turning to "sitting tasks" like movies and books frequently just to get a break, and it greatly impaired my productivity. It wasn't easy to admit that I had put such a huge amount of effort into a failed experiment, but that's what it was. I'm writing not to discourage people who might benefit from a standing desk from trying it, but to give people who have nagging doubts about their decision a chance to back out without feeling like an idiot. Eliezer Yudkowsky said once, "'Oops!' is the sound rationalists make when they level up."
For what it's worth, I'm 25, male, 6'0", and 130 lbs. I don't exercise regularly, but I live in an urban area in a third-story walk-up, and I don't drive. If you're thinking I gave up because I'm abnormally out of shape, I'm not.
6'0" and 130 lbs is quite underweight. You have very little muscle and I am not surprised by the back pain. You need to gain about 25 pounds of muscle and then consider a standing desk. You need to hit the weights and fridge really hard for about 6-18 months.
There are mountains of evidence that BMI correlates positively with the incidence of lower back pain. I have no history of LBP outside of the context of using a standing desk. Further, most of the purported benefit standing desks is to prolong lifespan, and there's even stronger evidence that low-BMI people live longer, so the suggestion that I should gain weight and sacrifice a clinically validated approach to living longer in favor of something as novel as a standing desk is just absurd.
Both higher than typical BMI and lower BMI are associated with higher mortality risk.
I don't think anyone knows which direction the causality goes ( and that is true for a lot of things, I'm think the direction of causality is unknown for a lot of these articles that say "standing is better" or "people who walk more live longer").
Per your article, "below the range 22.5-25 kg/m2, BMI was associated inversely with overall mortality, mainly because of strong inverse associations with respiratory disease and lung cancer" (italics mine) i.e. if your BMI is low, average mortality is comparatively high, but only because of smokers. (Study recruitment year looks to be 1979 when there were a lot more smokers).
Moreover, your study recruited people at age 46 (mean) and followed them through their death. Meaning, a whole lot of people got older, got sick, subsequently lost weight and died. Unless proper adjustments were made, the low BMI-high mortality connection is rather unproven.
The main concern regarding the newer CDC analysis is that it did not adequately account for weight loss from serious illnesses such as cancer and heart disease. Including such individuals in the analysis created the false appearance that being overweight protected against death during the follow up.
and
The newest CDC analysis also failed to account adequately for the effect of smoking on weight. Smokers tend to be a little lighter than nonsmokers, although the negative health impact of smoking far outweighs that of a few extra pounds. As a result, the Flegal study underestimated the risks from obesity and overestimated the risks of leanness.
Regardless, I don't think we are on different pages since you acknowledged that no one really knows which direction the causality goes.
I'm 5'9" 150#. I was diagnosed with scholiosis in jr. high, had lower back pain when sitting all through hs and college (back when i was 130#). I too tried the standing desk and it didn't help.
Here's what helped -- about 3 years ago I got into squats and dead-lifting. I got them up to 1.5x and 2x body weight, respectively. I didn't gain a whole lot of weight, but my core strength increased tremendously.
Maintaining good posture requires some (~10-30%) flexion of the core/abdominals at all times while sitting. Now, after learning proper form of squats and deadlifts, my body goes into proper sitting form without even thinking.
Back pain is completely gone. squats and dlifts -- highly recommended!
To anyone reading, you don't have to do more than the big three — squats, dead lift and bench press — to build a strong core and ameliorate most RSI issues.
Regular cardio fitness and 10-minute work breaks are good, but can only take you so far. Being stationed at a computer for extended periods of time requires having a proper muscular frame to support your bones.
Because we rarely ask our muscles to work that way. Deadlifts, especially, strengthen our bodies against the most commonly encountered stresses. While bench presses are commonly recommended, I think overhead presses and bent rows are more helpful at preventing injuries.
I'm suggesting it more for the overall balance, and I'm not advocating dropping any of the other lifts. I love me my deads, don't get me wrong.
I'll grant that the vertical pull isn't commonly encountered (swimmers excepted) unless you're climbing trees to escape lions/tigers/bears, and I do a fair bit of horizontal pulling exercises as well (open a door, lift something toward you, row a boat).
Focusing on pressing without balance pulling tends toward imbalance IMO/IME.
BMI is a misleading indicator in this case. It doesn't differentiate by body composition at all (e.g. fat vs muscle).
I doubt very much that adding muscle to an underweight person would decrease that person's life expectancy. Probably it would improve it (the health benefits of exercise are well known). Either way, it would improve his quality of life.
I don’t think this is true. Pretty much the only proven thing you can do if you want to live longer is calorie restriction. Supposedly this is because the fewer calories you consume the less exposure your body has to free radicals that are important in aging. The corollary of this is that building muscle, which requires eating a lot, is inferior to being a skinny rake for longevity alone. Then, if you eat barely anything, you would be better with only a small amount of exercise.
And, just to rule out any suspicion of bias, know that I have a job where I’m constantly lifting weight, I have my own strength exercise regime outside work, I drink protein shakes, and I eat quite a lot for my frame.
I wonder if calorie restriction works because it slows down your metabolism, and thus slows down cell division, and effectively makes it so you are just living more slowly/aging more slowly than other people. However, I would think you would also have less energy, and get less done. So effectively you would live longer as the calendar turns but you would not live any longer in terms of life experienced.
(this is all just pure speculation, I have never looked into any of the science regarding calorie restriction)
"The corollary of this is that building muscle, which requires eating a lot, is inferior to being a skinny rake for longevity alone."
Not true. Stronger people are less likely to die. Strength reduces your risk of death from all causes - and cancer in particular.
"[The inverse relationship between] muscular strength and death from all causes and cancer persisted after further adjustment for cardiorespiratory fitness; however, the association between muscular strength and death from cardiovascular disease was attenuated after further adjustment for cardiorespiratory fitness."
I doubt that eating less and getting less exercise will really lead to longer life. It would be hard to measure such a thing, but my guess is that with less exercise and eating there would be a corresponding decline in happiness which alone could knock years off a person's life.
But I don't subscribe to the "live long an weak" mentality. I believe that your body is healthier and more capable when well nourished and physically strong. I'm 6'2" 190lbs and continually trying to gain muscle mass.
I stay fit by running and playing 5-a-side soccer but I am 5'9 weight 197lbs, I ran 10k in 50 minutes last weekend. BMI is a strange measure if I can be overweight without trying to put on muscle but be fitter than 95% of the population.
Calorie restriction is actually one of the fiew proven longevity tricks.
Nothing proven about it.
In mice anyway.
Not exactly. The calorie restricted mice do live longer unless they get an infection or some other unexpected source of stress, then they die at much grater rates. It is as if they have no reserves.
In humans calorie restriction is absolutely and utterly unproven.
Humans and mice are very different. They are tiny short lived animals, and we are large long lived animals. That is why a lot of the cancer cures you hear about in mice don't work in humans. Because often we already are born with them. There are known tumor suppressing genes, humans have more copies of them than mice, elephants have even more.
This is why it is not reasonable to assume that simple hacks like calorie restriction, which work in mice... sort of, will also work in humans.
A health diet and exercise on the other hand, have been proven to work in humans.
The one proven thing you can do to live longer is to not die.
Risk prevention / avoidance is a large part of this, but that includes a lot other than bodyweight. Seat belts, condoms, not smoking, little or no alcohol/drugs, pollution.
Several long term athlete studies show longevity, and quality of life benefits, to exercise (Stanford runners study, Scandinavian olympian study). And the specific mechanism of calorie restriction, telomere repair, is shown in both cardio and strength training.
As a 6'2" individual who tips the scales just shy of 145lbs on a good day, I am not you, but I'd strongly suggest you consider gaining some weight. If you are anything like myself, you (like myself) are so skinny as to be a health problem.
Among other things, gaining good weight (I used to fluctuate between 135-140) has clarified my mind, improved the strength of my heart, and a small host of other nice little upsides. I'm not even to my target weight yet, either.
Remember, just because someone with a BMI of 23 has better health prospects than a BMI of 27, doesn't mean a BMI of 3 is even better.
It has nothing to do with BMI - which is a terrible system of measurement by the way. I'm highly athletic and in great shape, and my BMI is 25. Which puts me right at the bottom of "overweight."
6' and 130 is very underweight - you don't have to look like a body builder, but your body does need some muscle to function properly. And 130 isn't enough.
Why are you getting so defensive? I'm 6'1" and 150 pounds and I am way too skinny for my own good. These people here aren't hating on you, they're telling you the truth — you would benefit from gaining some muscle. Muscles support your skeleton, that shouldn't be a suprise. 50 pushups won't help you when you've got back pain. Eat a burger and do some deadlifts.
6'1" and 150 lbs is not anywhere close to "way too skinny". It's well within the normal range of BMI. Sure you don't look like Schwarzenegger. But that's very different from being way too skinny.
I disagree. Here's why. I used to work out quite a bit and, with the help of P90X, I got up to 170-175 pounds of lean weight. I maintained it for a while, but adverse life events, a huge workload, and a crappy diet made me lost most of the weight (and a lot of the muscle mass) that I put on before.
Since my weight tumbled to 145 lbs, I noticed a huge difference in my physical well being, especially in sedentary positions. My posture worsened, my back constantly ached, and I started to suffer from RSI. I've been using the same chair all the while, a Herman Miller Mirra.
So, from my experience, weight and muscle mass was a primary determinant of my sedentary well being. Believe me, I was putting a lot less stress on my spine when I was doing 48 pullups in a workout, vs 8 now. I'm slowly working my way back up, and the back pain from sitting has lessened.
I don't know all of the personal details here -- but, if your muscles are underdeveloped your at risk for RSI issues. I'm taking a guess, at that height and weight your muscles are underdeveloped.
Since I switched to very basic body weight strength training nearly 2 years ago, problems I thought I would have until I died vanished. Nothing I ate or drank, no amount of aerobic exercises did anything to address those issues.
You should not be developing back pain from standing. Everything else should be getting sore. Back pain, that I've seen, generally occurs from people who either slouch forward at work, have major stress issues, or have some type of actual injury.
Great, but how much can you squat or deadlift relative to your bodyweight? Your posterior chain, from your mid-back down to your ankles, is far more important to your long-term stability and comfort.
It's key to your complaint of discomfort standing up, and it's key to avoiding back or knee problems long-term.
This is basically a reference point to support the opinion that was stated here: BMI is not the only thing that matters.
Take a look at the two numbers circled in red. The one on the left is the lowest-mortality BMI not adjusting for fat mass or fat-free mass: a reasonably high 27.4. The one on the right is the lowest-mortality BMI adjusting for fat mass and fat-free mass: a much lower 21.6.
I know this may sound confusing, but due to possible statistical distortions this does not mean that you should try to bring your BMI to 21.6 if you want to reduce your risk of dying. What this means is that fat mass and fat-free mass matter.
Hmm... maybe you're used to an environment with a lot of overweight people.
Anything under 18.5 is considered "underweight", just as anything over 25 is considered "overweight". 17.6 is only off by .9 points. He's less off the charts than someone 6'0 and 195lbs (BMI of 26.4)
BMI is garbage because it doesn't take into account muscle, which is heavier than fat. I'd be willing to bet someone with a higher BMI that is muscular is going to be healthier than a lanky person who is actually pretty unfit.
Seconded, as someone formerly 6' 130lb, and a frequent back pain sufferer (partially due to injury). I started doing weightlifting about a year ago, and deadlifts in particular made the pain virtually disappear as well as improving many other areas of my life. I found that it very quickly helped my back, even in a couple weeks.
IMO (and for me at least), switching between sitting and standing is the key - I picked up a drafting chair from Staples just for that purpose. So now I do about 75%/25% standing/sitting, and switch positions pretty frequently.
You need to do a combination of sitting and standing. I ran into the same problems you did when first trying out a standing desk for about a year. I went back to sitting for a year, and then finally invested in a motorized desk (geekdesk.com) to get the best of both worlds and I couldn't be happier now. When I'm sick of standing, I sit. When I can't stand sitting, I stand.
While we're throwing personal anecdote around: Male, 30, 6'1'' and 170 lbs. Had lower back pain, switched to a standing desk and the pain disappeared in a few months, and now several years later, I still stand most of the day and can not imagine going back to sitting most or all day.
You're obviously not overweight but you're pretty light for that height, so I wonder if someone with a lower center of gravity would suffer fewer back issues? What if you used a laptop that you could move from standing desk to couch from time to time? Like after every 40 minutes?
I tried sitting down periodically. It just reinforced how much more comfortable it was to sit than to stand.
I find it completely implausible that being thin would making extended standing harder. Flies in the face of everything I've ever read about back problems, which overwhelmingly afflict people with higher BMI. Also, I'm quite young, and have no history of back or muscle pains of any sort outside of what was brought on by the standing desk experiment.
Why is it implausible? Standing still requires muscle. There is some minimum standard of fitness required to stand for a fairly long time.
Being thin or having a normal BMI doesn't mean you're fit. It's just a useful statistical measure to find out the general fitness of a population. Youth won't help you either.
Your spine is a stack of disks. It's got no inherent tendency to stay upright, other than the forces imposed on it by your muscles (and fascia, but that's a passive stabilization system). In particular the spinal erectors, iliocostalis lumborum, spinalis, longissimus thoracis, levatores costarum/breves, and cervical muscles.
With low bodyweight, you've got low muscle mass, particularly if you're not doing much in the way of strength training. As you age, you're losing this at the rate of about 0.5 - 1% per year (past age 30 or so). Which is where strength training comes into play.
Muscle tissue and strength are developed in direct response to imposed demand. It's called the "specificity" or "SAID" (specific adaptation to imposed demand) principle.
Full-body strength training routines -- squats, deadlifts, lunges, press, bench, and rowing / chin-up movements -- will develop that muscle.
At 6'2", last time I weighed 130# was some time in middle school. By high school, as a swimmer and just doing bodyweight strength training, I was 185-195#. These days I'm at about 260, cut weight would be closer to 235-245# with 8-10% bodyfat. I'm not saying that this should be your goal, but am pointing out that there's a huge variance in individual fit body mass. Your weight might be appropriate for a long-distance marathoner (Geoffrey Muttai, among the best in the world, is about 125# at 6' in competitive shape, but that's absolutely shredded with <6% bodyfat).
Here's my suggestion: try strength training for 6-12 months. See if it changes your perceived fitness and comfort. Like it? Keep it up. Don't? You've gained experience points and it's cost you little else. I'm a fan of The New Rules of Lifting (which describes much of the science and health/fitness benefits in much greater depth) and Starting Strength (a simpler and very brutally effective lifting program) myself.
Oh, and when you get into your 40s like me, you may appreciate that muscle mass.
We’re only focusing on the BMI issue because that was revealed by the original comment. Goodside could have spikes placed on the ceiling that dug into his head only when standing. If this was the case we’d be barking up completely the wrong tree. I’m pretty sure he’s not that stupid but my point is, without being present to make an assessment we have absolutely no idea what could be going on. It’s like trying to fix your parent’s computer over the telephone with them operating it.
It's not implausible. I used to be skinny like you, everything from getting up in the morning to getting out of the shower (cold) was worse. Standing was harder. For me standing a few hours a day is not about back pain, but for better posture and more energy.
This is very good to know. I wonder if having a bar stool can help.
I used to work on a shop floor where you had to be on your feet all day with just a lunch break in between wherein you get to sit. The first few days where killer, but the second week onwards the body just gets used to standing and walking all day.
One part of my rotation was through QA where we had tall tables to work on. We were provided tall stools to sit, and we usually worked half standing half sitting.
I agree that standing all day is not much better than sitting all day. But for someone not ready to jump to a walking desk, alternating sitting and standing would be a step up at least. Also, sitting on an exercise ball for periods of time can be relieving to those who sit in the same chair all day.
Same. I've actually found that sitting on a Swedish exercise ball is better than a standing desk for me. It forces some active use of muscles and posture, but I don't get tired from it and have to take sit breaks like I do with a standing desk.
I've been doing it for close to a month and I'm enjoying it. One of the best benefits that I get from it is not feeling any afternoon drowsiness. I take sitting breaks when I feel like it. It feels good to have a choice between sitting and standing.
The article he cites on the dangers of prolonged sitting is about research on prolonged sitting. That is indeed bad for you.
However, so is prolonged standing.
You are best off, and you can save $22, by keeping your normal desk and GETTING UP every 20 minutes or so and moving around. This avoids the problems with prolonged sitting, without incurring the serious risks of prolonged standing.
Nobody I know is capable of standing for an entire workday. A drafting stool is absolutely required, and it's often the trickiest part of the configuration; for men taller than six feet, it's very difficult to find an inexpensive drafting stool that is sufficiently tall to match the height of your desk.
> Nobody I know is capable of standing for an entire workday.
I used to work in a supermarket and would stand for nearly the entire day apart from a short tea break and lunch break. All the other employees would too. It's not uncommon.
That sort of standing is different than the way programmers work.
In what you describe, people walk around and do some physical activity all the time. That's totally different than the way programmers work.
We practically stand motionless for hours, with only eyes and fingers moving. That sorting of standing is difficult to do for prolonged working hours. And might be more harmful than sitting for long working hours.
Ditto. I bartended a decade ago and my shifts started at 4:00PM and didn't end until an hour after close at 2:00AM. We were on our fee the entire time, with only smoke breaks where we weren't allowed to sit down.
Man, I have no idea. They also didn't allow us to take a lunch break during what could be an 11 hour shift because, as one of the owners told me, people weren't clocking out during the 15 minutes it took to wolf down a burger and some cheese fries. I reminded them of labor laws and they made an "exception" for me.
This was, is, a very successful burger place in Dallas and I learned a ton fom the experience.
Getting up to move around every 20 minutes will quickly turn a 5-person office into a mess. Now imagine a space shared by 50 or 100 people. This is completely unrealistic.
Wait, I don't understand quite what you mean. People standing up frequently turns an office into a "mess"? How so?
I guess you must mean that it would disturb the other four people in the office if one of them got up every few minutes. But it seems as though that is down to office design, not how often one person happens to stand up. I worked in a 100-person office for about a year and a half. The floor had nice-sized desk cubicles. The whole time, I strictly maintained a schedule, getting up exactly every half hour to go on a two-minute walk. It never disturbed anybody as far as I know; I didn't make any noise, I made sre my chair wasn't squeaky, and I walked carefully without stomping.
I really feel as though, if you're in a situation where on person getting up disturbs the workflow of multiple other people, then you have an office design problem. It wouldn't even matter if people got up fifteen times a day or three - if they're disturbing others unnecessarily, then you need your office fixed to remove this disturbance.
In particular, please note that the approach of blaming the disturbances on the people getting up seems like a path to terrible management. If my bosses came to me to suggest that they'd rather I tried to stand up less often, I'd be a bit taken aback, and I'd probably reconsider where I chose to work.
Is this supposed to matter? If it's important for human health to get up and walk around every 20 minutes, and not to stand all day, what do I care about the design of the space I'm in?
10 to 20 years from now people will wonder just how in the hell programmers' knees aged so quickly, until realizing that half the people standing in attempt to get healthier were simply locking their knees, weighting from side to side through the 8-hour workday.
Not that I'm against standing– I do so myself to draft as it is much easier on my neck and back after many hours– but there will likely be consequences which easily negate the health benefits that come purely from standing vs. sitting.
This looks over engineered to me plus the spinning chair will make it uncomfortable to type. May I suggest replacing it with a green biodegradable cardboard box. There are even models with books on top for adjustable height
My recommendation (as it always is anytime these standing desk articles appear) is the Frederik from IKEA ( http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/60111123/ ) Ok it's not $22 but I've picked up two now on special for less than $80.
I can assure you this setup is super stable. Even at this price, nothing wobbles. If you think about where the weight is in this setup vs. others. The only thing that shifts the balance from a 4 legged table is the keyboard shelf. If there wasn't a monitor on top of it, you might be able to push down hard on the shelf to tip the table, but I doubt it. With a monitor on a table, this thing doesn't move.
Put it on a solid desk and it isn't going anywhere. I'd bet that it's even more stable than the fredrik which has two skinny legs.
I've been doing the "desk on a desk" setup for 4 years. I use double-sided tape to keep it in place at it works fine. And mine is a real cheap solution -- scrap wood from my basement.
I was afraid of this too, so I just bought an unfinished door from home depot (for $22 oddly enough), and some crappy filing cabinets from the local university that were the right height. Set door on filing cabinets => done. I could bolt the door to the filing cabinets if I really wanted to, but it's stable enough as is.
The other advantage of using a door is that they come in various sizes (both width and height), so you can get one that matches your workspace size. You can also stain them some cool color or buy some fancy wood grain if you're into that sort of thing.
I say almost because it doesn't quite have the rigidity that would be best, or ability to handle any leaning/weight other than just light hand placement.
I bought one of these last year, it's really nice. Easy to switch between sit & stand, and you can even use it with a laptop just by adding an external keyboard.
I spent $1,100 on a GeekDesk max (including shipping). An investment in my health was long overdue, especially since I've spent $4-5,000 on my computer setup.
The huge benefit is not having to move all your stuff whenever you're done sitting or standing. I press a button and in 10 seconds it's changed height. MAGIC!
I highly suggest them to anyone, just watch out for the long backorder. Mine took 3 months to get here.
I'm not against the concept of "investing in your health". That said, while there have of course been studies that show sitting isn't so hot for your health, have there been studies that actually show standing desks are good? Varicose veins are not high on my list of to-dos, you know.
It seems that the important part is that you're moving throughout the day. Personally, when I'm switching between standing and sitting throughout the day I have more energy and tend to move around a lot more. If I didn't do this, I'd end up sitting for periods of 4+ hours at a time.
As a CTO I manage development and technology for the company, which means I'm up and around the office (and out) for meetings and touching base with other departments. If I were an engineer I'd likely utilize a standing desk less. I personally don't enjoy coding standing up.
I just got my GeekDesk after a long and varied string of various sit/stand combinations. I opted for the small, frame only, and bought my own "butchers block" solid mape top - 48" x 25" x 1.5".
This coupled with an ergotron LX monitor mount and a humanscale keyboard tray is beyond fantastic. I can adjust everything, and I love it.
This is very similar to my setup[1]. I picked up a geekdesk frame on craigslist and threw an Ikea countertop[2] on it. I even have a humanscale keyboard tray that I haven't gotten around to installing.
All in all, it probably set me back about $1000 (including the keyboard-tray and monitor-mount). And it was worth every penny; I'm much more comfortable after long hacking sessions.
I own a geekdesk at home. I love it, but it didn't seem like I could bring it into my coworking space. I set an alert for geekdesks on Craigslist using IFTTT.com and got the small size geekdesk for $550. However, to get the monitor at the right height, I still put it on something on the geekdesk to raise it to the right height relative to my keyboard.
While I also own and love my GeekDesk, standing isn't for everyone. The cheap solution offered in this article is a good way for curious folks to experiment without breaking the bank.
That out of the way, $1,000 for a good desk is a bargain in the long run. I'm so much more productive when I can switch between sitting and standing on a whim.
GeekDesk provides the dimensions of the desks, the large may not be able to accommodate your existing track, as the desk hardware mounts across the underside of the desk near the back. My 'small' frame takes up about 10" from the back of the desk, so I just got a 14" humanscale track. (My desk is only 25" wide)
This is slightly imperfect, as my tray can not fully retract under the desk, but the benefit of freeing the work surface and enabling more adjustment outweighs this concern.
How have I never noticed... there was a sale at IKEA last year or something and I picked up a bunch of those. They're the perfect size for my turntable on top and records underneath– but as a rackmount, damn! I knew those things were good for $5 a piece...
I used a similar setup for quite a while, but the big drawback is that you can't conveniently switch between standing and sitting.
Now I have a crank-operated height-adjustable desk that I really like, and it only cost $588. I bought this base http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005NJUQVG and attached an Ikea pine tabletop ($60).
I have the exact same setup at home, and am also a fan. It works well, is cheaper than a lot of other pre-built solutions (although obviously not as cheap as the original post), and seems to be pretty well made. I'm also much happier with the idea of a hand crank than an electric motor.
I also ended up getting an anti-fatigue mat as well. I thought that other standing desk folks were overrating the mats, but after the first few days standing at my desk (on a hardwood floor, no less) I saw the light.
> you can't conveniently switch between standing and sitting.
I have a standing desk and a stool. When I want to sit, I can sit. I can also lean against the stool if I feel like it. I switch positions throughout the day, depending upon how my legs feel etc.
given the relative cost of a keyboard and an extra pair of monitors over the electric adjusting desk - does anyone just have a doubleheaded dual height system ?
Some tips from my experience with a standing desk for the last few years.
- Get a chair tall enough that you can comfortably sit in and work at your desk. I have never been able to stand for an entire day.
- Get a separate footstool that is high enough to work with the above chair. Being separate you can use it as a way to reposition your legs while standing (ie. putting one leg up on the stool) so that you aren't standing in the exact same position all day.
- Either get a decent mat for standing, or make sure you have shoes you can comfortably stand in. I haven't had to use a mat yet personally.
Personally, I feel both sitting and standing for long hours are uncomfortable and prefer walking. But a walking desk is hard to find for $22. I was able to build one for $80 using a used treadmill from Craigslist, free pallet boards made into a keyboard stand, and an old bookshelf to support the monitor.
I can really recommend it even if you'll seldom actually stand up using it. It allows you to change the height a little every now and then so you can vary the position you have.
I switched to a standing desk a year ago and will never go back. The biggest benefit is that it completely got rid of my wrist pain. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why though.
The first couple of months were rough on my back, but adding a nice standing mat helped that a lot...as well as doing some back excercises like back extensions and dead lifts.
I think being able to switch easily between sitting and standing throughout the day beats having to do either one alone for long periods of the time, hands down.
Wish this were standard practice in the corporate world. Seems like a relatively cheap way to improve health/ergonomics.
For mine, I knocked together one out of plywood (3' x 6') and 2x4's for supports and shelving (basically a pair of framed out stands 20"Wx30"Lx42"H)for about $50. Then added a nice anti-fatigue mat from Amazon, and picked up a nice Drafting chair, so I can easily go from standing to sitting (and tend to change position every half hour or so).
Best part is that I was able to precisely size it for my home office, and have it at exactly the right height. Took a bit of getting used to, but it's one of the best investments I've made. Only issue now is that my window AC unit only keeps my feet cold, since the desktop is a few inches higher than the AC unit..
Does anyone actually use a standing desk daily? I get antsy and uncomfortable standing after just a few minutes. How people manage to get real work done with a setup like this is a complete mystery to me.
I was also uncomfortable with my standing desk at first. Several tricks made it better:
* Started working out. Standing became much easier as my physical condition improved.
* Bought an anti-fatigue mat. Crucial.
* Learned to do a subtle, subconscious jig instead of just standing still. You'll be much less antsy when you're constantly shifting your weight around.
I've been using a diy standing desk for almost a year, and was in a cube that I repositioned to standing height for nearly 12 months before that. I don't think I'll ever go back.
Yes. When I first got it ($10 Ikea side table, similar to OP setup) it was hard to stand and concentrate on work for a few weeks. Now I barely notice it and much prefer to stand. Sitting makes me antsy.
I also started working out around that time. Had a hard time squatting 100 lbs. So no wonder it was hard to stand for the first weeks with the standing desk. I was in extremely bad shape.
If you have a lot of trouble standing you might be seriously out of shape too.
Standing gets easier as you do it. But doing it all day is rough. 2-4 hours spread out through the day is more like it (I use a sit stand desk which is a geekdesk legs with ikea gallant top).
For $50 at amazon (+free shipping, yay for Prime), I got a hospital style bedside table. It's small, and not perfectly stable, but it is quite stable, easily adjusted (some models go from 22" to 48" - make sure you get one that goes to 40" if you get one), and comfortably hosts a 17" laptop and a mousepad.
Plus, it has lockable wheels, so it can move around. And you can use it as a bedside table, when you feel like feeling decadent.
I've been combining standing desk, couch and workdesk for some 2 years now. I've completely annihilated back and neck pain with that discipline.
Originally, I was using a standing desk just so I can go and smoke in the other room and not stop working.
As for BMI... Mine is 35, and I am a walking proof that BMI is a complete bogus for individual to measure his well being. I'm just big boned. My head measures 25" on height of 5'11".
I got really lucky. having just moved to alameda from SF, into a house 3 times as big as my apartment, I had very little furniture to fill out my new place.
The neighbor across the street was having a garage sale and I bought two adjustable height desks from him for $200, one of which is an electric raise-lower desk!
I feel so lucky as I have wanted one forever, but couldn't afford one... now I have one!
I have an old fashion chair on top of my table and underneath that a few copies of "Types and Programming Languages". Works really well. I never felt fitter and would really tell every programmer to do the same. Our employees get the choice, but we advice them to walk (I do not think standing is better; at least I tried and it hurts, walking doesn't) behind their desk.
Do you mind sharing how stable that configuration is? (Both the monitor and keyboard)
I've found one difficulty with even moderately nice standing desks (i.e., a Herman Miller desk) is that they vibrate quite noticeably when being typed upon. Combine this with an adjustable monitor (read: easier to customize, more expensive, and shakier) and you get quite an annoying result.
Install 9 screens with at least 3 non interfacing systems on your desk which spans 2m one way and 3m the other or more, L shaped. Ensure your job, several times per day, involves having to stand up and walk to stakeholders 10s or 100s of meters away then verbally face-off rather than passively email. That should be healthy...
I did something similar, except I used old cardboard boxes I found around my house. In the end, I gave it up. My neck and shoulders felt good, but I could feel the blood pooling up in my legs and feet. It just wasn't comfortable. I think some sort of hybrid standing/sitting position would be ideal.
This is awesome. The thing that has put me off the standing desk is the cost. I sit too much. With such a small investment it doesn't matter if it fails or not. Similarly such a small table can be easily discarded.
I am getting the bits later on today. I hope to have a standing desk by the end of the week.
Far too unstable for my tastes, especially with an iMac. I paid slightly more and got an 11" high coffee table from Ikea for $40 to drop on top of my existing desk. it has worked out really well for me, and provides more storage under. Clear work surface!
I don't understand — why are adjustable desks so expensive? I can't imagine someone not being able to produce a more affordable alternative to a GeekDesk. If it's in the $200-$350 range, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
If you work in a cubicle and your desk is attached to the walls, get a screwdriver and a co-worker (optional) to help you adjust it to a comfortable standing height. I did it and it was easy and free!
I bought a similar Ikea side table for $10. I use a laptop so I can take it down and sit. No extra work for keyboard is required. And mine matches the color of the sitting desk.
what I fantasize of using is a dentist chair. You can put the keyboard and mouse on the adjustable tools tray, and hung the monitor on the adjustable arm for the lights. The chair position is adjustable as well (I prefer a position in which I sit more on the back with the legs slightly higher than my bottom). I never felt so good in a chair as I did on a recent visit to the dentist.
No the article assumes you already have a desk at work, and the point is that you would only have to pay $22 to build a standing desk on top of what you already have - most companies will provide you a desk for free, after all.
I bought a Steelcase Airtouch back in Dec. LOVE IT. Stable, looks great, effortless up & down, no waiting for loud electric motors. I paid $1250. Expensive but worth the money IMO.
I find I spend 20% of my time standing, 80% sitting. Being able to switch at any time is key.
At home I use a keyboard stand (or rather a stand designed for an electric piano), it's adjustable for both sitting and standing, and you can easily put it away.
Wait, what do you put on top of it to hold the (presumably) laptop? I say 'presumably' as you usually need two heights on standing desks: one for the keyboard and one for the monitor which should be higher.
I use a couple of belts, that I can adjust to exactly the right length - to get a good height. The laptop sits in that like a dream and makes for a good laptop desk. With a desktop PC - I just sit the monitor somewhere practical, the keyboard spans the stand it just rests there.
My main desk is actually a drop leaf table. I sit my desktop PC on it. When sitting, the monitor is placed in front of the PC. When standing the monitor goes on top of the PC, and I drop the desk bit.
I'd actually prefer a drop leaf that I could hide the PC in. But currently the PC serves as a good stand for the monitor. It also makes the PC very accessible. The trickier part of my setup is accommodating a mouse. But I could just place a board on the piano/keyboard stand.
It didn't work.
Even after months of practice, I found it harder to concentrate while standing and doing it any longer than a few hours would invariably result in back pain. I found myself turning to "sitting tasks" like movies and books frequently just to get a break, and it greatly impaired my productivity. It wasn't easy to admit that I had put such a huge amount of effort into a failed experiment, but that's what it was. I'm writing not to discourage people who might benefit from a standing desk from trying it, but to give people who have nagging doubts about their decision a chance to back out without feeling like an idiot. Eliezer Yudkowsky said once, "'Oops!' is the sound rationalists make when they level up."
For what it's worth, I'm 25, male, 6'0", and 130 lbs. I don't exercise regularly, but I live in an urban area in a third-story walk-up, and I don't drive. If you're thinking I gave up because I'm abnormally out of shape, I'm not.