Why standing at your desk may be little better than sitting

学习目标

• 辨认健康报道中的相关、因果与解释性推测
• 按respectively把两组数值对应到正确指标
• 分析否定倒装、主语从句与省略结构
• 在摘要中同时保留积极结果和研究局限

PROLONGED SITTING rightly has a bad rap. A review in 2012 concluded that the most sedentary were more than twice as likely as the least to have or develop diabetes, and also faced a much higher risk of premature death. Another, in 2015, found that sitting for long stretches was associated with “deleterious health outcomes regardless of physical activity”. Three years after that an analysis of news articles in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found hundreds of pieces which referred to claims likening sitting to smoking.

长时间坐着名声不好，这并非没有道理。 2012年的一篇综述得出结论：最久坐的人已经患有或随后发生糖尿病的可能性，是最少久坐者的两倍以上，而且过早死亡的风险也高得多。 2015年的另一篇综述发现，不论身体活动水平如何，长时间坐着都与不良健康结局相关。 三年后，《英国运动医学杂志》对新闻文章的分析发现，数百篇文章提到了把久坐比作吸烟的说法。

That last claim is overblown. In 2018 the American Journal of Public Health reckoned sitting’s true risk to be a tenth of that of smoking. But this is still bad. Hence the appeal of standing desks and, more recently, “active seats”: chairs and stools that tilt, wobble or rock to force continual postural adjustments. Is either actually healthier?

最后这种说法夸大其词。 2018年，《美国公共卫生杂志》估计，久坐的实际风险约为吸烟风险的十分之一。 但这依然不妙。 因此，站立桌以及近来出现的“动态座椅”颇具吸引力；后者是会倾斜、摇晃或前后摆动，迫使人不断调整姿势的椅子和凳子。 这两者中，究竟有哪一种真的更健康吗？

An analysis in 2018 found standing at a desk burned just nine more calories per hour than sitting. Nor are the cardiovascular gains impressive. A review in 2020 pooled nine trials involving 877 people. Participants stood about 1.3 hours more a day and were followed for roughly four months. Body fat and blood-sugar control improved slightly, but blood pressure, insulin, cholesterol and triglycerides did not. The study did not, however, look at blood flow and the activation of postural muscles, both factors which might contribute to the benefits of standing over sitting.

2018年的一项分析发现，在办公桌前站着每小时只比坐着多消耗9千卡。 心血管方面的收益也不突出。 2020年的一篇综述汇总了9项试验，涉及877人。 参与者每天大约多站1.3小时，随访持续约4个月。 体脂和血糖控制略有改善，但血压、胰岛素、胆固醇和甘油三酯没有改善。 不过，这项研究并未考察血流及维持姿势的肌肉是否被激活，而这两个因素都可能有助于解释站立相对坐姿的益处。

That said, standing can have downsides. Work published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2024 followed 83,013 adults in Britain for an average of nearly seven years. Those who stood for more than two hours a day had a higher risk of varicose veins and venous ulcers, perhaps because of pooling of blood in the legs.

话虽如此，站立也可能有不利之处。 2024年发表于《国际流行病学杂志》的研究，对英国83,013名成年人平均随访了近7年。 每天站立超过两小时的人，静脉曲张和静脉性溃疡的风险更高，可能是因为血液在腿部淤积。

What matters far more is movement. A study of nearly 482,000 Taiwanese adults in 2024 found that just 15–30 minutes of extra daily exercise could erase most of the excess mortality risk associated with sitting at work. Desk-bound workers may therefore wonder if active seating can make a difference. Some findings are encouraging.

更为重要的是活动身体。 2024年一项针对近48.2万名台湾成年人的研究发现，每天只需额外运动15至30分钟，就可能抵消工作时久坐所关联的大部分超额死亡风险。 因此，久坐办公的人可能想知道，动态座椅能否有所帮助。 一些发现令人鼓舞。

Consider a trial at Georgia Southern University. In this 20 adults performed reading and typing tasks on an ordinary chair, an exercise ball and a seat mounted on top of an inflatable bladder. Energy expenditure on the ball was similar to normal sitting. But on the bladder, participants’ heart rates and calorie burn rose by 6-13% and 19-40% respectively. Writing in Ergonomics in 2019, the researchers attributed this to muscle contractions required to maintain balance.

看看佐治亚南方大学的一项试验。 在这项试验中，20名成年人分别坐在普通椅子、健身球和装在可充气气囊上方的座椅上，完成阅读和打字任务。 坐在球上的能量消耗与普通坐姿相近。 但坐在气囊座椅上时，参与者的心率和热量消耗分别上升了6%至13%和19%至40%。 研究者在2019年的《人体工效学》杂志中写道，他们将这种变化归因于维持平衡所需的肌肉收缩。

A longer trial found another benefit. For six months 133 office workers in Bangkok sat on either a foam seat pad or a slightly unstable inflatable one designed to encourage frequent postural changes. Those using the latter were 81% and 84% less likely to develop neck and lower-back pain, respectively. Writing in the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health in 2024, the researchers described the pad as a “light-exercise device”. They reckoned it reduced fatiguing muscle contractions and improved blood flow to compressed tissues.

一项更长期的试验发现了另一项益处。 133名曼谷办公室工作人员在6个月里，分别使用泡沫坐垫或一种略不稳定、旨在鼓励频繁调整姿势的充气坐垫。 使用后者的人出现颈部疼痛和下背痛的可能性分别低81%和84%。 研究者在2024年的《斯堪的纳维亚工作、环境与健康杂志》中，将这种坐垫描述为“轻度运动装置”。 他们认为，它减少了会使肌肉疲劳的收缩，并改善了受压组织的血流。

There are caveats. Many studies of dynamic sitting have been small or brief. Results have varied with seat design, and some participants have reported discomfort in the derrière. That said, there does seem to be a lesson here: the real distinction is not between sitting and standing, but between remaining still and moving.

但有一些限制需要考虑。 许多关于动态坐姿的研究规模较小或持续时间较短。 结果随座椅设计而异，一些参与者还报告臀部不适。 即便如此，这里似乎确实有一点启示：真正的区别，不在于坐着还是站着，而在于保持不动还是活动身体。

学习资料

精读音频 · 精读笔记