Sitting and chronic disease: where do we go from here?

KW is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Basic Science Research Fellowship (grant number FS/12/58/29709) and the UK Medical Research Council (grant number MC_UU_12015/3). GNH is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship (grant number 108029).This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00125-016-3886-

Does diet mediate associations of volume and bouts of sedentary time with cardiometabolic health indicators in adolescents?

Objective: Examine the mediating role of diet in the relationship between volume and duration of sedentary time with cardiometabolic health in adolescents. Methods: Adolescents (12-19 years) participating in the 2003/04 and 2005/06 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were examined. Cardiometabolic health indicators were body mass index z-scores (zBMI) (n 5 1,797) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) (n 5 812). An ActiGraph hip-worn accelerometer was used to derive total sedentary time and usual sedentary bout duration. Dietary intake was assessed using two 24-hour dietary recalls. Mediation analyses were conducted to examine five dietary mediators [total energy intake, discretionary foods, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), fruits and vegetables, and dietary quality] of the relationship between total sedentary time and usual sedentary bout duration with zBMI and MetS. Results: Total sedentary time was inversely associated with zBMI (b 5 21.33; 95% CI 22.53 to 20.13) but attenuated after adjusting for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. No significant associations were observed between usual sedentary bout duration with zBMI or either sedentary measure with MetS. None of the five dietary variables mediated any of the relationships examined. Conclusions: Further studies are needed to explore associations of specific time periods (e.g., after school) and bout durations with both cardiometabolic health indicators and dietary behaviors

Joint associations of multiple leisure-time sedentary behaviours and physical activity with obesity in Australian adults

BackgroundTelevision viewing and physical inactivity are independently associated with risk of obesity. However, how the combination of multiple leisure-time sedentary behaviours (LTSB) and physical activity (LTPA) may contribute to the risk of obesity is not well understood. We examined the joint associations of multiple sedentary behaviours and physical activity with the odds of being overweight or obese.MethodsA mail survey collected the following data from adults living in Adelaide, Australia (n = 2210): self-reported height, weight, six LTSB, LTPA and sociodemographic variables. Participants were categorised into four groups according to their level of LTSB (dichotomised into low and high levels around the median) and LTPA (sufficient: &ge; 2.5 hr/wk; insufficient: &lt; 2.5 hr/wk). Logistic regression analysis examined the odds of being overweight or obese (body mass index &ge; 25 kg/m2) by the combined categories.ResultsThe odds of being overweight or obese relative to the reference category (low sedentary behaviour time and sufficient physical activity) were: 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20&ndash;1.98) for the combination of low sedentary behaviour time and insufficient physical activity; 1.55 (95% CI: 1.20&ndash;2.02) for the combination of high sedentary behaviour time and sufficient physical activity; and 2.26 (95% CI: 1.75&ndash;2.92) for the combination of high sedentary behaviour time and insufficient physical activity.ConclusionThose who spent more time in sedentary behaviours (but were sufficiently physically active) and those who were insufficiently active (but spent less time in sedentary behaviour) had a similar risk of being overweight or obese. Reducing leisure-time sedentary behaviours may be as important as increasing leisure-time physical activity as a strategy to fight against obesity in adults.<br /

Workplace sitting and height-adjustable workstations: a randomized controlled trial

Background Desk-based office employees sit for most of their working day. To address excessive sitting as a newly identified health risk, best practice frameworks suggest a multi-component approach. However, these approaches are resource intensive and knowledge about their impact is limited. Purpose To compare the efficacy of a multi-component intervention to reduce workplace sitting time, to a height-adjustable workstations-only intervention, and to a comparison group (usual practice). Design Three-arm quasi-randomized controlled trial in three separate administrative units of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Data were collected between January and June 2012 and analyzed the same year. Setting/participants Desk-based office workers aged 20-65 (multi-component intervention, n=16; workstations-only, n=14; comparison, n=14). Intervention The multi-component intervention comprised installation of height-adjustable workstations and organizational-level (management consultation, staff education, manager e-mails to staff) and individual-level (face-to-face coaching, telephone support) elements. Main outcome measures Workplace sitting time (minutes/8-hour workday) assessed objectively via activPAL3 devices worn for 7 days at baseline and 3 months (end-of-intervention) . Results At baseline, the mean proportion of workplace sitting time was approximately 77% across all groups (multi-component group 366 minutes/8 hours [SD=49]; workstations-only group 373 minutes/8 hours [SD=36], comparison 365 minutes/8 hours [SD=54]). Following intervention and relative to the comparison group, workplace sitting time in the multi-component group was reduced by 89 minutes/8-hour workday (95% CI=-130, -47 minutes;

Cardio-metabolic impact of changing sitting, standing, and stepping in the workplace

According to cross-sectional and acute experimental evidence, reducing sitting time should improve cardio-metabolic health risk biomarkers. Furthermore, the improvements obtained may depend on whether sitting is replaced with standing or ambulatory activities. Based on data from the Stand Up Victoria multi-component workplace intervention, we examined this issue using compositional data analysis - a method that can examine and compare all activity changes simultaneously.Participants receiving the intervention (n=136 ≥0.6 full-time equivalent desk-based workers, 65% women, mean±SD age=44.6 ±9.1 years from seven worksites) were asked to improve whole-of-day activity by standing up, sitting less and moving more. Their changes in the composition of daily waking hours (activPAL-assessed sitting, standing, stepping) were quantified, then tested for associations with concurrent changes in cardio-metabolic risk (CMR) scores and 14 biomarkers concerning body composition, glucose, insulin and lipid metabolism. Analyses were by mixed models, accounting for clustering (3 months, n=105-120; 12 months, n=80-97).Sitting reduction was significantly (

Evaluating short-term musculoskeletal pain changes in desk-based workers receiving a workplace sitting-reduction intervention

This paper explores changes in musculoskeletal pain among desk-based workers over three months of a workplace-delivered, sitting-reduction intervention. Participants (n = 153, 46% female; mean ± SD aged 38.9 ± 8.0 years) were cluster-randomized (n = 18 work teams) to receive an organizational change intervention, with or without an activity tracker. A modified Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire assessed pain intensity (0–9; none–worst possible) in the neck, upper and lower back, upper and lower extremities, and in total. The activPAL3 (7 days, 24 h/day protocol) measured sitting and prolonged sitting in =30 min bouts at work. Mixed models adjusting for cluster and intervention arm examined changes in pain (n = 104), and their associations with reductions in sitting and prolonged sitting (h/10 h at work) (n = 90). Changes in pain were nonsignificant (p = 0.05) and small for total pain (-0.06 [95% CI: -0.27, 0.16]) and for each body area (-0.26 [-0.66, 0.15] for upper back to 0.09 [-0.39, 0.56] for lower back). Sitting reduction was associated with reduced lower back pain (-0.84 [-1.44, -0.25] per hour, p = 0.005); other effects were small and non-significant. No substantial average changes in pain were seen; some improvement in lower back pain might be expected with larger sitting reductions. Larger samples and diverse interventions are required for more definitive evidence

Validity of self-reported measures of workplace sitting time and breaks in sitting time

CLARK, B. K., A. A. THORP, E. A. H. WINKLER, P. A. GARDINER, G. N. HEALY, N. OWEN, and D. W. DUNSTAN. Validity of Self-Reported Measures of Workplace Sitting Time and Breaks in Sitting Time. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 43, No. 10, pp. 1907-1912, 2011. Purpose: To understand the prevalence and potential health effect of prolonged workplace sedentary (sitting) time, valid measures are required. Here, we examined the criterion validity of a brief self-reported measure of workplace sitting time and breaks in sitting time. Methods: An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to assess workplace sitting time (h.d(-1)) and breaks from sitting per hour at work in a convenience sample of 121 full-time workers (36% men, mean age = 37 yr, 53% office based). These self-reported measures were compared with accelerometer-derived sedentary time (hours per day, = 100 counts per minute) during work hours. Results: Self-reported sitting time was significantly correlated with accelerometer-derived sedentary time (Pearson r = 0.39, 95% confidence interval = 0.22-0.53), with an average sitting time 0.45 h.d(-1) higher than average sedentary time. Bland-Altman plots and regression analysis showed positive associations between the difference in sitting and sedentary time and the average of sitting and sedentary time (mean difference = -2.75 h + 0.47 x average sitting and sedentary time; limits of agreement = +/- 2.25 h.d(-1)). The correlation of self-reported breaks per sitting hour with accelerometer-derived breaks per sedentary hour was also statistically significant (Spearman r(s) = 0.26, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-0.44). Conclusions: This study is the first to examine the criterion validity of an interviewer-administered questionnaire measure of workplace sitting time and breaks in sitting time using objective criterion measures. The workplace sitting measure has acceptable properties for use in observational studies concerned with sedentary behavior in groups of workers; however, the wide limits of agreement suggest caution in estimating individuals' sitting time with high precision. Using self-reported measures to capture patterns of workplace sitting (such as breaks in sitting time) requires further development

Contrasting compositions of sitting, standing, stepping, and sleeping time: associations with glycaemic outcome by diabetes risk

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that prolonged sitting and its adverse impact on glycaemic indicators appear to be proportional to the degree of insulin resistance. To investigate this finding in a free-living context, we aimed to examine associations of device-measured 24-h time-use compositions of sitting, standing, stepping, and sleeping with fasting glucose (FPG) and 2 h post-load glucose (2hPLG) levels, and to examine separately the associations with time-use compositions among those at lower and at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses examined thigh-worn inclinometer data (activPAL, 7 day, 24 h/day protocol) from 648 participants (aged 36-80 years) at either lower (< 39 mmol/mol; < 5.7% HbA1c) or higher (≥39 mmol/mol; ≥5.7% HbA1c) diabetes risk from the 2011-2012 Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study. Multiple linear regression models were used to examine associations of differing compositions with FPG and 2hPLG, with time spent in each behaviour allowed to vary up to 60 min. RESULTS: In general, the associations with the FPG within the time-use compositions were small, with statistically significant associations observed for sitting and sleeping (in the lower diabetes risk group) and standing (in higher diabetes risk group) only. For 2hPLG, statistically significant associations were observed for stepping only, with findings similar between lower (β = - 0.12 95%CI:-0.22, - 0.02) and higher (β = - 0.13 95%CI:-0.26, - 0.01) risk groups. Varying the composition had minimal impact on FPG; however 1 h less sitting time and equivalent increase in standing time was associated with attenuated FPG levels in higher risk only (Δ FPG% = - 1.5 95%CI: - 2.4, - 0.5). Large differences in 2hPLG were observed for both groups when varying the composition. One hour less sitting with equivalent increase in stepping was associated with attenuated 2hPLG, with estimations similar in lower (Δ 2hPLG% = - 3.8 95%CI: - 7.3, - 0.2) and higher (Δ 2hPLG% = - 5.0 95%CI: - 9.7, - 0.0) risk for diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In middle-aged and older adults, glycaemic control could be improved by reducing daily sitting time and replacing it with stepping. Standing could also be beneficial for those at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes

Associations of sitting accumulation patterns with cardio-metabolic risk biomarkers in Australian adults

Backgroun

Temporal features of sitting, standing and stepping changes in a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a workplace sitting-reduction intervention

Background There is now a body of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce workplace sitting time. However, there has been limited reporting of how such interventions may impact behaviour both during and outside of work. Sitting, standing and stepping changes following a workplace intervention were examined across five timeframes (work time on work days; non-work time on work days; work days; non-work days; overall (i.e. work and non-work time on all days)), and the relationships between changes during and outside of work was assessed. Methods The cluster-randomised controlled trial, ‘Stand Up Victoria’, delivered a multi-component workplace-delivered intervention that successfully reduced workplace and overall sitting time (relative to controls). Separately, over the five timeframes, changes in device (activPAL3)-assessed outcomes — sitting; prolonged sitting (≥30 min bouts); standing; and, stepping — were compared between intervention (n = 114) and controls (n = 84), along with the time-course of sitting changes during work hours, using mixed models. The potential relationships of changes during work with changes outside of work were examined using compositional data analysis. Results On workdays, intervention participants significantly (p < 0.05) improved their activity profile relative to controls, with reduced sitting (− 117 min/8-h workday, 95% CI: − 141, − 93) and prolonged sitting (− 77 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: − 101, − 52); increased standing (114 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: 92, 136) and maintenance of stepping (3 min/8 h workday, 95% CI: − 7, 11, p = 0.576). Effects were nearly identical for time at work; similar but slightly weaker for overall; and, small and non-significant outside of work on workdays and non-work days. Improvements occurred at all times, but not equally, during work hours (p < 0.001). Correlations between changes during and outside of work on workdays were very weak in both the intervention group (r = − 0.07) and controls (r = − 0.09). Conclusions Sitting time was reduced almost exclusively during work hours (via replacement with standing), with reductions evident during all working hours, to varying degrees. There was no evidence of compensation, with minimal change in activity outside of work, in response to changes in activity at work. Future interventions may benefit from exploring how best to elicit change throughout the whole day, and across work and non-work domains