Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 13 items for :

  • "sit-stand workstation" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Alicia Ann Thorp, Bronwyn A. Kingwell, Coralie English, Louise Hammond, Parneet Sethi, Neville Owen and David W. Dunstan

Background:

To determine whether alternating bouts of sitting and standing at work influences daily workplace energy expenditure (EE).

Methods:

Twenty-three overweight/obese office workers (mean ± SD; age: 48.2 ± 7.9 y, body mass index: 29.6 ± 4.0 kg/m2) undertook two 5-day experimental conditions in an equal, randomized order. Participants wore a “metabolic armband” (SenseWear Armband Mini) to estimate daily workplace EE (KJ/8 h) while working (1) in a seated work posture (SIT condition) or (2) alternating between a standing and seated work posture every 30 minutes using a sit-stand workstation (STAND-SIT condition). To assess the validity of the metabolic armband, a criterion measure of acute EE (KJ/min; indirect calorimetry) was performed on day 4 of each condition.

Results:

Standing to work acutely increased EE by 0.7 [95% CI 0.3–1.0] KJ/min (13%), relative to sitting (P = .002). Compared with indirect calorimetry, the metabolic armband provided a valid estimate of EE while standing to work (mean bias: 0.1 [–0.3 to 0.4] KJ/min) but modestly overestimated EE while sitting (P = .005). Daily workplace EE was greatest during the STAND-SIT condition (mean condition difference [95% CI]: 76 [8–144] KJ/8-h workday, P = .03).

Conclusions:

Intermittent standing at work can modestly increase daily workplace EE compared with seated work in overweight/obese office workers.

Restricted access

Brittany T. MacEwen, Travis J. Saunders, Dany J. MacDonald and Jamie F. Burr

Background:

Sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting time among healthy office workers; however, their metabolic and behavioral impact in higher risk populations remains unknown.

Methods:

25 office workers with abdominal obesity were randomized to an intervention (sit-stand workstation) or control group (seated desk) for 12 weeks. Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and cardiometabolic risk factors were assessed before and after the intervention period in both groups.

Results:

In comparison with the control group, which did not change, the intervention group experienced significant reductions in workday (344 ± 107 to 186 ± 101 min/day) and total (645 ± 140 to 528 ± 91 min/day) sitting time, as well as increases in workday standing time (154 ± 108 to 301 ± 101 min/day, P < .05). There were no changes in sitting or standing time outside of work hours, steps taken each day, or any marker of cardiometabolic risk in either group (all P > .05).

Conclusion:

Sit-stand desks were effective in reducing workplace sedentary behavior in an at-risk population, with no change in sedentary behavior or physical activity outside of work hours. However, these changes were not sufficient to improve markers of cardiometabolic risk in this population.

Restricted access

Amy A. Eyler, Aaron Hipp, Cheryl Ann Valko, Ramya Ramadas and Marissa Zwald

pretest and posttest, respectively. Data from the 4 variables of interest are depicted in Table  1 . There were significant differences in having a sit/stand workstation from baseline to posttest for Brown School group compared with the control group. There were also significant differences for perception

Restricted access

Julia Rudecki, Katie Weatherson and Guy Faulkner

was due to the low cost and nonadjustable nature of the desk. However, 2 studies in Australia 18 , 19 using costlier, adjustable sit-stand workstations in the office have also identified barriers related to the design of the workstation (unstable work platform, height adjustability restrictions for

Restricted access

Robert J. Kowalsky, Sophy J. Perdomo, John M. Taormina, Christopher E. Kline, Andrea L. Hergenroeder, Jeffrey R. Balzer, John M. Jakicic and Bethany Barone Gibbs

attachments to replace sitting time with standing while allowing work to continue uninterrupted is another strategy to decrease sedentary time, and potentially, improve feelings of discomfort and fatigue. Though sit-stand workstations facilitate lower intensity activity breaks and can be costly, desktop

Restricted access

Nicole Alfonsin, Vienna McLeod, Angela Loder and Loretta DiPietro

that building projects distinguish sit–stand workstations as an active design strategy separate from dynamic workstations and give the lowest priority to those strategies that reduce sitting time without increasing physical activity (eg, sit–stand desks). Further, research regarding the relative health

Restricted access

Katie Weatherson, Lira Yun, Kelly Wunderlich, Eli Puterman and Guy Faulkner

, work performance/productivity) that may be meaningful to employers. 35 These are important factors that need to be considered and studied in further detail to quantify the benefit of sit–stand workstations. The primary purpose of the EMA protocol in this study was to sample the occurrence of movement behaviors

Restricted access

Nicholas D. Gilson, Caitlin Hall, Angela Renton, Norman Ng and William von Hippel

doi:10.1136/oemed-2014-102348 25168375 10.1136/oemed-2014-102348 22. Dutta N , Koepp GA , Stovitz SD , Levine JA , Pereira MA . Using sit-stand workstations to decrease sedentary time in office workers: a randomized crossover trial . Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 ; 11 ( 7

Restricted access

Bronwyn K. Clark, Nyssa T. Hadgraft, Takemi Sugiyama and Elisabeth A. Winkler

et al., 2018 ; Jancey et al., 2016 ; Sugiyama, Hadgraft, Healy, Owen, & Dunstan, 2018 ). They may also help inform the selection of appropriate intervention strategies, such as sit-stand workstations (where sitting time commonly occurs at the desk) or alterations to how meetings are held (where

Restricted access

James E. Peterman, Kalee L. Morris, Rodger Kram and William C. Byrnes

. Alkhajah TA , Reeves MM , Eakin EG , Winkler EAH , Owen N , Healy GN . Sit-stand workstations: a pilot intervention to reduce office sitting time . Am J Prev Med . 2012 ; 43 ( 3 ): 298 – 303 . PubMed ID: 22898123 doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05027 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.027 22898123 12