PURPOSE: Modern lifestyles require people to spend prolonged periods of sitting, and public health messages recommend replacing sitting with as much standing as is feasible. The metabolic/energy cost (MEC) of sitting and standing is poorly understood, and MEC associated with a transition from sitting to standing has not been reported. Thus, we carefully quantified the MEC for sitting, standing and sit/stand transitions, adjusting for age and fat-free mass (FFM) in a sample of adults with no known disease. METHODS: Participants (N = 50; 25 women), 20–64 years, randomly performed three conditions for 10 min each (sitting, standing, 1 sit/stand transition min(−1) and then sitting back down). MEC was measured by indirect calorimetry and FFM by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: V̇O2 (ml kg(−1) min(−1)) for sitting (2.93 ± 0.61; 2.87 ± 0.37 in men and women respectively), standing (3.16 ± 0.63; 3.03 ± 0.40), and steady-state cost of repeated sit/stand transitions (1 min(−1)) (3.86 ± 0.75; 3.79 ± 0.57) were significantly different regardless of sex and weight (p < 0.001). EE (kcal min(−1)) also differed from sitting (1.14 ± 0.18; 0.88 ± 0.11), to standing (1.23 ± 0.19; 0.92 ± 0.13), and sit/stand transitions (1 min(−1)) (1.49 ± 0.25; 1.16 ± 0.16). Heart-rate increased from sitting to standing (~13 bpm; p < 0.001). Neither sex nor FFM influenced the results (p ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study found in a sample of adults with no known disease that continuous standing raised MEC 0.07 kcal min(−1) above normal sitting. The transition from sitting to standing (and return to sitting) had a metabolic cost of 0.32 kcal min(−1) above sitting. Therefore, public health messages recommending to interrupt sitting frequently should be informed of the modest energetic costs regardless of sex and body composition.
PURPOSE: Modern lifestyles require people to spend prolonged periods of sitting, and public health messages recommend replacing sitting with as much standing as is feasible. The metabolic/energy cost (MEC) of sitting and standing is poorly understood, and MEC associated with a transition from sitting to standing has not been reported. Thus, we carefully quantified the MEC for sitting, standing and sit/stand transitions, adjusting for age and fat-free mass (FFM) in a sample of adults with no known disease. METHODS:Participants (N = 50; 25 women), 20–64 years, randomly performed three conditions for 10 min each (sitting, standing, 1 sit/stand transition min(−1) and then sitting back down). MEC was measured by indirect calorimetry and FFM by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: V̇O2 (ml kg(−1) min(−1)) for sitting (2.93 ± 0.61; 2.87 ± 0.37 in men and women respectively), standing (3.16 ± 0.63; 3.03 ± 0.40), and steady-state cost of repeated sit/stand transitions (1 min(−1)) (3.86 ± 0.75; 3.79 ± 0.57) were significantly different regardless of sex and weight (p < 0.001). EE (kcal min(−1)) also differed from sitting (1.14 ± 0.18; 0.88 ± 0.11), to standing (1.23 ± 0.19; 0.92 ± 0.13), and sit/stand transitions (1 min(−1)) (1.49 ± 0.25; 1.16 ± 0.16). Heart-rate increased from sitting to standing (~13 bpm; p < 0.001). Neither sex nor FFM influenced the results (p ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study found in a sample of adults with no known disease that continuous standing raised MEC 0.07 kcal min(−1) above normal sitting. The transition from sitting to standing (and return to sitting) had a metabolic cost of 0.32 kcal min(−1) above sitting. Therefore, public health messages recommending to interrupt sitting frequently should be informed of the modest energetic costs regardless of sex and body composition.
Authors: John P Buckley; Alan Hedge; Thomas Yates; Robert J Copeland; Michael Loosemore; Mark Hamer; Gavin Bradley; David W Dunstan Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: J Henson; T Yates; S J H Biddle; C L Edwardson; K Khunti; E G Wilmot; L J Gray; T Gorely; M A Nimmo; M J Davies Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Sepideh Kaviani; Dale A Schoeller; Eric Ravussin; Edward L Melanson; Sarah T Henes; Lara R Dugas; Ronald E Dechert; George Mitri; Paul F M Schoffelen; Pim Gubbels; Asa Tornberg; Stephen Garland; Marco Akkermans; Jamie A Cooper Journal: Nutr Clin Pract Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.080
Authors: Scott D I Campbell; Bradley J Brosnan; Anna K Y Chu; C Murray Skeaff; Nancy J Rehrer; Tracy L Perry; Meredith C Peddie Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Purva Jain; John Bellettiere; Nicole Glass; Michael J LaMonte; Chongzhi Di; Robert A Wild; Kelly R Evenson; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Pam Ten Broeke; Merlijn Olthof; Debby G J Beckers; Nicola D Hopkins; Lee E F Graves; Sophie E Carter; Madeleine Cochrane; David Gavin; Abigail S Morris; Anna Lichtwarck-Aschoff; Sabine A E Geurts; Dick H J Thijssen; Erik Bijleveld Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Pedro B Júdice; João P Magalhães; Megan Hetherington-Rauth; Inês R Correia; Luís B Sardinha Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 3.078