Differences of energy expenditure while sitting versus standing: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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