OBJECTIVE: Sedentariness is associated with weight gain and obesity. A treadmill desk is the combination of a standing desk and a treadmill that allow employees to work while walking at low speed. DESIGN AND METHODS: The hypothesis was that a 1-year intervention with treadmill desks is associated with an increase in employee daily physical activity (summation of all activity per minute) and a decrease in daily sedentary time (zero activity). Employees (n = 36; 25 women, 11 men) with sedentary jobs (87 ± 27 kg, BMI 29 ± 7 kg/m(2) , n = 10 Lean BMI < 25 kg/m(2) , n = 15 Overweight 25 < BMI < 30 kg/m(2) , n = 11 Obese BMI > 30 kg/m(2) ) volunteered to have their traditional desk replaced with a treadmill desk to promote physical activity for 1 year. RESULTS: Daily physical activity (using accelerometers), work performance, body composition, and blood variables were measured at Baseline and 6 and 12 months after the treadmill desk intervention. Subjects who used the treadmill desk increased daily physical activity from baseline 3,353 ± 1,802 activity units (AU)/day to, at 6 months, 4,460 ± 2,376 AU/day (P < 0.001), and at 12 months, 4,205 ± 2,238 AU/day (P < 0.001). Access to the treadmill desks was associated with significant decreases in daily sedentary time (zero activity) from at baseline 1,020 ± 75 min/day to, at 6 months, 929 ± 84 min/day (P < 0.001), and at 12 months, 978 ± 95 min/day (P < 0.001). For the whole group, weight loss averaged 1.4 ± 3.3 kg (P < 0.05). Weight loss for obese subjects was 2.3 ± 3.5 kg (P < 0.03). Access to the treadmill desks was associated with increased daily physical activity compared to traditional chair-based desks; their deployment was not associated with altered performance. For the 36 participants, fat mass did not change significantly, however, those who lost weight (n = 22) lost 3.4 ± 5.4 kg (P < 0.001) of fat mass. Weight loss was greatest in people with obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Access to treadmill desks may improve the health of office workers without affecting work performance.
OBJECTIVE: Sedentariness is associated with weight gain and obesity. A treadmill desk is the combination of a standing desk and a treadmill that allow employees to work while walking at low speed. DESIGN AND METHODS: The hypothesis was that a 1-year intervention with treadmill desks is associated with an increase in employee daily physical activity (summation of all activity per minute) and a decrease in daily sedentary time (zero activity). Employees (n = 36; 25 women, 11 men) with sedentary jobs (87 ± 27 kg, BMI 29 ± 7 kg/m(2) , n = 10 Lean BMI < 25 kg/m(2) , n = 15 Overweight 25 < BMI < 30 kg/m(2) , n = 11 Obese BMI > 30 kg/m(2) ) volunteered to have their traditional desk replaced with a treadmill desk to promote physical activity for 1 year. RESULTS: Daily physical activity (using accelerometers), work performance, body composition, and blood variables were measured at Baseline and 6 and 12 months after the treadmill desk intervention. Subjects who used the treadmill desk increased daily physical activity from baseline 3,353 ± 1,802 activity units (AU)/day to, at 6 months, 4,460 ± 2,376 AU/day (P < 0.001), and at 12 months, 4,205 ± 2,238 AU/day (P < 0.001). Access to the treadmill desks was associated with significant decreases in daily sedentary time (zero activity) from at baseline 1,020 ± 75 min/day to, at 6 months, 929 ± 84 min/day (P < 0.001), and at 12 months, 978 ± 95 min/day (P < 0.001). For the whole group, weight loss averaged 1.4 ± 3.3 kg (P < 0.05). Weight loss for obese subjects was 2.3 ± 3.5 kg (P < 0.03). Access to the treadmill desks was associated with increased daily physical activity compared to traditional chair-based desks; their deployment was not associated with altered performance. For the 36 participants, fat mass did not change significantly, however, those who lost weight (n = 22) lost 3.4 ± 5.4 kg (P < 0.001) of fat mass. Weight loss was greatest in people with obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Access to treadmill desks may improve the health of office workers without affecting work performance.
Authors: Aviroop Biswas; Paul I Oh; Guy E Faulkner; Alis Bonsignore; Maureen T Pakosh; David A Alter Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Liza S Rovniak; Christopher N Sciamanna; Daniel R George; Melissa Bopp; Lan Kong; Ding Ding Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2015-12-30
Authors: Jonathan A Mitchell; Matteo Bottai; Yikyung Park; Simon J Marshall; Steven C Moore; Charles E Matthews Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Chinmay Manohar; Derek T O'Keeffe; Ling Hinshaw; Ravi Lingineni; Shelly K McCrady-Spitzer; James A Levine; Rickey E Carter; Ananda Basu; Yogish C Kudva Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Sarah Kozey Keadle; Kate Lyden; John Staudenmayer; Amanda Hickey; Richard Viskochil; Barry Braun; Patty S Freedson Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 2.665