top of page
Discover the sunny-side of you!
SUNNY-SIDE WELLNESS
RESEARCH
The following database of research articles contains ONLY peer-reviewed studies published within the past 5 years from the date of posting.
Standing vs Sitting
Pre-existing research has shown that continuous body movement is healthy and helps a person maintain proper weight (Bunch, 2015). So why is it acceptable that most modern workplace environments are more sedentary in nature?
A blog from EveryDay Health explores the relationship between these two factors, presenting a collection of various research studies that examine the relationship between the sedentary workplace and worsening health - specifically looking at heart disease, weight, mortality rate, cholesterol, triglyceride levels, and blood glucose levels (Bunch, 2015).
They first used a correlational study that observed the heart disease and mortality rates of bus conductors who stood while working versus those who sat. According to the assumed hypothesis, the bus conductors who stood would be in better health than those who did not, and this is, in fact, what was found (Bunch, 2015). The two variables in this particular study are 1) sitting versus standing at work and 2) heart disease. Interestingly, the researchers pointed out that the *higher-paying* jobs often are more *sedentary* in nature (Bunch, 2015).
The bus conductor study shows the benefits of standing over sitting in the workplace, but the authors went further to investigate the benefits of movement in addition to standing. A second study this article entrusted is an experiment conducted in Australia that focused on the additional benefits of motion during work (Bunch, 2015). They documented baseline points on the subjects while sitting, then standing, followed by *stepping*. They found moderate improvements in blood glucose, triglyceride levels, and cholesterol between sitting and standing, but **considerable to extreme** improvement was seen while stepping (Bunch, 2015).
The results of the studies examined in this article show a number of different correlations. For example, body motion and weight have an inverse relationship implying a negative correlation; as body motion increases weight decreases. Another connection observed is the amount of sitting and heart disease, which shows to have a positive correlation as they both increase together. Under these assumptions, it would be logical to conclude that it is healthier for a person to stand while working, and even better for one’s health is to add some sort of motion such as stepping.
It is important to point out that the authors of this article use the research data to conclude that such behaviors as sitting and standing during the workday *cause* health-related outcomes for its employees. There are several fallacies with this assumption in conjunction with the referenced experimental studies. First, when considering the bus conductor study, it would be logical to assume that in this case, and in many similar workplace situations, older and/or less healthy employees prefer to sit. This would negate the notion that sitting during the workday *causes* negative health as opposed to simply being *associated* with bad health. Additionally, the 2015 Australian study, *Replacing Sitting Time with Standing or Stepping: Associations with Cardio-Metabolic Risk Biomarkers*, examines the health benefits of differing levels of physical activity and has nothing to do with the workplace occupation. The authors of this article apply the results of the study, shouldering the perception that employees who stand are healthier than those who sit because that is what they found associated with those physical activities.
It would have been valuable for the authors to compare these findings to actual health data of employees that worked in corresponding jobs (sitting jobs, standing jobs, and moving jobs). Thankfully, a 2017 Canadian study did exactly this. They followed the health patterns of employees over twelve years. The researchers specifically examined employees who worked in standing occupations compared to those who worked in sitting occupations. They found that those who predominantly worked in standing occupations were twice as likely to develop heart disease than those who worked in sedentary jobs (Smith, Ma, Glazier, Gilbert-Ouimet, & Mustard, n.d.). These results directly contradict the conclusions made by the authors of the first article.
What are your thoughts on standing vs sitting? What other variables are at play and is this enough to determine our health and longevity?
The main takeaway is that standing is better than sitting, and moving is better than standing - regardless of your job.
Bunch, T. J. (2015, Aug. 7). Standing vs. sitting: why movement boosts our health. *Everyday Health.* Retrieved from [https://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/jared-bunch-rhythm-of-life/stand-up-for-a-healthier-life/](https://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/jared-bunch-rhythm-of-life/stand-up-for-a-healthier-life/)
Smith, P., Ma, H., Glazier, R. H., Gilbert-Ouimet, M., & Mustard, C. (n.d.). The relationship between occupational standing and sitting and incident heart disease over a 12-year period in Ontario, Canada. *American Journal of Epidemiology, 187*(1), 27–33. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1093/aje/kwx298
A blog from EveryDay Health explores the relationship between these two factors, presenting a collection of various research studies that examine the relationship between the sedentary workplace and worsening health - specifically looking at heart disease, weight, mortality rate, cholesterol, triglyceride levels, and blood glucose levels (Bunch, 2015).
They first used a correlational study that observed the heart disease and mortality rates of bus conductors who stood while working versus those who sat. According to the assumed hypothesis, the bus conductors who stood would be in better health than those who did not, and this is, in fact, what was found (Bunch, 2015). The two variables in this particular study are 1) sitting versus standing at work and 2) heart disease. Interestingly, the researchers pointed out that the *higher-paying* jobs often are more *sedentary* in nature (Bunch, 2015).
The bus conductor study shows the benefits of standing over sitting in the workplace, but the authors went further to investigate the benefits of movement in addition to standing. A second study this article entrusted is an experiment conducted in Australia that focused on the additional benefits of motion during work (Bunch, 2015). They documented baseline points on the subjects while sitting, then standing, followed by *stepping*. They found moderate improvements in blood glucose, triglyceride levels, and cholesterol between sitting and standing, but **considerable to extreme** improvement was seen while stepping (Bunch, 2015).
The results of the studies examined in this article show a number of different correlations. For example, body motion and weight have an inverse relationship implying a negative correlation; as body motion increases weight decreases. Another connection observed is the amount of sitting and heart disease, which shows to have a positive correlation as they both increase together. Under these assumptions, it would be logical to conclude that it is healthier for a person to stand while working, and even better for one’s health is to add some sort of motion such as stepping.
It is important to point out that the authors of this article use the research data to conclude that such behaviors as sitting and standing during the workday *cause* health-related outcomes for its employees. There are several fallacies with this assumption in conjunction with the referenced experimental studies. First, when considering the bus conductor study, it would be logical to assume that in this case, and in many similar workplace situations, older and/or less healthy employees prefer to sit. This would negate the notion that sitting during the workday *causes* negative health as opposed to simply being *associated* with bad health. Additionally, the 2015 Australian study, *Replacing Sitting Time with Standing or Stepping: Associations with Cardio-Metabolic Risk Biomarkers*, examines the health benefits of differing levels of physical activity and has nothing to do with the workplace occupation. The authors of this article apply the results of the study, shouldering the perception that employees who stand are healthier than those who sit because that is what they found associated with those physical activities.
It would have been valuable for the authors to compare these findings to actual health data of employees that worked in corresponding jobs (sitting jobs, standing jobs, and moving jobs). Thankfully, a 2017 Canadian study did exactly this. They followed the health patterns of employees over twelve years. The researchers specifically examined employees who worked in standing occupations compared to those who worked in sitting occupations. They found that those who predominantly worked in standing occupations were twice as likely to develop heart disease than those who worked in sedentary jobs (Smith, Ma, Glazier, Gilbert-Ouimet, & Mustard, n.d.). These results directly contradict the conclusions made by the authors of the first article.
What are your thoughts on standing vs sitting? What other variables are at play and is this enough to determine our health and longevity?
The main takeaway is that standing is better than sitting, and moving is better than standing - regardless of your job.
Bunch, T. J. (2015, Aug. 7). Standing vs. sitting: why movement boosts our health. *Everyday Health.* Retrieved from [https://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/jared-bunch-rhythm-of-life/stand-up-for-a-healthier-life/](https://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/jared-bunch-rhythm-of-life/stand-up-for-a-healthier-life/)
Smith, P., Ma, H., Glazier, R. H., Gilbert-Ouimet, M., & Mustard, C. (n.d.). The relationship between occupational standing and sitting and incident heart disease over a 12-year period in Ontario, Canada. *American Journal of Epidemiology, 187*(1), 27–33. https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1093/aje/kwx298
Cellular Rejuvenation
Researchers at THE SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES recently found a safe way to reverse the signs of aging with cellular rejuvenation therapy. This concept is not a new one, but not until now was the method safe and showed no sign of damage on the body. What does this mean for our future in health and aging?
Pregnancy & Diet
Pregnancy requires a delicate nutritional balance in diet. There are certain things you can and cannot eat.
SMART Mom Program & Prenatal Stress Coping
With the growing amount of evidence of the ill-effects of prenatal maternal stress, a group of researchers in Southern California decided to test the effects of cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) on a sample of 100 low-income pregnant women who were exhibiting moderate to high levels of prenatal stress. The SMART Moms Program, a tributary of the SMART (Stress Management and Resiliency Training) Program, was an eight-week stress intervention program focused on cognitive-behavioral techniques grounded in the notion of self-awareness (Urizar, Yim, Rodriguez, & Schetter, 2019). Topics of stress awareness, thought awareness, thought replacement, coping awareness, matching coping, social support, communication, and review of skills were all addressed. The data demonstrates decidedly successful results in relieving prenatal stress. This specific study also found that that women who participated in CBSM demonstrated less perceived stress postpartum, and the CBSM seemed to validate better results in non-Latina women (Urizar, Yim, Rodriguez, & Schetter, 2019). Resembling the previous EBP, this study found that the women who took part in the intervention group experienced less perceived stress throughout pregnancy than those not partaking in the intervention program. The women who measured highest in anxiety preliminarily and participated in the intervention showed a steeper decline in cortisol levels than those with more moderate preliminary stress levels. This infers a compounding beneficial effect of CBSM on prenatal maternal stress (PNMS). This information is valuable in understanding the future direction of maternal stress care.
bottom of page