The Energy Cost of Sitting versus Standing Naturally in Man

James Betts, Harry Smith, Drusus Johnson-Bonson, Tom Ellis, Joseph Dagnall, Aaron Hengist, Harriet Carroll, Dylan Thompson, Javier Gonzalez, Gregg Afman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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 -2, 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 -1) from resting metabolic rate to lying was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03-0.27 kJ·min -1) from lying to sitting and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.53-0.77 kJ·min -1) 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 -1 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)726-733
Number of pages8
JournalMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Volume51
Issue number4
Early online date8 Nov 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2019

Keywords

  • ENERGY BALANCE
  • FIDGETING
  • METABOLIC RATE
  • POSTURE

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

The Energy Cost of Sitting versus Standing Naturally in Man. / Betts, James; Smith, Harry; Johnson-Bonson, Drusus; Ellis, Tom; Dagnall, Joseph; Hengist, Aaron; Carroll, Harriet; Thompson, Dylan; Gonzalez, Javier; Afman, Gregg.

In: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Vol. 51, No. 4, 01.04.2019, p. 726-733.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Betts, James ; Smith, Harry ; Johnson-Bonson, Drusus ; Ellis, Tom ; Dagnall, Joseph ; Hengist, Aaron ; Carroll, Harriet ; Thompson, Dylan ; Gonzalez, Javier ; Afman, Gregg. / The Energy Cost of Sitting versus Standing Naturally in Man. In: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2019 ; Vol. 51, No. 4. pp. 726-733.
@article{b06c8ef347ab4b779fa87053b795a43b,
title = "The Energy Cost of Sitting versus Standing Naturally in Man",
abstract = "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 -2, 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 -1) from resting metabolic rate to lying was 0.15 (95{\%} CI, 0.03-0.27 kJ·min -1) from lying to sitting and 0.65 (95{\%} CI, 0.53-0.77 kJ·min -1) 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 -1 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.",
keywords = "ENERGY BALANCE, FIDGETING, METABOLIC RATE, POSTURE",
author = "James Betts and Harry Smith and Drusus Johnson-Bonson and Tom Ellis and Joseph Dagnall and Aaron Hengist and Harriet Carroll and Dylan Thompson and Javier Gonzalez and Gregg Afman",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1249/MSS.0000000000001841",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "726--733",
journal = "Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise",
issn = "0195-9131",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams & Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Energy Cost of Sitting versus Standing Naturally in Man

AU - Betts, James

AU - Smith, Harry

AU - Johnson-Bonson, Drusus

AU - Ellis, Tom

AU - Dagnall, Joseph

AU - Hengist, Aaron

AU - Carroll, Harriet

AU - Thompson, Dylan

AU - Gonzalez, Javier

AU - Afman, Gregg

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - 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 -2, 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 -1) from resting metabolic rate to lying was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03-0.27 kJ·min -1) from lying to sitting and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.53-0.77 kJ·min -1) 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 -1 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.

AB - 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 -2, 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 -1) from resting metabolic rate to lying was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03-0.27 kJ·min -1) from lying to sitting and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.53-0.77 kJ·min -1) 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 -1 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.

KW - ENERGY BALANCE

KW - FIDGETING

KW - METABOLIC RATE

KW - POSTURE

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062967607&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001841

DO - 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001841

M3 - Article

VL - 51

SP - 726

EP - 733

JO - Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

JF - Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

SN - 0195-9131

IS - 4

ER -