Energy Cost of Standing in a Multi-Ethnic Cohort: Are Energy-Savers a Minority or the Majority?

Standing or Very Low-Intensity Cycling as Sedentary Breaks: Does Physical Activity Level Matter?

BACKGROUND

Active breaks and very low- to low-intensity exercises such as walking or cycling at an active desk have been shown to significantly counteract the negative effect of prolonged sedentary behaviors. The objective was to investigate the effect of physical activity level (PAL) on changes in energy expenditure (EE), heart rate, and substrate oxidation from sit-to-stand and sit-to-light cycling.

METHODS

Fifty healthy young males and females (age: 23.9 [3.9] y, body mass index: 22.9 [2.3] kg/m2) were submitted to a fixed 1 hour session of different posture allocations: 15-minute sitting, 15-minute standing, 15-minute sitting, and 15-minute very low-intensity cycling. EE, substrate oxidation rates, and heart rate were continuously assessed throughout the experimental visit. Data were then compared between participants according to their PAL in tertiles (low, medium, or high). The high-PAL group showed lower sedentary time (P < .0001) and higher time spent in low (P < .0001), moderate (P < .0001), and vigorous physical activity (P = .0034).

RESULTS

ANOVA's analysis showed that EE significantly increased when standing (+11%) and cycling (+94%) relative to the seated position (P < .05) without any differences between groups. There was also a significant increase in heart rate during standing and cycling compared with sitting (P < .05) without any differences between groups. Relative EE (in kilocalories per minute per kilogram) was significantly higher when seated (P < .05) independent of PAL but marginally higher in the high-PAL group when standing relative to the medium-PAL group (P = .06).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that people's PAL does not impact energetic and metabolic adaptations during sit-to-stand and sit-to-very-light-intensity cycling exercise.

The Energetic Saver Profile From Sit-to-Stand Does Not Persist During Very Low-Intensity Physical Activity in Healthy Men and Women

BACKGROUND

It is essential to better characterize the energetic profile of individuals during very low-intensity physical activity. The objectives of the present study were to determine whether the saver profile from sit-to-stand persists during light physical activity and characterize patterns in substrate utilization from sit-to-stand and during very low-intensity physical activity in healthy men and women.

METHODS

Sixty-two healthy adults (38 women) performed an experimental sequence that corresponded to 15-minute sitting (SIT1), followed by 15-minute standing (STAND), 15-minute sitting again (SIT2), and finally 15 minutes of light cycling. Continuous indirect calorimetry was allowed to calculate energy expenditure (EE) and respiratory quotient through the entire sequence. Savers and nonsavers (<5% and ≥ 5% increase in EE from sitting to standing, respectively) were determined.

RESULTS

There was an interaction effect in EE between savers and nonsavers through the whole sequence (P = .008). Only nonsavers (71%) exhibited a significant increase in EE from SIT1 to STAND (P < .001). Nonsavers and savers significantly increased EE during 15 minutes of light cycling relative to sitting or standing (P < .001), without any difference between groups. The percentage of change in respiratory quotient from SIT1 to STAND was significantly different between the 2 groups, with increased values in savers and decreased values in nonsavers (P = .03). Significantly lower values in respiratory quotient and EE were found during 15 minutes of light cycling in women compared with men (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

It is essential to determine individuals' energetic phenotype to determine those who may benefit more from strategies such as standing or light physical activity. The sexual dimorphism in terms of substrate use during such exercise should be considered.

Posture economy: the importance of metabolic state on metabolic phenotype assessment and the energy cost of sitting and standing. A whole body calorimetry trial

BACKGROUND

Metabolic state (fed vs fasted) can result in marked differences in exercise metabolism, fat, and carbohydrate oxidation. In addition, a large inter-individual range in metabolic response to sitting and standing when fasted has been observed. Here, we examined the effect of metabolic state on the energy cost of posture allocation.

METHODS

Thirty male participants were recruited and followed a 1 h sit-stand protocol in a fasted and fed state inside a whole body calorimeter to measure energy expenditure (EE) and respiratory quotient (RQ). Body composition and resting metabolic rate were measured before the start. Fasted EE response was used to phenotype participants as energy savers (≤5% ΔEE from sitting to standing) or energy spenders (>5% ΔEE).

RESULTS

In a fasted state, ΔEE from sitting to standing in energy spenders was 10.2 ± 2.7% compared to 2.6 ± 1.9% in energy savers (p < 0.001). Postprandial, there was no difference in ΔEE between energy spenders and energy savers (10.8 ± 5.1% vs 9.4 ± 5.7%). In a fasted state, significant correlations were observed between body fat (%) and ΔEE (%) (R² = 0.55, p < 0.001), body fat (%) and ΔRQ (R² = 0.28, p < 0.001) and ΔEE (%) and ΔRQ (R² = 0.43, p < 0.001); these correlations were not present after the meal.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study showed for the first time, that the observed difference between energy spenders and energy savers in a fasted state, disappeared after the consumption of a meal. Therefore, metabolic state may be important to consider when assessing metabolic phenotypes. Differences in body composition were observed between the energy spender and energy saver phenotype. The current findings may have implications on health and weight management recommendations on posture to increase non-exercise activity thermogenesis. This trial was retrospectively registered on 19 December 2017 as NCT03378115 on Clinicaltrials.gov .

Metabolic profile in women differs between high versus low energy spenders during a low intensity exercise on a cycle-desk

Active-desks are emerging strategies aiming at reducing sedentary time while working. A large inter-individual variability in energy expenditure (EE) profile has been identified and has to be explored to better optimize and individualize those strategies. Thus the present study aimed at comparing the metabolic and physical profile of individuals characterized as high spenders (H-Spenders) versus low spenders (L-Spenders) based on EE during a cycle-desk low intensity exercise. 28 healthy women working in administrative positions were enrolled. Anthropometric, body composition and fasting metabolic profile parameters were assessed. EE was determined by indirect calorimetry, at rest and during a 30-min cycle-desk use. Participants were categorized as H-Spenders and L-Spenders using the median of the difference between EE at rest and during the 30-min exercise. H-Spenders had higher mean EE (p < 0.001) and carbohydrate oxidation (p = 0.009) during exercise. H-Spenders displayed higher values for fasting plasma insulin (p = 0.002) and HOMA-IR (p = 0.002) and lower values for HDL-cholesterol (p = 0.014) than L-Spenders. The percentage of body fat mass was significantly higher in H-Spenders (p = 0.034). Individuals expending more energy during a low intensity cycling exercise presented a less healthy metabolic profile compared with L-Spenders. Future studies will have to explore whether the chronic use of cycle-desks during work time can improve energy profile regarding metabolic parameters.

Cardiometabolic and neuromuscular analyses of the sit-to-stand transition to question its role in reducing sedentary patterns

To counteract the detrimental health effect of sitting all day long, it has been suggested to regularly break sitting time by standing. However, while the difference in energy expenditure, neuromuscular and/or cardiovascular demand of various postures from lying, sitting, and standing is well documented, little is known regarding the dynamic changes occurring during the sit-to-stand transition itself. The aim of the present study was then to describe the cardiometabolic and neuromuscular responses from sitting to standing and specifically during the time-course of this transition. Twelve healthy young participants were asked to perform standardized raises from sitting posture, while cardiometabolic (cardiorespiratory and hemodynamic variables) and neuromuscular (calf muscles' myoelectrical activity, spinal and supraspinal excitabilities) parameters were monitored. As a result, while there was a rapid adaptation for all the systems after rising, the neuromuscular system displayed the faster adaptation (~ 10 s), then hemodynamic (~ 10 to 20 s) and finally the metabolic variables (~ 30 to 40 s). Oxygen uptake, energy expenditure, ventilation, and heart rate were significantly higher and stroke volume significantly lower during standing period compared to sitting one. In calf muscles, spinal excitability (H-reflexes), was lowered by the sit-to-stand condition, while supraspinal drive (V-wave) was similar, indicating different cortico-spinal balance from sitting to standing. Although very heterogenous among participants in terms of magnitude, the present results showed a rapid adaptation for all the systems after rising and the health benefit, notably in terms of energy expenditure, appears rather modest, even if non negligeable.

Concurrent and discriminant validity of ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points to measure sedentary behaviour, activity level, and posture in office work

Background

Sedentary Behaviour (SB) gets an increasing attention from ergonomics and public health due to its associated detrimental health effects. A large number of studies record SB with ActiGraph counts-per-minute cut-points, but we still lack valid information about what the cut-points tell us about office work. This study therefore analysed the concurrent and discriminant validity of commonly used cut-points to measure SB, activity level, and posture.

Methods

Thirty office workers completed four office tasks at three workplaces (conventional chair, activity-promoting chair, and standing desk) while wearing two ActiGraphs (waist and wrist). Indirect calorimetry and prescribed posture served as reference criteria. Generalized Estimation Equations analysed workplace and task effects on the activity level and counts-per-minute, and kappa statistics and ROC curves analysed the cut-point validity.

Results

The activity-promoting chair (p < 0.001, ES ≥ 0.66) but not the standing desk (p = 1.0) increased the activity level, and both these workplaces increased the waist (p ≤ 0.003, ES ≥ 0.63) but not the wrist counts-per-minute (p = 0.74) compared to the conventional chair. The concurrent and discriminant validity was higher for activity level (kappa: 0.52–0.56 and 0.38–0.45, respectively) than for SB and posture (kappa ≤0.35 and ≤ 0.19, respectively). Furthermore, the discriminant validity for activity level was higher for task effects (kappa: 0.42–0.48) than for workplace effects (0.13–0.24).

Conclusions

ActiGraph counts-per-minute for waist and wrist placement were – independently of the chosen cut-point – a measure for activity level and not for SB or posture, and the cut-points performed better to detect task effects than workplace effects. Waist cut-points were most valid to measure the activity level in conventional seated office work, but they showed severe limitations for sit-stand desks. None of the placements was valid to detect the increased activity on the activity-promoting chair. Caution should therefore be paid when analysing the effect of workplace interventions on activity level with ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10387-7.

Can Physical Activity While Sedentary Produce Health Benefits? A Single-Arm Randomized Trial

Background

Sedentary time poses a risk to health. Substituting physical activity for inactivity is obvious but this requires a behavior change. Interventions advocated to decrease uninterrupted physical inactivity (defined as Metabolic Equivalent of Task (METS) less than 1.5) are important. One such intervention is accomplished with the Gentle Jogger (GJ), a low risk motorized wellness device which produces effortless, rapid motion of the lower extremities simulating locomotion or fidgeting. GJ produces health benefits in type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure. The purpose of this trial was to ascertain whether GJ increases METS above 1.5 to explain its effectiveness despite sedentary behavior or whether tapping is responsible.

Methods

A randomized single-arm trial was conducted. Subjects were randomized to begin the study in either the supine or seated postures and on the same day crossed over with the starting posture reversed. Oxygen consumption was measured at rest and during GJ.

Results

Twenty-six subjects were studied (15 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 44 ± 15 years and BMI 27.9 ± 5.0, 19 were overweight or obese, and 7 had normal BMI. GJ increased oxygen consumption and METS 15% in the seated posture and 13% in the supine posture. No individual receiving GJ achieved METS exceeding 1.5.

Conclusions

In a moderately obese population, GJ in seated or supine posture did not exceed 1.5 METS. The values are comparable to those reported for sit-stand interventions and cannot explain the health benefits of GJ.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03602365. Registered on July 26, 2018

The Energy Cost of Sitting versus Standing Naturally in Man

PURPOSE

Prolonged sitting is a major health concern, targeted via government policy and the proliferation of height-adjustable workstations and wearable technologies to encourage standing. Such interventions have the potential to influence energy balance and thus facilitate effective management of body/fat mass. It is therefore remarkable that the energy cost of sitting versus standing naturally remains unknown.

METHODS

Metabolic requirements were quantified via indirect calorimetry from expired gases in 46 healthy men and women (age, 27 ± 12 yr; mass, 79.3 ± 14.7 kg; body mass index, 24.7 ± 3.1 kg·m, waist/hip, 0.81 ± 0.06) under basal conditions (i.e., resting metabolic rate) and then, in a randomized and counterbalanced sequence, during lying, sitting and standing. Critically, no restrictions were placed on natural/spontaneous bodily movements (i.e., fidgeting) to reveal the fundamental contrast between sitting and standing in situ while maintaining a comfortable posture.

RESULTS

The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) increment in energy expenditure was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06-0.31 kJ·min) from resting metabolic rate to lying was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03-0.27 kJ·min) from lying to sitting and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.53-0.77 kJ·min) from sitting to standing. An ancillary observation was that the energy cost of each posture above basal metabolic requirements exhibited marked interindividual variance, which was inversely correlated with resting heart rate for all postures (r = -0.5; -0.7 to -0.1) and positively correlated with self-reported physical activity levels for lying (r = 0.4; 0.1 to 0.7) and standing (r = 0.6; 0.3-0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions designed to reduce sitting typically encourage 30 to 120 min·d more standing in situ (rather than perambulation), so the 12% difference from sitting to standing reported here does not represent an effective strategy for the treatment of obesity (i.e., weight loss) but could potentially attenuate any continued escalation of the ongoing obesity epidemic at a population level.

Ruiz J. Energy expenditure differences across lying, sitting, and standing positions in young healthy adults

The time spent in sedentary behaviour represents an important public health burden. To reduce sedentary time in the general population, the simplest, most effective, and most accessible method is to decrease lying and sitting time. We aimed to compare differences on energy expenditure (EE) across lying, sitting, and standing positions; and to analyse the associations between the change on EE of changing from one position to another and anthropometric and body composition parameters in young healthy adults. A total of 55 (69% women) young healthy adults aged 21.7 ± 2.2 participated in the study. We measured EE by indirect calorimetry across lying, sitting, and standing positions following the standard procedures. The EE was significantly higher in standing than in both lying and sitting positions (mean difference: 0.121±0.292 and 0.125±0.241 kcal/min, respectively; all P<0.001), and no differences were observed between lying and sitting positions (P = 1.000). There was a negative association between the EE differences in sitting vs. standing position and lean body mass (P = 0.048), yet no associations between EE differences with the rest of the anthropometric and body composition parameters were observed in each position pair studied (all P>0.321). Our findings support the fact that increasing the time spent standing could be a simple strategy to slightly increase EE. Therefore, our results have important clinical implications including a better monitoring, characterizing, and promoting countermeasures to sedentariness through low-level physical activities.

Measuring Sedentary Behavior by Means of Muscular Activity and Accelerometry

Sedentary Behavior (SB) is among the most frequent human behaviors and is associated with a plethora of serious chronic lifestyle diseases as well as premature death. Office workers in particular are at an increased risk due to their extensive amounts of occupational SB. However, we still lack an objective method to measure SB consistent with its definition. We have therefore developed a new measurement system based on muscular activity and accelerometry. The primary aim of the present study was to calibrate the new-developed 8-CH-EMG+ for measuring occupational SB against an indirect calorimeter during typical desk-based office work activities. In total, 25 volunteers performed nine office tasks at three typical workplaces. Minute-by-minute posture and activity classification was performed using subsequent decision trees developed with artificial intelligence data processing techniques. The 8-CH-EMG+ successfully identified all sitting episodes (AUC = 1.0). Furthermore, depending on the number of electromyography channels included, the device has a sensitivity of 83–98% and 74–98% to detect SB and active sitting (AUC = 0.85–0.91). The 8-CH-EMG+ advances the field of objective SB measurements by combining accelerometry with muscular activity. Future field studies should consider the use of EMG sensors to record SB in line with its definition.

Differences of energy expenditure while sitting versus standing: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Replacing sitting with standing is one of several recommendations to decrease sedentary time and increase the daily energy expenditure, but the difference in energy expenditure between standing versus sitting has been controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine this difference. Designs and methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for observational and experimental studies that compared the energy expenditure of standing versus sitting. We calculated mean differences and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. We conducted different predefined subgroup analyses based on characteristics of participants and study design. Results We identified 658 studies and included 46 studies with 1184 participants for the final analysis. The mean difference in energy expenditure between sitting and standing was 0.15 kcal/min (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-0.17). The difference among women was 0.1 kcal/min (95% CI 0.0-0.21), and was 0.19 kcal/min (95% CI 0.05-0.33) in men. Observational studies had a lower difference in energy expenditure (0.11 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.08-0.14) compared to randomised trials (0.2 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.12-0.28). By substituting sitting with standing for 6 hours/day, a 65 kg person will expend an additional 54 kcal/day. Assuming no increase in energy intake, this difference in energy expenditure would be translated into the energy content of about 2.5 kg of body fat mass in 1 year. Conclusions The substitution of sitting with standing could be a potential solution for a sedentary lifestyle to prevent weight gain in the long term. Future studies should aim to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of this strategy.

Posture Allocation Revisited: Breaking the Sedentary Threshold of Energy Expenditure for Obesity Management

There is increasing recognition that low-intensity physical activities of daily life play an important role in achieving energy balance and that their societal erosion through substitution with sedentary (mostly sitting) behaviors, whether occupational or for leisure, impact importantly on the obesity epidemic. This has generated considerable interest for better monitoring, characterizing, and promoting countermeasures to sedentariness through a plethora of low-level physical activities (e.g., active workstations, standing desks, sitting breaks), amid the contention that altering posture allocation (lying, sitting, standing) can modify energy expenditure to impact upon body weight regulation and health. In addressing this contention, this paper first revisits the past and more recent literature on postural energetics, with particular emphasis on potential determinants of the large inter-individual variability in the energy cost of standing and the impact of posture on fat oxidation. It subsequently analyses the available data pertaining to various strategies by which posture allocations, coupled with light physical activity, may increase energy expenditure beyond the sedentary threshold, and their relevance as potential targets for obesity management.

Standing economy: does the heterogeneity in the energy cost of posture maintenance reside in differential patterns of spontaneous weight-shifting?

PURPOSE

Due to sedentarity-associated disease risks, there is much interest in methods to increase low-intensity physical activity. In this context, it is widely assumed that altering posture allocation can modify energy expenditure (EE) to impact body-weight regulation and health. However, we have recently shown the existence of two distinct phenotypes pertaining to the energy cost of standing-with most individuals having no sustained increase in EE during steady-state standing relative to sitting comfortably. Here, we investigated whether these distinct phenotypes are related to the presence/absence of spontaneous "weight-shifting", i.e. the redistribution of body-weight from one foot to the other.

METHODS

Using indirect calorimetry to measure EE in young adults during sitting and 10 min of steady-state standing, we examined: (i) heterogeneity in EE during standing (n = 36); (ii) EE and spontaneous weight-shifting patterns (n = 18); (iii) EE during spontaneous weight-shifting versus experimentally induced weight-shifting (n = 7), and; (iv) EE during spontaneous weight-shifting versus intermittent leg/body displacement (n = 6).

RESULTS

Despite heterogeneity in EE response to steady-state standing, no differences were found in the amount or pattern of spontaneous weight-shifting between the two phenotypes. Whilst experimentally induced weight-shifting resulted in a mean EE increase of only 11% (range: 0-25%), intermittent leg/body displacement increased EE to >1.5 METs in all participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the variability in spontaneous weight-shifting signatures between individuals does not appear to underlie heterogeneity in the energy cost of standing posture maintenance, these studies underscore the fact that leg/body displacement, rather than standing posture alone, is needed to increase EE above the currently defined sedentary threshold.