I really wish the NYT would stop attaching words like "lethal" and "toxic" to activities which slightly increase one's risk of illness or injury.

(This is the second such article I've seen in the past few days: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm... )

It has been reading a bit sensationalist. The brain cancer stuff too.

They are doing a nice job of though hyperlinking evidence to back up the claims. Where else can I find similar work? Can I trust them more or less?

I have a desk that Ikea used to make called the "Jerker" (I have no idea what that translates to). The desk surface can be configured to be at any height allowed by the array of holes for the bolts along the two vertical sidebars. I had it configured as a standing station for several months while I was in a less active part of my life. When my life changed and I became more active, I configured it as a sitting desk.

There used to be a website where people would share pictures of their Jerker setups. I wonder why, with such a loyal fan-base, they stopped making it.

Edit: the Wikipedia entry for Ikea offers this explanation: "Because IKEA is a worldwide company working in several countries with several different languages, sometimes the Nordic naming leads to problems where the word means something completely different to the product. While exotic-sounding names draw attention, e.g., in anglophone countries, a number of them call for a snicker. Notable examples include "Jerker" desk, "Fukta" plant spray and "Fartfull" workbench. Also, the most recent new product, Lyckhem (meaning bliss)."

Coincidentally, I got a relevant web-advertisiment this morning. I like the idea of being able to easily reconfigure the desk more often:

http://www.geekdesk.com/

It may be, but people are going to continue sitting.

Maybe instead of telling people how dangerous things are (knowing full well that they will still do them) medical science should start working on a cure.

A pill with the same effects as an hour of exercise will do more to save lives than penicillin.

Between this sitting-is-death and the sugar-is-death piece, there should be tens of millions of dead office workers who died before 60 in the past few decades.

Since social security is in trouble, I'd venture a guess there are plenty of people making it to 65?

Instead of torturing lab rats they should give us quantitative factual numbers about how many office workers are now dead from sugar and sitting.

I'm not saying these studies are wrong, I am saying someone is either exaggerating or not providing what should be easy real-world examples.

Causation doesn't reveal her bosom willingly.

Answer why Japan lives two years long on average, than the US and the UK, and you could help a lot of people:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le...

Living is a lethal activity.. always ends in death