Cited by 60Physical Activity and HealthErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Differences of energy expenditure while sitting versus standing: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Saeidifard, Farzane, Medina-Inojosa, Jose R, Supervia, Marta, Olson, Thomas P, Somers, Virend K, Erwin, Patricia J, Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco·2018·European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

Abstract

Background Replacing sitting with standing is one of several recommendations to decrease sedentary time and increase the daily energy expenditure, but the difference in energy expenditure between standing versus sitting has been controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine this difference. Designs and methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for observational and experimental studies that compared the energy expenditure of standing versus sitting. We calculated mean differences and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. We conducted different predefined subgroup analyses based on characteristics of participants and study design. Results We identified 658 studies and included 46 studies with 1184 participants for the final analysis. The mean difference in energy expenditure between sitting and standing was 0.15 kcal/min (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-0.17). The difference among women was 0.1 kcal/min (95% CI 0.0-0.21), and was 0.19 kcal/min (95% CI 0.05-0.33) in men. Observational studies had a lower difference in energy expenditure (0.11 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.08-0.14) compared to randomised trials (0.2 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.12-0.28). By substituting sitting with standing for 6 hours/day, a 65 kg person will expend an additional 54 kcal/day. Assuming no increase in energy intake, this difference in energy expenditure would be translated into the energy content of about 2.5 kg of body fat…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2047487317752186

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 82 · Cited by 60

Authors
Saeidifard, F., Medina-Inojosa, J. R., Supervia, M., Olson, T. P., Somers, V. K., Erwin, P. J., & Lopez-Jimenez, F.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Division of Preventive Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, USA
Venue
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
Published
2018-01-31
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
522-538
ISSN
  • 2047-4873 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-4881
OpenAlex
W2786725031
Cited by
60
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Preventive Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL134808, R01HL114024)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
energy expenditure, standing versus sitting, sedentary behavior, sedentary time reduction, weight gain prevention, sex differences, fat mass
MeSH terms
Sitting Position, Standing Position, Cardiovascular Diseases, Energy Metabolism, Humans, Weight Gain, Sedentary Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review