A novel approach for measuring energy expenditure of a single sit-to-stand movement

Abstract

This study demonstrated that the EE of an instantaneous movement can be quantified by relating the gross EE and different frequencies of movement. Using this method, we quantified the EE of an STS, which varied depending on participants' anthropometrics. Mets of repetitive STS movement ranged from 2.6 to 7.2. This physiological profile is useful when performing repetitive STS movements as a form of exercise.

Standing economy: does the heterogeneity in the energy cost of posture maintenance reside in differential patterns of spontaneous weight-shifting?

“…No such correlation was observed during the second 5 min of standing. This is in line with recent work regarding the energy cost of sit-stand transitions (Hatamoto et al 2016), which also showed such a correlation, and which is suggested to reflect the larger movement required by individuals of taller stature versus shorter to transition posture from a chair of equal height.…”

“…This large proportion of people showing standing economy would, a priori, appear to be in conflict with studies reporting significant increases in EE during intermittent standing, instead of prolonged sitting. However, studies showing that breaking up sedentary sitting time with intermittent standing leads to increases in EE (Levine et al 2005) do not distinguish between postural transition and steady-state standing and, thus, it is most likely the transition from sitting to standing (or vice versa) which is increasing EE (Creasy et al 2016;Hatamoto et al 2016;Judice et al 2016) rather than maintaining standing posture per se. Further to this, in the present study we observed a significant correlation between change in EE during the first 5 min of the standing period and height.…”

“…by increasing their EE relative to spontaneous weight-shifting), we believe this finding to be justified. Postural transition from sitting to standing has been clearly shown to increase EE (Hatamoto et al 2016;Judice et al 2016); however, the time course of this increase has not been explored. Therefore, whilst we discarded the initial 2 min of measured values following each postural transition, it is possible that the increased EE associated with these transitions carried over into the time periods investigated here.…”

“…However, such studies often require participants to stand motionless (Judice et al 2016; Levine et al 2005), thus imposing restriction on the lowlevel movements (e.g. spontaneous weight-shifting) that naturally occur during standing, or are focused on the energetic cost of the postural transition (Hatamoto et al 2016;Judice et al 2016) or a combination of postural transitions and low-level ambulation (Bailey et al 2016;Swartz et al 2011) rather than that of posture maintenance per se.…”

Posture Allocation Revisited: Breaking the Sedentary Threshold of Energy Expenditure for Obesity Management

“…The reasoning for this interest is two-fold: Firstly, breaking sitting time has been shown to decrease metabolic risk independently of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (Honda et al, 2016), with length of sitting bouts positively correlated with waist circumference and obesity prevalence (Healy et al, 2008; Gupta et al, 2016), and frequent interruptions to sitting time improving postprandial glucose metabolism (Bergouignan et al, 2016), triglyceride levels, waist circumference and BMI (Hamilton et al, 2008; Healy et al, 2008). Secondly, the energy cost of postural transitioning is much higher than that of postural maintenance—with a sit-to-stand transition increasing EE ~35% above sitting metabolic rate (Judice et al, 2016), and showing a positive linear relationship with transition frequency (Hatamoto et al, 2016). Furthermore, the latter study (Hatamoto et al, 2016) demonstrated a four-fold increase in metabolic rate above resting during the performance of sit-to-stand transitions at a rate of 15 per minute, with the exercise still perceived as “light” by the participants.…”