Somehow "after about two to three minutes, the students rated their subjective energy level" turned into "a lot more energy throughout the day". Also, all the study participants did both styles of walk, contrary to the blog post’s implication. Overall, the summary misleading and not particularly relevant to the author’s main point, which is about the long-term effects of chronically bad posture.

Following a small random selection of links is a decent way of figuring out whether an article quotes its sources fairly — it's common that authors are either quite diligent about everything, or sloppy about everything, not inbetween.

The abstract doesn't quite say the thing she says it says. Not that this shows the overall point of the article is not true, just that a random sampling (n=1, p≤1) of the sources suggests the article may be sloppily written and it and its use of evidence should be questioned, not taken at face value.

FWIW, I think the article is fluff.