Article

Evidence suggests prolonged bouts of sitting are unhealthy, and some public
health messages have recently recommended replacing sitting with more standing.
However, the relative benefits of replacing sitting with standing compared to
locomotion are not known. Specifically, the biomechanical consequences of
standing compared to other sitting-alternatives like walking and running are not
well known and are usually not considered in studies on sitting. We compared the
total knee joint load accumulated (TKJLA) and the total energy expended (TEE)
when performing either walking, running, or standing for a common exercise bout
duration (30 min). Walking and running both (unsurprisingly) had much more TEE
than standing (+300% and +1100%, respectively). TKJLA was similar between walking
and standing and 74% greater in running. The results suggest that standing is a
poor replacement for walking and running if one wishes to increases energy
expenditure, and may be particularly questionable for use in individuals at-risk
for knee osteoarthritis due to its surprisingly high TKJLA (just as high as
walking, 56% of the load in running) and the type of loading (continuous
compression) it places on cartilage. However, standing has health benefits as an
"inactivity interrupter" that extend beyond its direct energy expenditure. We
suggest that future studies on standing as an inactivity intervention consider
the potential biomechanical consequences of standing more often throughout the
day, particularly in the case of prolonged bouts of standing.
CI - Copyright (c) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Langue : ANGLAIS