Effects of Time in Sitting and Standing on Pleasantness, Acceptability, Fatigue, and Pain When Using a Sit–Stand Desk: An Experiment on Overweight and Normal-Weight Subjects

Abstract

Background: Sit–stand desks have been suggested as an initiative to increase posture variation among office workers. However, there is limited evidence of what would be preferable combinations of time sitting and standing. The aim of this study was to determine and compare perceived pleasantness, acceptability, pain, and fatigue for 5 time patterns of sitting and standing at a sit–stand desk. Methods: Thirty postgraduate students were equally divided into a normal-weight (mean body mass index 22.8 kg/m2) and an overweight/obese (mean body mass index 28.1 kg/m2) group. They performed 3 hours of computer work at a sit–stand desk on 5 different days, each day with a different time pattern (A: 60-min sit/0-min stand; B: 50/10; C: 40/20; D: 30/30; E: 20/40). Pleasantness, acceptability, pain, and fatigue ratings were obtained at the beginning and at the end of the 3-hour period. Results: High ratings of pleasantness were observed for time patterns B, C, and D in both groups. All participants rated acceptability to be good for time patterns A to D. A minor increase in perceived fatigue and pain was observed in time pattern E. Conclusion: For new sit–stand desk users, regardless of body mass index, 10 to 30 minutes of standing per hour appears to be an amenable time pattern.

Adults with excess weight or obesity, but not with overweight, report greater pain intensities than individuals with normal weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The studies were performed in 13 countries, mostly in the United States (n = 16). Sample size ranged from 30 ( 50 ) to 9415 ( 51 ) and 31,210 participants in sum were assessed (mean age [SD]: 53 [13.1] years; 44% were women). It should be noted that 5 studies exclusively recruited women ( 52 – 56 ), in one study only men were included ( 51 ), one study did not provide information on the sex ( 35 ) and in 3 studies the mean age was not provided or specified ( 49 , 55 , 57 ).…”

“…Among the 31 included studies, 29 were observational (15 were cross-sectional ( 12 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 58 – 67 ), 7 retrospective ( 28 , 35 , 48 , 49 , 68 – 70 ), 6 prospective ( 51 , 57 , 71 – 74 ) and 1 combined analysis of retrospective and prospective occurrences ( 75 ) in cohort studies) and 2 were interventional [clinical trials ( 50 , 54 )]. BMI classification was monitored for all the included studies according to the WHO standards; however, not all the studies made use of a complete subclassification stratified in four classes.…”

“…Regarding the pathologies examined, chronic pain conditions were predominant ( 12 , 28 , 35 , 48 , 53 , 54 , 57 , 60 , 61 , 63 – 70 , 72 – 75 ), with back pain ( 12 , 28 , 57 , 65 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 72 – 75 ) being the most prevalent pathology in the included studies. Some studies included general population without specifying the existence of any underlying disease among participants ( 50 , 51 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 62 ).…”

“…Among 31 eligible trials, 5 were considered to be articles with low risk of bias (only 1 or 2 domains classified as high risk of bias) ( 53 , 57 , 62 , 64 , 74 ), 17 were considered to have moderate risk of bias (3 or 4 domains classified as high risk of bias) ( 12 , 28 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 54 – 56 , 58 – 60 , 66 , 68 – 70 , 72 , 73 ) and 9 were classified as articles with a high risk of bias (more than 4 domains classified as high risk of bias) ( 35 , 50 , 51 , 61 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 71 , 75 ) ( Figure 2 ). The influence of the risk of bias in the effect observed was evaluated for each forest plot doing a sensitivity analysis (view Meta-analyses section).…”

O impacto do comportamento sedentário em parâmetros clínicos e fatores de risco cardiometabólico de pacientes com artrite reumatoide: o estudo Take a Stand for health

“…Nesse sentido, um estudo experimental testou o efeito de 5 condições experimentais, nas quais os indivíduos ficavam: 60/0 min (sentado/em pé parado); 50/10 min, 40/20 min, 30/30 min e 20/40 min por 3 horas em dias separados, na percepção de fadiga. A única condição em que houve um aumento nos níveis de fadiga foi a que empregou a estratégia em que os indivíduos permaneceram mais tempo em pé e menos tempo sentado (20/40 min); sugerindo que um tempo sedentário excessivo poderia ser deletério para esse parâmetro (BARBIERI et al, 2020).…”