Energy expenditure during common sitting and standing tasks: examining the 1.5 MET definition of sedentary behaviour

Background: Sedentary behavior is defined as any waking behavior characterized by an energy expenditure of 1.5 METS or less while in a sitting or reclining posture. This study examines this definition by assessing the energy cost (METs) of common sitting, standing and walking tasks. Methods: Fifty one adults spent 10 min during each activity in a variety of sitting tasks (watching TV, Playing on the Wii, Playing on the PlayStation Portable (PSP) and typing) and non-sedentary tasks (standing still, walking at 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 mph). Activities were completed on the same day in a random order following an assessment of resting metabolic rate (RMR). A portable gas analyzer was used to measure oxygen uptake, and data were converted to units of energy expenditure (METs). Results: Average of standardized MET values for screen-based sitting tasks were: 1.33 (SD: 0.24) METS (TV), 1.41 (SD: 0.28) (PSP), and 1.45 (SD: 0.32) (Typing). The more active, yet still seated, games on the Wii yielded an average of 2.06 (SD: 0.5) METS. Standing still yielded an average of 1.59 (SD: 0.37) METs. Walking MET values increased incrementally with speed from 2.17 to 2.99 (SD: 0.5 - 0.69) METs. Conclusions: The suggested 1.5 MET threshold for sedentary behaviors seems reasonable however some sitting based activities may be classified as non-sedentary. The effect of this on the definition of sedentary behavior and associations with metabolic health needs further investigation

A randomised feasibility study to investigate the impact of education and the addition of prompts on the sedentary behaviour of office workers

Abstract Background Office workers have been identified as being at risk of accumulating high amounts of sedentary time in prolonged events during work hours, which has been associated with increased risk of a number of long-term health conditions. There is some evidence that providing advice to stand at regular intervals during the working day, and using computer-based prompts, can reduce sedentary behaviour in office workers. However, evidence of effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability for these types of intervention is currently limited. Methods A 2-arm, parallel group, cluster-randomised feasibility trial to assess the acceptability of prompts to break up sedentary behaviour was conducted with office workers in a commercial bank (n = 21). Participants were assigned to an education only group (EG) or prompt and education group (PG). Both groups received education on reducing and breaking up sitting at work, and the PG also received hourly prompts, delivered by Microsoft Outlook over 10 weeks, reminding them to stand. Objective measurements of sedentary behaviour were made using activPAL monitors worn at three time points: baseline, in the last 2 weeks of the intervention period and 12 weeks after the intervention. Focus groups were conducted to explore the acceptability of the intervention and the motivations and barriers to changing sedentary behaviour. Results Randomly generated, customised prompts, delivered by Microsoft Outlook, with messages about breaking up sitting, proved to be a feasible and acceptable way of delivering prompts to office workers. Participants in both groups reduced their sitting, but changes were not maintained at follow-up. The education session seemed to increase outcome expectations of the benefits of changing sedentary behaviour and promote self-regulation of behaviour in some participants. However, low self-efficacy and a desire to conform to cultural norms were barriers to changing behaviour. Conclusions Prompts delivered by Microsoft Outlook were a feasible, low-cost way of prompting office workers to break up their sedentary behaviour, although further research is needed to determine whether this has an additional impact on sedentary behaviour, to education alone. The role of cultural norms, and promoting self-efficacy, should be considered in the design of future interventions. Trial registration This study was registered retrospectively as a clinical trial on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID no. NCT02609282 ) on 23 March 2015

Does physical activity counselling enhance the effects of a pedometer-based intervention over the long-term : 12-month findings from the Walking for Wellbeing in the West study

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Patterns of impact resulting from a 'sit less, move more' web-based program in sedentary office employees.

PURPOSE: Encouraging office workers to 'sit less and move more' encompasses two public health priorities. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting, even less about the longer term effects of such interventions and still less on dual-focused interventions. This study assessed the short and mid-term impacts of a workplace web-based intervention (Walk@WorkSpain, W@WS; 2010-11) on self-reported sitting time, step counts and physical risk factors (waist circumference, BMI, blood pressure) for chronic disease. METHODS: Employees at six Spanish university campuses (n=264; 42±10 years; 171 female) were randomly assigned by worksite and campus to an Intervention (used W@WS; n=129; 87 female) or a Comparison group (maintained normal behavior; n=135; 84 female). This phased, 19-week program aimed to decrease occupational sitting time through increased incidental movement and short walks. A linear mixed model assessed changes in outcome measures between the baseline, ramping (8 weeks), maintenance (11 weeks) and follow-up (two months) phases for Intervention versus Comparison groups. RESULTS: A significant 2 (group) × 2 (program phases) interaction was found for self-reported occupational sitting (F[3]=7.97, p=0.046), daily step counts (F[3]=15.68, p=0.0013) and waist circumference (F[3]=11.67, p=0.0086). The Intervention group decreased minutes of daily occupational sitting while also increasing step counts from baseline (446±126; 8,862±2,475) through ramping (+425±120; 9,345±2,435), maintenance (+422±123; 9,638±3,131) and follow-up (+414±129; 9,786±3,205). In the Comparison group, compared to baseline (404±106), sitting time remained unchanged through ramping and maintenance, but decreased at follow-up (-388±120), while step counts diminished across all phases. The Intervention group significantly reduced waist circumference by 2.1cms from baseline to follow-up while the Comparison group reduced waist circumference by 1.3cms over the same period. CONCLUSIONS: W@WS is a feasible and effective evidence-based intervention that can be successfully deployed with sedentary employees to elicit sustained changes on "sitting less and moving more"

Sitting time and obesity in a sample of adults from Europe and the USA

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Annals of Human Biology on 25 Sep 2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/03014460.2016.1232749.Obesity is a risk factor for many chronic diseases and the prevalence is increasing worldwide. Research suggests that sedentary behaviour (sitting) may be related to obesity.To examine the association between sitting time and obesity, while controlling for physical activity, in a large international sample.5338 adults from the UK, USA, Germany, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, Austria and Switzerland self-reported their total daily sitting time, physical activity, age, height and weight. BMI (kg/m(2)), total physical activity (MET-minutes/week) and sitting time (hours/day) were derived. Participants were grouped into quartiles based on their daily sitting time (<4, 4 - ≤6, 6 - ≤8, and >8 hours/day) and logistic regression models explored the odds of being obese versus normal weight for each sitting time quartile.Participants in the highest sitting time quartile (≥8 hours/day) had 62% higher odds of obesity compared to participants in the lowest quartile (<4 hours/day) after adjustment for physical activity and other confounding variables (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.24-2.12, p<0.01).Sitting time is associated with obesity in adults, independent of physical activity. Future research should clarify this association using objective measures of sitting time and physical activity to further inform health guidelines

The cost-effectiveness of the SMART work & life intervention for reducing sitting time

Sedentary behaviours continue to increase and are associated with heightened risks of morbidity and mortality. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of SMART Work & Life (SWAL), an intervention designed to reduce sitting time inside and outside of work, both with (SWAL-desk) and without (SWAL-only) a height-adjustable workstation compared to usual practice (control) for UK office workers. Health outcomes were assessed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs in pound sterling (2019–2020). Discounted costs and QALYs were estimated using regression methods with multiply imputed data from the SMART Work & Life trial. Absenteeism, productivity and wellbeing measures were also evaluated. The average cost of SWAL-desk was £228.31 and SWAL-only £80.59 per office worker. Within the trial, SWAL-only was more effective and costly compared to control (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): £12,091 per QALY) while SWAL-desk was dominated (least effective and most costly). However, over a lifetime horizon, both SWAL-only and SWAL-desk were more effective and more costly than control. Comparing SWAL-only to control generated an ICER of £4985 per QALY. SWAL-desk was more effective and costly than SWAL-only, generating an ICER of £13,378 per QALY. Findings were sensitive to various worker, intervention, and extrapolation-related factors. Based on a lifetime horizon, SWAL interventions appear cost-effective for office-workers conditional on worker characteristics, intervention cost and longer-term maintenance in sitting time reductions

Effectiveness of an intervention for reducing sitting time and improving health in office workers: three arm cluster randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention, with and without a height adjustable desk, on daily sitting time, and to investigate the relative effectiveness of the two interventions, and the effectiveness of both interventions on physical behaviours and physical, biochemical, psychological, and work related health and performance outcomes. Design: Cluster three arm randomised controlled trial with follow-up at three and 12 months. Setting: Local government councils in Leicester, Liverpool, and Greater Manchester, UK. Participants: 78 clusters including 756 desk based employees in defined offices, departments, or teams from two councils in Leicester, three in Greater Manchester, and one in Liverpool. Interventions: Clusters were randomised to one of three conditions: the SMART Work and Life (SWAL) intervention, the SWAL intervention with a height adjustable desk (SWAL plus desk), or control (usual practice). Main outcomes measures: The primary outcome measure was daily sitting time, assessed by accelerometry, at 12 month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were accelerometer assessed sitting, prolonged sitting, standing and stepping time, and physical activity calculated over any valid day, work hours, workdays, and non-workdays, self-reported lifestyle behaviours, musculoskeletal problems, cardiometabolic health markers, work related health and performance, fatigue, and psychological measures. Results: Mean age of participants was 44.7 years, 72.4% (n=547) were women, and 74.9% (n=566) were white. Daily sitting time at 12 months was significantly lower in the intervention groups (SWAL −22.2 min/day, 95% confidence interval −38.8 to −5.7 min/day, P=0.003; SWAL plus desk −63.7 min/day, −80.1 to −47.4 min/day, P<0.001) compared with the control group. The SWAL plus desk intervention was found to be more effective than SWAL at changing sitting time (−41.7 min/day, −56.3 to −27.0 min/day, P<0.001). Favourable differences in sitting and prolonged sitting time at three and 12 month follow-ups for both intervention groups and for standing time for the SWAL plus desk group were observed during work hours and on workdays. Both intervention groups were associated with small improvements in stress, wellbeing, and vigour, and the SWAL plus desk group was associated with improvements in pain in the lower extremity, social norms for sitting and standing at work, and support. Conclusions: Both SWAL and SWAL plus desk were associated with a reduction in sitting time, although the addition of a height adjustable desk was found to be threefold more effective. Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11618007