Overview of studies
| Authors/study | Design | Intervention duration | Sample (n) | Population characteristics | Experimental conditions | Measures | Results | Effect size (Cohen’s d) |
| Bantoft et al 21 | Counterbalanced randomised controlled trial | 60 min/task/day 7 tasks on 7 days | Males=13 Females=32 | 22.7 years old Healthy undergraduate students | Sitting Sitting/standing Treadmill (1–3 km/hour) | Intellectual capacity Anxiety and depression Verbal short-term memory Verbal working memory Visuomotor speed and learning Verbal working memory and attention | All results were non-significant. | NA |
| Botter et al 13 | Randomised repeated measures | ±4 hours | Males=6 Females=6 EMG subgroup: Males=5 Females=5 | 38.7 years old | Sitting Standing Treadmill (0.6 km/hour) Treadmill (2.5 km/hour) Elliptical (9 W) Elliptical (17 W) | Muscle activation by EMG (% of maximal voluntary muscular contraction of trapezius and erector spinae) Posture and joint angles (head inclination, cervical spine flexion, L5 inclination, trunk frontal inclination, trunk lateral inclination, back flexion) Motion analysis (total body, head, thoracic spine, lumbar spine L1, lumbar spine L5 arms, legs) Heart rate Energy expenditure | Comparisons were only done between standing and treadmill experimental conditions (upright posture). Trapezius right (%MVC) mean values of the 50th percentile: standing (3.8 %MVC) vs treadmill2.5 km/hour (8.1 %MVC). Trapezius right (%MVC) mean values of the 95th percentile: standing (9.3 %MVC) vs treadmill2.5 km/hour (17.2 %MVC). Trapezius left (%MVC) mean values of the 50th percentile: standing (5.8 %MVC) vs treadmill2.5 km/hour (8.1 %MVC). Trapezius left (%MVC) mean values of the 95th percentile: standing (10 %MVC) vs treadmill2.5 km/hour (22.9 %MVC). Treadmill2.5 km/hour increased muscle activation of the upper limb compared with standing. Motion analysis: Total body (%g) mean values of the 50th percentile: standing (0.8 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (3.7 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (14.9 %g). Total body (%g) mean values of the 95th percentile: standing (2 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (5.3 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (17.1 %g). Head (%g) mean values of the 50th percentile: standing (0.7 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (2.9 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (8.9 %g). Thoracic spine (%g) mean values of the 50th percentile: standing (0.8 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (2.3 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (9.6 %g). Thoracic spine (%g) mean values of the 95th percentile: standing (1.5 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (3.5 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (11.5 %g). Lumbar spine L1 (%g) mean values of the 50th percentile: standing (0.8 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (2.5 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (10.1 %g). Lumbar spine L1 (%g) mean values of the 95th percentile: standing (1.5 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (3.9 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (12.2 %g). Lumber spine L5 (%g) mean values of the 50th percentile: standing (0.8 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (2.8 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (10.9 %g). Lumber spine L5 (%g) mean values of the 95th percentile: standing (1.6 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (4.3 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (13.3 %g). Arms (%g) mean values of the 50th percentile: standing (0.7 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (2.9 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (9.1 %g). Arms (%g) mean values of the 95th percentile: standing (2.8 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (4.8 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (11.2 %g). Legs (%g) mean values of the 50th percentile: standing (0.8 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (5.2 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (22.5 %g). Legs (%g) mean values of the 95th percentile: standing (2.2 %g) vs treadmill0.6 km/hour (7.5 %g) and treadmill2.5 km/hour (25.8 %g). Treadmill0.6 km/hour and treadmill2.5 km/hour increased (%g) compared with standing workstation except for the head (%g) mean values of the 95th percentile. Heart rate mean values: standing (79.8), elliptical9 W (86.8), elliptical17 W (96.6), treadmill0.6 km/hour (81.4), treadmill2.5 km/hour (91.4). Elliptical17 W and treadmill2.5 km/hour increased heart rate compared with standing. Energy expenditure (MET) values: standing (1.6), elliptical9 W (2.4), elliptical17 W (3.1), treadmill0.6 km/hour (1.8), treadmill2.5 km/hour (2.8). Treadmill2.5 km/hour increased energy expenditure compared with standing. All other results were non-significant. | Trapezius (%MVC) right 50th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=0.87 Trapezius (%MVC) right 95th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=0.83 Trapezius left (%MVC) 50th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=0.43 Trapezius left (%MVC) 95th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=0.97 Total body (%g) 50th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=7.08 Total body (%g) 95th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=6.63 Total body (%g) 50th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=3.07 Total body (%g) 95th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=2.04 Head (%g) 50th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=5.47 Head (%g) 95th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=4.05 Head (%g) 50th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=1.88 Thoracic spine (%g) 50th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=5.91 Thoracic spine (%g) 95th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=6.29 Thoracic spine (%g) 50th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=2.63 Thoracic spine (%g) 95th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=1.96 Lumbar spine L1 (%g) 50th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=5.97 Lumbar spine L1 (%g) 95th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=6.46 Lumbar spine L1 (%g) 50th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=2.98 Lumbar spine L1 (%g) 95th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=2.35 Lumber spine L5 (%g) 50th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=4.92 Lumber spine L5 (%g) 95th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=5.28 Lumber spine L5 (%g) 50th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=3.12 Lumber spine L5 (%g) 95th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=2.41 Arms (%g) 50th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=5.55 Arms (%g) 95th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=3.90 Arms (%g) 50th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=3.15 Arms (%g) 95th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=1.06 Legs (%g) 50th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=6.79 Legs (%g) 95th percentile treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=6.41 Legs (%g) 50th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=2.78 Legs (%g) 95th percentile treadmill0.6 km/hour vs standing=2.07 Heart rate elliptical17 W vs standing=1.65 Heart rate treadmill2.5 km/hour vs standing=1.63 Energy expenditure missing data |
| Commissaris et al 25 | Randomised repeated measures | 1 workday | Males=7 Females=8 | 29.0 years old BMI=22.3 kg/m2 | Sitting Standing Treadmill (2.5 km/hour) Elliptical (17 W) Cycling (56 W) Cycling (85 W) | Typing task (number of characters typed/min) Reading and correcting task (number of characters read/min) Reaction time test: Mouse task Multidirectional cognitive task Fast counting task Eriksen flanker N-back test Telephone task | No statistical analyses have been done between active workstations. | NA |
| Cox et al 14 | Randomised repeated measures | 60 min | Males=9 Females=22 | 37 years old | Sitting Standing Treadmill (1.6 km/hour) | Aerobic capacity Heart rate Blood pressure Perceived effort Dyspnoea perception Speech assessment | Treadmill1.61 km/hour (7.4±0.33) increased VO2 demands compared with standing (4.0±0.18). Treadmill1.61 km/hour increased heart rate compared with standing. SBP values mean±SE: standing (124±3) and treadmill1.61 km/hour (129±3). Treadmill1.61 km/hour lowered blood pressure compared with standing. Rating perceived effort values: standing (0.7/10) and treadmill1.61 km/hour (1.3/10). Treadmill1.61 km/hour increased perceived effort compared with standing. Dyspnoea perception scores showed that treadmill perception of breathing effort was higher compared with standing. All other results were non-significant. | VO2 treadmill1.61 km/hour vs standing=0.80 Heart rate treadmill1.61 km/hour vs standing=missing data SBP treadmill1.61 km/hour vs standing=0.29 Rating perceived effort treadmill1.61 km/hour vs standing=0.53 Dyspnoea treadmill1.61 km/hour vs standing=missing data |
| Gilson et al 18 | Pilot study | 1.5-hour work periods/day/experimental condition | n=20 EEG subgroup=13 Salivary cortisol subgroup=16 | 23–63 years old | Sitting Sitting/standing Sitting/treadmill (self-determined speed range between 1.6 and 4 km/hour) | EGG Salivary cortisol | All results were non-significant. | NA |
| Kruse et al 17 | Pilot study | (1) 4 hours of uninterrupted sitting (2) 4 hours of sitting interrupted with four 10 min bouts of standing (3) 4 hours of sitting interrupted with four 10 min bouts of light-intensity desk cycling | Males=10 Females=3 | 35–50 years old BMI=29.7 kg/m2 Sedentary, overweight and obese adults | Standing Cycling | Flow-mediated dilation Heart rate Blood pressure Calf circumferences before and after conditions | All results were non-significant. | NA |
| Ohlinger et al 20 | Within-participants experimental | 75 min for all assessments | n=50 | 43.2 years old | Sitting Standing Treadmill (1.6 km/hour) | Short-term auditory verbal memory Selective attention Simple motor skill | Simple motor skills decreased from Treadmill1.6 km/hour compared with standing. All other results were non-significant. | Simple motor skill treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.15 |
| Mullane et al 19 | Randomised crossover | 8 hours/experimental condition with bouts of 10, 15, 20 and 30 min on active workstation | Males=2 Females=7 | 30.0 years old BMI=28.7 kg/m2 Prehypertensive (n=7) | Siting Standing Treadmill (1.6 km/hour) Cycling (20 W at 25–20 RPM) | Detection test (speed expressed in z-score and mean log 10 transformed reaction times for correct responses) One back test Set-shifting test | Detection test processing speed z-score: standing (−0.43±0.97), treadmill1.6 km/hour (−0.44±0.96), cycling20 W (0.17±97). Processing speed time z-score of standing and treadmill1.6 km/hour workstations showed lower performance speed than cycling20 W workstation. Detection test reaction time values: standing (2.72±0.13 log10 ms), treadmill1.6 km/hour (2.71±0.13 log10 ms) and cycling20 W (2.66±0.14 log10 ms). Reaction time was faster for cycling20 W compared with standing. All other results were non-significant. | Detection test processing speed cycling20 W vs treadmill1.6 km/hour=0.63 Detection test processing speed cycling20 W vs standing=0.61 Reaction time cycling20 W vs standing=0.44 |
| Sliter and Yuan10 | Pilot study | 35 min | n=180 | 21.2 years old BMI=23.9 kg/m2 Undergraduate students | Sitting Standing Treadmill Cycling | Stress Arousal Boredom Task satisfaction Performance (number of correct tasks; number of errors in task) | Treadmill (2.85±0.36) increased arousal compared with standing (2.55±0.42). Cycling increased arousal compared with standing. Treadmill decreased boredom compared with standing. Cycling decreased boredom compared with standing. Treadmill decreased stress compared with standing. Treadmill provided more task satisfaction than standing. Performance level (number of items completed correctly) showed a decrease in performance between cycling and standing. All other results were non-significant. | Arousal treadmill vs standing=0.77 Arousal cycling vs standing=0.95 Boredom treadmill vs standing=−1.84 Boredom cycling vs standing=−1.82 Stress treadmill vs standing=−0.77 Task satisfaction treadmill vs standing=0.58 Performance-level cycling vs standing=−0.68 |
| Straker et al 15 | Experimental mixed model | ±1 workday | Males=14 Females=16 | 22–64 years old BMI (female)=25.1 kg/m2 BMI (male)=24.7 kg/m2 | Sitting Standing Treadmill (1.6 km/hour) Treadmill (3.2 km/hour) Cycling (5 W) Cycling (30 W) | Typing speed (words/min) Typing accuracy (% typing errors) Typing perceived speed Typing perceived accuracy Mouse pointing speed (ms) Mouse task accuracy (actual errors) Mouse perceived speed Mouse perceived accuracy Combined keyboard and mouse speed (words/s) and error Combined keyboard and mouse task perceived speed and error Heart rate Exertion | Typing speed task values: standing (54.09), treadmill1.6 km/hour (50.14), treadmill3.2 km/hour (49.74), cycling5 W (52.58), cycling30 W (53.217). Typing speed was less for treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour, cycling5 W and cycling30 W compared with standing. Typing perceived speed scores: standing (2.86), treadmill1.6 km/hour (3.56), treadmill3.2 km/hour (3.58), cycling5 W (3.45), cycling30 W (3.48). Results showed a decrease in typing speed perception for treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour, cycling5 W and cycling30 W compared with standing. Typing perceived accuracy scores: standing (2.99), treadmill1.6 km/hour (3.79), treadmill3.2 km/hour (3.79), cycling5 W (3.49), cycling30 W (3.55). Scores showed a decrease in accuracy perception for treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour, cycling5 W and cycling30 W compared with standing. Also, scores showed a decrease in accuracy perception for treadmill1.6 km/hour compared with cycling5 W. Mouse speed task values: standing (959.39), treadmill1.6 km/hour (1059.54), treadmill3.2 km/hour (1107), cycling5 W (1022.28), cycling30 W (1001.62). Results showed a decrease in performance for treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour and cycling5 W compared with standing. Also, results showed a decrease in speed between treadmill1.6 km/hour and treadmill3.2 km/hour compared with cycling5 W. Results showed a decrease in speed for treadmill3.2 km/hour compared with cycling30 W. Mouse task perceived speed scores: standing (2.55), treadmill1.6 km/hour (3.47), treadmill3.2 km/hour (3.54), cycling5 W (3.19), cycling30 W (3.26). Results showed a decrease in speed perception for treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour, cycling5 W and cycling30 W compared with standing. Results showed a decrease in speed perception for treadmill1.6 km/hour and treadmill3.2 km/hour, compared with cycling5 W and cycling30 W. Mouse task accuracy values: standing (0.1), treadmill1.6 km/hour (0.17), treadmill3.2 km/hour (0.2), cycling5 W (0.13), cycling30 W (0.16). Accuracy results showed an increase in error for the treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour and cycling30 W compared with standing. Also, results showed an increase in error for treadmill3.2 km/hour compared with cycling5 W. Mouse task perceived accuracy scores: standing (2.77), treadmill1.6 km/hour (3.63), treadmill3.2 km/hour (3.81), cycling5 W (3.18), cycling30 W (3.39). Scores showed a decrease in speed perception for treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour, cycling5 W and cycling30 W compared with standing. Also, results showed a decrease in speed perception for treadmill1.6 km/hour and treadmill3.2 km/hour compared with cycling5 W. Combined keyboard and mouse task speed values: standing (11.94), treadmill1.6 km/hour (9.57), treadmill3.2 km/hour (8.26), cycling5 W (10.84), cycling30 W (11.17). Results showed a decrease in task speed for treadmill1.6 km/hour and treadmill3.2 km/hour compared with standing. Also, results showed a decrease in task speed for treadmill3.2 km/hour and treadmill1.6 km/hour compared with cycling5 W and cycling30 W. Combined keyboard and mouse task perceived speed scores: standing (2.99), treadmill1.6 km/hour (3.7), treadmill3.2 km/hour (4.08), cycling5 W (3.51), cycling30 W (3.52). Scores showed a decrease in the perception of speed for treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour, cycling5 W and cycling30 W compared with standing. Also, scores showed a decrease in the perception of speed for treadmill1.6 km/hour and treadmill3.2 km/hour compared with cycling5 W and cycling30 W. Combined keyboard and mouse perceived accuracy scores: standing (2.95), treadmill1.6 km/hour (3.79), treadmill3.2 km/hour (4.04), cycling5 W (3.38), cycling30 W (3.48). Scores showed a decrease in the perception of accuracy for treadmill1.6 km/hour and treadmill3.2 km/hour compared with cycling5 W and cycling30 W. Scores also showed a decrease in the perception of accuracy for treadmill3.2 km/hour and compared with treadmill1.6 km/hour, cycling5 W and cycling30 W. Heart rate mean values: standing (82), treadmill1.6 km/hour (82), treadmill3.2 km/hour (87), cycling5 W (79), cycling30 W (89). Results showed an increase in the mean heart rate for standing, treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour and cycling30 W compared with cycling5 W. Results also showed an increase in mean heart rate for treadmill3.2 km/hour and cycling30 W compared with standing. Perceived exertion scores: standing (0.95), treadmill1.6 km/hour (1.74), treadmill3.2 km/hour (2.39), cycling5 W (1.66), cycling30 W (2.61). Perceived exertion scores showed an increase for treadmill1.6 km/hour, treadmill3.2 km/hour, cycling5 W and cycling30 W compared with standing. Also, scores showed an increase in perceived exertion for treadmill3.2 km/hour and cycling30 W compared with treadmill1.6 km/hour and an increase in perceived exertion for treadmill3.2 km/hour and cycling30 W compared with cycling5 W. All other results were non-significant. | Typing speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=−0.04 Typing speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=−0.10 Typing speed cycling5 W vs standing=−0.04 Typing speed cycling30 W vs standing=−0.02 Typing perceived speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=0.56 Typing perceived speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.63 Typing perceived speed cycling5 W vs standing=0.57 Typing perceived speed cycling30 W vs standing=0.57 Typing perceived accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=0.70 Typing perceived accuracy treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.68 Typing perceived accuracy cycling5 W vs standing=0.63 Typing perceived accuracy cycling30 W vs standing=0.66 Typing perceived accuracy treadmill1.6 km/hour vs cycling5 W= 0.1 Mouse speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=0.58 Mouse speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.34 Mouse speed cycling5 W vs standing=0.21 Mouse speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.34 Mouse speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.13 Mouse speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling30 W=0.42 Mouse perceived speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=0.93 Mouse perceived speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=1.04 Mouse perceived speed cycling5 W vs standing=0.67 Mouse perceived speed cycling30 W vs standing=0.73 Mouse perceived speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.41 Mouse perceived speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.31 Mouse perceived speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling30 W=0.32 Mouse perceived speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs cycling30 W=0.23 Mouse task accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=0.39 Mouse task accuracy treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.26 Mouse task accuracy cycling30 W vs standing=0.25 Mouse task accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W = 0.24 Mouse perceived accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=1.09 Mouse perceived accuracy treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.82 Mouse perceived accuracy cycling5 W vs standing=0.43 Mouse perceived accuracy cycling30 W vs standing=0.65 Mouse perceived accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.47 Mouse perceived accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.76 Combined keyboard-mouse speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=−0.26 Combined keyboard-mouse speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=−0.41 |
| Combined keyboard-mouse speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W=−0.28 Combined keyboard-mouse speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs cycling5 W=−0.13 Combined keyboard-mouse speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling30 W=−1.53 Combined keyboard-mouse speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs cycling30 W=−1.36 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=1.10 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.60 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived speed cycling5 W vs standing=0.47 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived speed cycling30 W vs standing=0.55 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.51 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.15 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived speed treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling30 W=0.58 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived speed treadmill1.6 km/hour vs cycling30 W=0.15 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=3.32 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived accuracy treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=2.43 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived accuracy cycling5 W vs standing=1.31 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived accuracy cycling30 W vs standing=1.57 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs treadmill1.6 km/hour=0.64 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W=1.75 Combined keyboard-mouse perceived accuracy treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling30 W=1.45 Heart rate treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=0.22 Heart rate cycling30 W m/hour vs standing=0.31 Heart rate treadmill3.2 km/hour vs treadmill1.6 km/hour=0.22 Heart rate cycling30 W m/hour vs treadmill1.6 km/hour=0.31 Heart rate treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.37 Heart rate treadmill1.6 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.15 Heart rate cycling30 W m/hour vs cycling5 W=0.47 Perceived exertion treadmill3.2 km/hour vs standing=0.56 Perceived exertion treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.33 Perceived exertion cycling5 W vs standing=0.29 Perceived exertion cycling30 W vs standing=0.66 Perceived exertion treadmill3.2 km/hour vs treadmill1.6 km/hour=0.65 Perceived exertion cycling30 W vs treadmill1.6 km/hour=0.87 Perceived exertion treadmill3.2 km/hour vs cycling5 W=0.25 Perceived exertion cycling30 W vs cycling5 W=0.34 | ||||||||
| Tronarp et al 16 | Randomised crossover | Standing session of 30 min Cycling20%MAP session of 75 min Cycling50%MAP session of 30 min | Males=15 Females=21 | 26.8 years old Healthy adults | Standing Cycling (20%MAP) Cycling (50%MAP) | Pressure pain threshold Thermal pain threshold Typing gross speed (included errors; words/min) Typing net speed (excluded errors; words/min) Typing accuracy Mouse successful task Mouse speed to complete task Stroop colour word test (% of correct words) Energy expenditure | Typing gross speed values: Standing (47), cycling20%MAP (46.5), cycling50%MAP (45.5). Typing gross speed was reduced for cycling50%MAP and cycling20%MAP compared with standing. Typing net speed values: standing (46.3), cycling20%MAP (44.3), cycling50%MAP (43.8). Typing net speed was reduced for cycling50%MAP and cycling20%MAP compared with standing. Typing error values: standing (13.8), cycling20%MAP (16.3), cycling50%MAP (20.0). Typing errors improved with cycling50%MAP and cycling20%MAP compared with standing. Mouse pointing successful task values: standing (7), cycling20%MAP (5.5), cycling50%MAP (3.5). Accuracy was reduced during both cycling50%MAP and cycling20%MAP compared with standing, as well as in cycling50%MAP compared with cycling20%MAP. Mouse speed values: standing (33.6), cycling20%MAP (32.6), cycling50%MAP (33.9). Mouse speed was reduced for standing compared with cycling20%MAP and for cycling50%MAP compared with standing (33.6 s). Energy expenditure median values (kcal/min): standing (1.4), cycling20%MAP (3.3), cycling50%MAP (7.5). Energy expenditure increased for cycling50%MAP and cycling20%MAP compared with standing. It also increased for cycling50%MAP compared with cycling20%MAP. All other results were non-significant. | Missing data |
| Zeigler et al 8 | Randomised cross-over full factorial | Monitoring for 12 hours (08:00–20:00). Analysed hours: (1) 12 hours (08:00–20:00) (2) Work hours (08:00–16:00) with bout of active workstation for a cumulative of 2.5 hours (3) Postwork hours (16:00–20:00) | Males=2 Females=7 | 30 years old BMI=28.7 kg/m2 Prehypertensive (n=7) | Siting Standing Treadmill (1.6 km/hour) Cycling (20 W at 25–20 RPM) | Heart rate Blood pressure | 12-hour period (08:00–20:00) mean heart rate values: standing (74±12), treadmill1.6 km/hour (78±12), cycling20 W (78±13). Treadmill1.6 km/hour and cycling20 W increased heart rate compared with standing. 12-hour mean SBP values: standing (132±17), treadmill1.6 km/hour (133±17), cycling20 W (130±16). Cycling20 W and treadmill1.6 km/hour lowered SBP compared with standing. Cycling20 W lowered SBP compared with treadmill1.6 km/hour. 12-hour mean DBP values: standing (72±12), treadmill1.6 km/hour (71±17), cycling20 W (69±16). Cycling20 W lowered DBP compared with treadmill1.6 km/hour and standing. Work hours’ heart rate values: standing (72±12), treadmill1.6 km/hour (77±13), cycling20 W (78±14). Cycling20 W and treadmill1.6 km/hour increased heart rate compared with standing. Work hours’ SBP mean values: standing (131±16), treadmill1.6 km/hour (131±16), cycling20 W (129±15). Cycling20 W lowered SBP compared with treadmill1.6 km/hour and standing. Work hours’ DBP mean values: standing (74±11), treadmill1.6 km/hour (73±11), cycling20 W (71±11). Cycling20 W lowered DBP compared with standing. Postwork hours’ SBP mean values: standing (134±18), treadmill1.6 km/hour (135±17), cycling20 W (127±15). Cycling20 W lowered SBP compared with treadmill1.6 km/hour and standing. | Heart rate (08:00–20:00) treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.33 Heart rate (08:00–20:00) cycling20 W vs standing=0.33 SBP (08:00–20:00) treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.06 SBP (08h00-20h00) cycling20 W vs standing=−0.12 SBP (08:00–20:00) cycling20 W vs treadmill1.6 km/hour=−0.18 DBP (08:00–20:00) cycling20 W vs treadmill1.6 km/hour=−0.12 Heart rate (work hours) (20:00) treadmill1.6 km/hour vs standing=0.4 Heart rate (work hours) cycling20 W vs standing=0.33 SBP (work hours) cycling20 W vs standing=−0.13 SBP (work hours) cycling20 W vs treadmill1.6 km/hour=−0.13 DBP (work hours) cycling20 W vs standing=−0.27 SBP (postwork) cycling20 W vs standing=−0.42 |
Values presented are means, unless otherwise specified.
%g, gravitational force; %MVC, maximum voluntary contractions; BMI, body mass index; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; EEG, electroencephalography; EGG, electroencephalography; EMG, electromyography; MAP, % of maximum aerobic power; MET, metabolic equivalent; NA, not applicable; RPM, revolutions per minute; SBP, systolic blood pressure; W, watts.