<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>RickHull</author><text>&amp;gt; now that the base assumption (&amp;quot;standing is better than sitting&amp;quot;) has been invalidated.&lt;p&gt;This is not true.  This invalid conclusion mirrors the lament that a commenter posted:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=10389475&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=10389475&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The work looks useful and valuable to this area of study. But WaPo and other media outlets persist in a ubiquitous and terrible trend in science reporting, especially those associated with lifestyle and healt : &amp;quot;Here is a study which has different findings than the other studies we&amp;#x27;ve been reporting on, all that research is now overturned! Burn your standing desk!&amp;quot; Of course, in a few months, someone will publish another study calling this one into question, and they&amp;#x27;ll tell us all to go out and buy new standing desks. As we all know, science doesn&amp;#x27;t work that way. This study needs to be put into context with other studies, if it contradicts those studies, that needs to be discussed, future studies that might resolve the discrepancy should be identified, limitations on the applicability of this study and on the ones it contradicts should be pointed out, changes in the model we use to understand the effects of mobility and posture on health should be discussed, etc. etc</text><parent_chain><item><author>zzalpha</author><text>You could argue that, but given there&amp;#x27;s no evidence to support it, it&amp;#x27;s at best colloquial advice.&lt;p&gt;And to be perfectly blunt, that sounds more like an attempt to go back and justify the choice of a standing desk after the fact, now that the base assumption (&amp;quot;standing is better than sitting&amp;quot;) has been invalidated.</text></item><item><author>djtriptych</author><text>I argue that standing is better because the bias towards movement is higher. You can (and will) shift your weight around and take more frequent breaks, simply because you don&amp;#x27;t have to stand up to do so. That might be enough.</text></item><item><author>zzalpha</author><text>Story is far more nuanced than the title suggests:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement rather than the time spent sitting itself,&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing isn&amp;#x27;t any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad.&lt;p&gt;Guess it&amp;#x27;s time to get one of these!&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.amazon.com&amp;#x2F;DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser-White&amp;#x2F;dp&amp;#x2F;B00B1VDNQA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.amazon.com&amp;#x2F;DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser-Whi...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/10/14/sitting-for-long-periods-doesnt-make-death-more-imminent-study-suggests/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ioquatix</author><text>I use a standing desk with multiple terminals laid out so I walk between them. I also agree that while standing you are more likely to take walking breaks or step away for a moment. I also feel like when I&amp;#x27;m standing I&amp;#x27;m a lot more active then when sitting.&lt;p&gt;Finally, when I sit I have a habit of slouching while standing I tend to have a much better posture even for extended times.&lt;p&gt;While a bad back isn&amp;#x27;t death inducing (usually), we should consider all the benefits of standing over sitting, not just the fact that you may or may not die.</text><parent_chain><item><author>zzalpha</author><text>You could argue that, but given there&amp;#x27;s no evidence to support it, it&amp;#x27;s at best colloquial advice.&lt;p&gt;And to be perfectly blunt, that sounds more like an attempt to go back and justify the choice of a standing desk after the fact, now that the base assumption (&amp;quot;standing is better than sitting&amp;quot;) has been invalidated.</text></item><item><author>djtriptych</author><text>I argue that standing is better because the bias towards movement is higher. You can (and will) shift your weight around and take more frequent breaks, simply because you don&amp;#x27;t have to stand up to do so. That might be enough.</text></item><item><author>zzalpha</author><text>Story is far more nuanced than the title suggests:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;quot;Our study overturns current thinking on the health risks of sitting and indicates that the problem lies in the absence of movement rather than the time spent sitting itself,&amp;quot;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Translation: sitting is still bad for you, but standing isn&amp;#x27;t any better, which puts a pin in the standing desk fad.&lt;p&gt;Guess it&amp;#x27;s time to get one of these!&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.amazon.com&amp;#x2F;DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser-White&amp;#x2F;dp&amp;#x2F;B00B1VDNQA&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.amazon.com&amp;#x2F;DeskCycle-Exercise-Pedal-Exerciser-Whi...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Study: Sitting is no worse than standing without moving</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/10/14/sitting-for-long-periods-doesnt-make-death-more-imminent-study-suggests/</url></story>