Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 65 items for :

  • "sitting/standing" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Seth A. Creasy, Renee J. Rogers, Thomas D. Byard, Robert J. Kowalsky and John M. Jakicic

Background:

Identifying strategies to increase energy expenditure (EE) may help combat the harmful effects of sedentary behavior. This study examined EE during sitting, standing, and walking.

Methods:

Participants (N = 74) were randomized to 2 of the following activities: sitting using a laptop computer (SIT-C), sitting watching television (SIT-T), standing watching television (STAND), and walking at a self-selected pace ≤3.0 (mph) (WALK). Each activity lasted 15 minutes with a 3-minute transition period between activities. The experimental conditions were: SIT-C to STAND (N = 18), SIT-T to WALK (N = 18), STAND to SIT-C (N = 20), and WALK to SIT-T (N = 18). EE was measured using indirect calorimetry.

Results:

Based on the first activity performed, EE during WALK (55.92 ± 14.19 kcal) was significantly greater than SIT-C (19.63 ± 6.90 kcal), SIT-T (18.66 ± 4.01 kcal), and STAND (21.92 ± 5.08 kcal) (P < .001). Cumulative EE in SIT-T to WALK (74.50 ± 17.88 kcal) and WALK to SIT-T (82.72 ± 21.70 kcal) was significantly greater than EE in SIT-C to STAND (45.38 ± 14.78 kcal) and STAND to SIT-C (45.64 ± 9.69 kcal) (P < .001).

Conclusions:

Conclusion: Substituting periods of sitting or standing with walking significantly increases EE, but substituting periods of sitting with standing may not affect EE. Thus, the potential benefits of standing as opposed to sitting need further investigation beyond the role of EE.

Restricted access

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

Recommendations from industry regulators in different countries advocate the health and safety benefits of encouraging workers to regularly interchange between sitting, standing, and moving postures. 1 , 2 In practice, however, the milieu of modern-day work is characterized by high levels of

Restricted access

Stephanie L. Stockwell, Lindsey R. Smith, Hannah M. Weaver, Daniella J. Hankins and Daniel P. Bailey

collection took place in spring 2017, and the study was approved by the University of Bedfordshire Institute for Sport and Physical Activity Research Ethics Committee (approval number 2017ISPAR001). Other than measurement of sitting, standing, and stepping, all other measures took place at the children

Restricted access

Ian M. Greenlund, Piersan E. Suriano, Steven J. Elmer, Jason R. Carter and John J. Durocher

sitting, standing, and stepping in the workplace . Med Sci Sport Exer . 2018 ; 50 ( 3 ): 516 – 524 . doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001453 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001453 10. Zeigler ZS , Mullane SL , Crespo NC , Buman MP , Gaesser GA . Effects of standing and light-intensity activity on

Restricted access

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

glucose . Med Sci Sports Exerc . 2016 ; 48 ( 12 ): 2503 – 2511 . PubMed ID: 27471786 doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001062 27471786 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001062 35. Miyashita M , Park JH , Takahashi M , Suzuki K , Stensel D , Nakamura Y . Postprandial lipaemia: effects of sitting, standing

Restricted access

Declan Ryan, Jorgen Wullems, Georgina Stebbings, Christopher Morse, Claire Stewart and Gladys Onambele-Pearson

Background: Physical behavior [PB, physical activity (PA), and sedentary behavior (SB)] can adjust cardiovascular mortality risk in older adults. The aim of this study was to predict cardiovascular parameters (CVPs) using 21 parameters of PB. Methods: Participants [n = 93, 73.8 (6.23) y] wore a thigh-mounted accelerometer for 7 days. Phenotype of the carotid, brachial, and popliteal arteries was conducted using ultrasound. Results: Sedentary behavior was associated with one of the 19 CVPs. Standing and light-intensity PA was associated with 3 and 1 CVP, respectively. Our prediction model suggested that an hourly increase in light-intensity PA would be negatively associated with popliteal intima-media thickness [0.09 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.03)]. sMVPA [moderate–vigorous PA (MVPA), accumulated in bouts <10 min] was associated with 1 CVP. 10MVPA (MVPA accumulated in bouts ≥10 min) had no associations. W50% had associations with 3 CVP. SB%, alpha, true mean PA bout, daily sum of PA bout time, and total week 10MVPA each were associated with 2 CVP. Conclusions: Patterns of PB are more robust predictors of CVP than PB (hours per day). The prediction that popliteal intima-media thickness would be negatively associated with increased standing and light-intensity PA engagement suggests that older adults could obtain health benefits without MVPA engagement.

Restricted access

Declan J. Ryan, Jorgen A. Wullems, Georgina K. Stebbings, Christopher I. Morse, Claire E. Stewart and Gladys L. Onambele-Pearson

Background: The aim of the study was to provide an isotemporal substitution model to predict how changes in physical behavior may affect the cardiovascular parameters (CVPs) of older adults. Methods: Participants wore a thigh-mounted accelerometer for 7 days. Phenotype of the carotid, brachial, and popliteal artery was conducted using ultrasound. Isotemporal substitution was used to simulate the degree to which replacing 1 hour of physical behavior with another would affect CVP. Results: Substitution of sedentary behavior with Standing and sporadic moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA accumulated in bouts <10 min) would reduce resting heart rate [−6.20 beats per minute (−12.1 to −0.22) and −3.72 beats per minute (−7.01 to −0.44), respectively]. Substitution of sedentary behavior with light-intensity physical activity would reduce carotid artery diameter [−0.54 mm (−1.00 to −0.07)]. Substitution of Standing with sporadic MVPA would increase popliteal artery diameter [1.31 mm (0.11 to 2.51)]. Conclusions: Our modeling suggests that an accumulation of MVPA bouts that are shorter than the recommended 10-minute minimum may still improve CVP, with lower intensity physical activity also influencing CVP. Our findings are a promising avenue for lifestyle interventions in older adults to reduce the aging effects on CVP for those who cannot engage or sustain sufficient MVPA.

Restricted access

Keith P. Gennuso, Charles E. Matthews and Lisa H. Colbert

Background:

The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of 2 currently available physical activity surveys for assessing time spent in sedentary behavior (SB) in older adults.

Methods:

Fifty-eight adults (≥65 years) completed the Yale Physical Activity Survey for Older Adults (YPAS) and Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) before and after a 10-day period during which they wore an ActiGraph accelerometer (ACC). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) examined test-retest reliability. Overall percent agreement and a kappa statistic examined YPAS validity. Lin’s concordance correlation, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis examined CHAMPS validity.

Results:

Both surveys had moderate test-retest reliability (ICC: YPAS = 0.59 (P < .001), CHAMPS = 0.64 (P < .001)) and significantly underestimated SB time. Agreement between YPAS and ACC was low (κ = −0.0003); however, there was a linear increase (P < .01) in ACC-derived SB time across YPAS response categories. There was poor agreement between ACC-derived SB and CHAMPS (Lin’s r = .005; 95% CI, −0.010 to 0.020), and no linear trend across CHAMPS quartiles (P = .53).

Conclusions:

Neither of the surveys should be used as the sole measure of SB in a study; though the YPAS has the ability to rank individuals, providing it with some merit for use in correlational SB research.

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

Background: Limited research examines the influence of sit-stand desks on ratings of discomfort, sleepiness, and fatigue. This study evaluated the time course of these outcomes over 1 day. Methods: Adults (N = 25) completed a randomized cross-over study in a laboratory with two 8-hour workday conditions: (1) prolonged sitting (SIT) and (2) alternating sitting and standing every 30 minutes (SIT-STAND). Sleepiness was assessed hourly. Discomfort, physical fatigue, and mental fatigue were measured every other hour. Linear mixed models evaluated whether these measures differed across conditions and the workday. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. Results: Participants were primarily white (84%) males (64%), with mean (SD) body mass index of 31.9 (5.0) kg/m2 and age 42 (12) years. SIT-STAND resulted in decreased odds of discomfort (OR = 0.37, P = .01) and lower overall discomfort (β = −0.19, P < .001, d = 0.42) versus SIT. Discomfort during SIT-STAND was lower in the lower and upper back, but higher in the legs (all Ps< .01, d = 0.26–0.42). Sleepiness (β = −0.09, P = .01, d = 0.15) and physical fatigue (β = −0.34, P = .002, d = 0.34) were significantly lower in SIT-STAND. Mental fatigue was similar across conditions. Conclusions: Sit-stand desks may reduce acute levels of sleepiness, physical fatigue, and both overall and back discomfort. However, levels of lower extremity discomfort may be increased with acute exposure.

Restricted access

Julia Rudecki, Katie Weatherson and Guy Faulkner

Background: Many studies have attempted to mitigate the negative health consequences of sedentary behavior (SB) in the work environment using standing desks. However, no studies have explored the use of standing desks in the home. Purpose: To evaluate interest, factors influencing desk usage, and acceptability of a low-cost standing desk in the home. Methods: Participants (adults aged 18-65 years living in university residential areas) received a low-cost standing desk, and completed online surveys at baseline and 4 weeks to assess leisure SB. After 4 weeks, participants completed a phone interview to assess level of engagement and acceptability. A follow-up interview was conducted at 6 months. A descriptive content analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 71 participants were recruited, with 55 and 49 participants completing the 4-week and 6-month interview, respectively. At 4 weeks, there was a self-reported decline in weekday leisure SB (P < .05), but not on weekend days. Approximately 75% of interviewed participants reported using the desk every week. After 6 months, 21 participants (30%) were still using the desk. Conclusion: This study indicates interest in using standing desks in the home. Future research could examine the behavioral and health impact of SB interventions in this setting.