Extrapolating slightly, I guess it's even better to sit at a 180 degree angle. I think I'm going to ask my boss for a couch...Hang on, the right way to sit is at a 135 degree angle? Usually when I do that I get told I look like I'm slacking.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Play standing up
- Thread starter Walking Paradox
- Start date
While I don't argue that most folks (myself included) would be better off with more exercise, I find some of that graphic presentation to raise my critical thinking eyebrows.
Their "calorie burning drops to 1 calorie per minute" is the victim of well-placed rounding error. My understanding is that a human at rest burns about 1.4 calories per minute. By normal rounding rules, you can round that down to 1, and not technically be lying, but you throw out about a third of human energy use in the process. That's misleading. You should only round off when what you drop is not a significant fraction of the total.
Between 1980 and 2000 exercise rates stayed the same, and sitting increased by 8%. First, I'd like to see how they are defining their "exercise rates" and sitting time such that this is even possible.
After that, I'd like them to include some information on dietary changes between 1980 and 2000 before I'll even consider them accepting their suggestion that sitting is the culprit. If caloric intake increased in that span, then sitting probably isn't the real evil, now is it?
And heck, it's done all in black and red and white. No, they're not trying to manipulate your feelings at all there
Yes, they do provide some links at the end, but the initial presentation should not require them to be accurate and unambiguous about their conclusions.
Right message: maintain a proper amount of exercise in your life. But the method used to convey that message at first glance looks misleading - the ends do not justify the means.
Their "calorie burning drops to 1 calorie per minute" is the victim of well-placed rounding error. My understanding is that a human at rest burns about 1.4 calories per minute. By normal rounding rules, you can round that down to 1, and not technically be lying, but you throw out about a third of human energy use in the process. That's misleading. You should only round off when what you drop is not a significant fraction of the total.
Between 1980 and 2000 exercise rates stayed the same, and sitting increased by 8%. First, I'd like to see how they are defining their "exercise rates" and sitting time such that this is even possible.
After that, I'd like them to include some information on dietary changes between 1980 and 2000 before I'll even consider them accepting their suggestion that sitting is the culprit. If caloric intake increased in that span, then sitting probably isn't the real evil, now is it?
And heck, it's done all in black and red and white. No, they're not trying to manipulate your feelings at all there
Yes, they do provide some links at the end, but the initial presentation should not require them to be accurate and unambiguous about their conclusions.
Right message: maintain a proper amount of exercise in your life. But the method used to convey that message at first glance looks misleading - the ends do not justify the means.
Alaxk Knight of Galt
First Post
While I don't argue that most folks (myself included) would be better off with more exercise, I find some of that graphic presentation to raise my critical thinking eyebrows.
Their "calorie burning drops to 1 calorie per minute" is the victim of well-placed rounding error. My understanding is that a human at rest burns about 1.4 calories per minute. By normal rounding rules, you can round that down to 1, and not technically be lying, but you throw out about a third of human energy use in the process. That's misleading. You should only round off when what you drop is not a significant fraction of the total.
Between 1980 and 2000 exercise rates stayed the same, and sitting increased by 8%. First, I'd like to see how they are defining their "exercise rates" and sitting time such that this is even possible.
After that, I'd like them to include some information on dietary changes between 1980 and 2000 before I'll even consider them accepting their suggestion that sitting is the culprit. If caloric intake increased in that span, then sitting probably isn't the real evil, now is it?
And heck, it's done all in black and red and white. No, they're not trying to manipulate your feelings at all there
Yes, they do provide some links at the end, but the initial presentation should not require them to be accurate and unambiguous about their conclusions.
Right message: maintain a proper amount of exercise in your life. But the method used to convey that message at first glance looks misleading - the ends do not justify the means.
You are just a plant for Big Chair
You are just a plant for Big Chair
It's called Puffery, and is a valid marketing ploy to exagerate the claims of your product or position while minimizing the opposition.
I thought it was an amusing PSA, and honestly, the monster graphics fit in well with the D&D crowd.
I think that might be the first chair-related conspiracy theory I've heard. Kudos for uniqueness
I think marketing departments use a definition of "valid" of which I was previously unaware...
Effective, maybe. But "valid"?
I think that might be the first chair-related conspiracy theory I've heard. Kudos for uniqueness
I think marketing departments use a definition of "valid" of which I was previously unaware...
Effective, maybe. But "valid"?
valid as in legal. Puffery being the term to describe a "legal" level of exageration allowed, while not outright lying in some illegal fashion.
My definition is close enough to Wikipedia's
As to the dramatic significance of calorie burn of sloppy rounding of 1/hour vs. the more correct 1.4/hour for sitting?
In an 8 hour lazy boy span, that's 8 calories vs. 11.2 calories. In the scope of needing to burn the 97 calories per 8oz of Coke drunk during that span, it's a pittance of a difference.
prosfilaes
Adventurer
It's 1.4/minute, not 1.4/hour. That's 480 calories versus 672 calories. Not that I really think it matters; it's close enough.
I guess one ha to weight whether the almost 200 calories is worth quibbling over. It's about equal to 1 16oz coke (don't they come in 12oz cans, 20oz bottles?)
For the kind of person who has a problem whom the PSA is targetting, it's piss in a bucket. The solution is to not sit and not drink Coke.
RangerWickett
Legend
You're smart and analytical. Thank you.
Still, I'm standing up as I type this. Figure it couldn't hurt.
Not unless you have to stoop or something, no. I mean, I walk 5 miles any workday that the weather isn't miserable, though I could take a bus. I'm not a supporter of just sitting on your butt all day.
I raise the point only because use of puffery to convince people when you have actual facts is training them to accept puffery as fact! And who do you think is paying out more to those who think of puffery as "valid" - health organizations or snack producers? Who is going to win that fight?
Similar Threads
