Jennifer L Miles-Chan1, Elie-Jacques Fares2, Redina Berkachy3, Philippe Jacquet2,4, Laurie Isacco5, Yves Schutz2, Jean-Pierre Montani2, Abdul G Dulloo2. 1. Department of Medicine/Physiology, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 5, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland. jenniferlynn.miles@unifr.ch. 2. Department of Medicine/Physiology, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 5, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland. 3. Department of Informatics, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. 4. Department of Plant Molecular Biology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 5. EA3920 and EPSI Platform, Bourgogne Franche-Comté University, 25000, Besançon, France.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Energy expenditure; Posture; Sedentary behaviour; Standing; Weight-shifting
Authors: Daniel P Bailey; David R Broom; Bryna C R Chrismas; Lee Taylor; Edward Flynn; John Hough Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Pedro B Júdice; Marc T Hamilton; Luís B Sardinha; Theodore W Zderic; Analiza M Silva Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: James A Levine; Lorraine M Lanningham-Foster; Shelly K McCrady; Alisa C Krizan; Leslie R Olson; Paul H Kane; Michael D Jensen; Matthew M Clark Journal: Science Date: 2005-01-28 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Maarten R C van den Heuvel; Andreas Daffertshofer; Peter J Beek; Gert Kwakkel; Erwin E H van Wegen Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Maedeh Mansoubi; Natalie Pearson; Stacy A Clemes; Stuart Jh Biddle; Danielle H Bodicoat; Keith Tolfrey; Charlotte L Edwardson; Thomas Yates Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Elie-Jacques Fares; Nathalie Charrière; Jean-Pierre Montani; Yves Schutz; Abdul G Dulloo; Jennifer L Miles-Chan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Terry Guirado; Pierre Bourdier; Bruno Pereira; Elisa Le Roux; Audrey Bergouignan; Anthony Birat; Laurie Isacco; David Thivel; Martine Duclos; Lore Metz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Francisco J Amaro-Gahete; Guillermo Sanchez-Delgado; Juan M A Alcantara; Borja Martinez-Tellez; Francisco M Acosta; Elisa Merchan-Ramirez; Marie Löf; Idoia Labayen; Jonatan R Ruiz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 3.240