Comparison of the postural and physiological effects of two dynamic workstations to conventional sitting and standing workstations.

Increasing evidence is being found for the association of health risk factors with work-related physical inactivity. An increasing number of people are being exposed to this form of inactivity, and as a result, various interventions aimed at increasing physical activity during working hours are being developed. This study aims to investigate the differences in postural, muscular and physical activities resulting from two dynamic workstations, namely an elliptical trainer and a treadmill workstation, compared with a conventional sitting and standing workstation. Twelve participants completed five standardised office tasks in a laboratory setting at all workstations. No significant effect was found regarding changes in posture and the muscular activity was only significantly higher for the trapezius muscle (50th percentile: 8.1 %MVC) at the dynamic workstations. For the dynamic workstations, physical activity ranged from 4.0 to 14.9 × 10(-2) g, heart rate from 14.3 to 27.5 %HRR and energy expenditure from 1.8 to 3.1 METs. Practitioner Summary: Work-related physical inactivity is associated with health risk factors. In this study, physiological and postural effects of dynamic workstations were assessed in comparison to conventional workstations. No significant effects were found regarding changes in posture and muscular activity. Physical activity, heart rate and energy expenditure increased for the dynamic workstations.

Interventions to reduce sedentary behavior and increase physical activity during productive work: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This review addresses the effectiveness of workplace interventions that are implemented during productive work and are intended to change workers` SB and/or PA. METHODS: We searched Scopus for articles published from 1992 until 12 March 2015. Relevant studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and summarized in a best-evidence synthesis. Primary outcomes were SB and PA, both at work and overall (ie, during the whole day); work performance and health-related parameters were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The review included 40 studies describing 41 interventions organized into three categories: alternative workstations (20), interventions promoting stair use (11), and personalized behavioral interventions (10). Alternative workstations were found to decrease overall SB (strong evidence; even for treadmills separately); interventions promoting stair use were found to increase PA at work while personalized behavioral interventions increased overall PA (both with moderate evidence). There was moderate evidence to show alternative workstations influenced neither hemodynamics nor cardiorespiratory fitness and personalized behavioral interventions did not influence anthropometric measures. Evidence was either insufficient or conflicting for intervention effects on work performance and lipid and metabolic profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that some of the reviewed workplace interventions that are compatible with productive work indeed have positive effects on SB or PA at work. In addition, some of the interventions were found to influence overall SB or PA positively. Putative long-term effects remain to be established.

Effects of a standing and three dynamic workstations on computer task performance and cognitive function tests.

Sedentary work entails health risks. Dynamic (or active) workstations, at which computer tasks can be combined with physical activity, may reduce the risks of sedentary behaviour. The aim of this study was to evaluate short term task performance while working on three dynamic workstations: a treadmill, an elliptical trainer, a bicycle ergometer and a conventional standing workstation. A standard sitting workstation served as control condition. Fifteen Dutch adults performed five standardised but common office tasks in an office-like laboratory setting. Both objective and perceived work performance were measured. With the exception of high precision mouse tasks, short term work performance was not affected by working on a dynamic or a standing workstation. The participant's perception of decreased performance might complicate the acceptance of dynamic workstations, although most participants indicate that they would use a dynamic workstation if available at the workplace.