H O Han1,2, Jongil Lim1,3, Richard Viskochil1, Elroy J Aguiar1, Catrine Tudor-Locke1, Stuart R Chipkin1. 1. Department of Kinesiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA. 2. School of Community Health Sciences, Counselling and Counselling Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. 3. Department of Counseling, Heath and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University-San Antonio, San Antonio, TX.
Abstract
Physical inactivity has been linked to rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease through insulin resistance and other mechanisms. Although sedentary workplace environments have unintentionally contributed to the risk for chronic diseases, innovations in the workplace environment could potentially rectify this public and occupational health problem. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of light-intensity physical activity using a pedal desk (PD) compared with a standard desk (STD) in a pilot study on postprandial metabolic responses and work skills. METHODS: Twelve overweight/obese full-time sedentary office workers (six men and six women; body mass index, 28.7 ± 3.6 kg·m) were tested in two conditions: 1) PD, pedaling at self-selected light-intensity pace for 2 h and 2) STD, remaining seated for 2 h in a conventional workstation setup while performing scripted computer-based work tasks. Blood samples were analyzed for plasma glucose, insulin, and free-fatty acids in response to a standardized meal and work skills were evaluated. Paired samples t-tests were used to examine the differences in metabolic responses and work performance tasks between the conditions. RESULTS: Pedal desk use required significantly less insulin to maintain glucose concentrations compared with STD condition (peak insulin concentration, 42.1 μU·mL vs 66.9 μU·mL; P = 0.03; and area under the curve, 302.6 vs 441.8 μU·min·mL; P < 0.001). No significant changes in plasma glucose and free-fatty acid concentrations were observed at any timepoints (all P > 0.05). In addition, pedaling at a self-paced rate caused no adverse effects on work skills (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The PD resulted in lower postmeal insulin concentrations without an overall negative impact on work skills. Thus, the PD could have the potential to achieve public and occupational health goals in sedentary work environments.
Physical inactivity has been linked to rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease through insulin resistance and other mechanisms. Although sedentary workplace environments have unintentionally contributed to the risk for chronic diseases, innovations in the workplace environment could potentially rectify this public and occupational health problem. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of light-intensity physical activity using a pedal desk (PD) compared with a standard desk (STD) in a pilot study on postprandial metabolic responses and work skills. METHODS: Twelve overweight/obese full-time sedentary office workers (six men and six women; body mass index, 28.7 ± 3.6 kg·m) were tested in two conditions: 1) PD, pedaling at self-selected light-intensity pace for 2 h and 2) STD, remaining seated for 2 h in a conventional workstation setup while performing scripted computer-based work tasks. Blood samples were analyzed for plasma glucose, insulin, and free-fatty acids in response to a standardized meal and work skills were evaluated. Paired samples t-tests were used to examine the differences in metabolic responses and work performance tasks between the conditions. RESULTS: Pedal desk use required significantly less insulin to maintain glucose concentrations compared with STD condition (peak insulin concentration, 42.1 μU·mL vs 66.9 μU·mL; P = 0.03; and area under the curve, 302.6 vs 441.8 μU·min·mL; P < 0.001). No significant changes in plasma glucose and free-fatty acid concentrations were observed at any timepoints (all P > 0.05). In addition, pedaling at a self-paced rate caused no adverse effects on work skills (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The PD resulted in lower postmeal insulin concentrations without an overall negative impact on work skills. Thus, the PD could have the potential to achieve public and occupational health goals in sedentary work environments.
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Patty S Freedson; Maciej S Buchowski; Bettina M Beech; Russell R Pate; Richard P Troiano Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Joseph Henson; Melanie J Davies; Danielle H Bodicoat; Charlotte L Edwardson; Jason M R Gill; David J Stensel; Keith Tolfrey; David W Dunstan; Kamlesh Khunti; Thomas Yates Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Douglas J Oberlin; Catherine R Mikus; Monica L Kearney; Pamela S Hinton; Camila Manrique; Heather J Leidy; Jill A Kanaley; R Scott Rector; John P Thyfault Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Bernard M F M Duvivier; Nicolaas C Schaper; Michelle A Bremers; Glenn van Crombrugge; Paul P C A Menheere; Marleen Kars; Hans H C M Savelberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Liza S Rovniak; Marc A Adams; Christopher N Sciamanna; Lan Kong; Nicole Sullivan; Sara Costalas; Melissa Bopp; Ashley Kuzmik Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2020-01-14