Trial reportPloS one2019
Energy expenditure differences across lying, sitting, and standing positions in young healthy adults.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity of energy expenditure from combined accelerometry and heart rate during load carriage in adults with overweight to mild obesity.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- The energetic cost of human standing balance and gait initiation over a range of natural postures.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Optimizing Patient Positioning to Improve Orientation, Ergonomics, and Standardization in Percutaneous Forefoot Surgery: A Technical Tip.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2026Article
- On the Merits of Targeted and Individualized Physical Exercise in Persons with Diabetic Foot Disease-From Controversies to Consensus.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- The thermoneutral zone in women takes an "arctic" shift compared to men.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Experiential motivation and the linguistics of sitting, standing, and lying.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2022Review
- Ambient and Wearable Sensor Technologies for Energy Expenditure Quantification of Ageing Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Metabolic profile in women differs between high versus low energy spenders during a low intensity exercise on a cycle-desk.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Acute Effects of Esports on the Cardiovascular System and Energy Expenditure in Amateur Esports Players.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Stand Up to Excite the Spine: Neuromuscular, Autonomic, and Cardiometabolic Responses During Motor Imagery in Standing vs. Sitting Posture.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Can Physical Activity While Sedentary Produce Health Benefits? A Single-Arm Randomized Trial.Sports medicine - open · 2020Article
- Accuracy of Sedentary Behavior-Triggered Ecological Momentary Assessment for Collecting Contextual Information: Development and Feasibility Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Correction: Energy expenditure differences across lying, sitting, and standing positions in young healthy adults.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The time spent in sedentary behaviour represents an important public health burden. To reduce sedentary time in the general population, the simplest, most effective, and most accessible method is to decrease lying and sitting time. We aimed to compare differences on energy expenditure (EE) across lying, sitting, and standing positions; and to analyse the associations between the change on EE of changing from one position to another and anthropometric and body composition parameters in young healthy adults. A total of 55 (69% women) young healthy adults aged 21.7 ± 2.2 participated in the study. We measured EE by indirect calorimetry across lying, sitting, and standing positions following the standard procedures. The EE was significantly higher in standing than in both lying and sitting positions (mean difference: 0.121±0.292 and 0.125±0.241 kcal/min, respectively; all P<0.001), and no differences were observed between lying and sitting positions (P = 1.000). There was a negative association between the EE differences in sitting vs. standing position and lean body mass (P = 0.048), yet no associations between EE differences with the rest of the anthropometric and body composition parameters were observed in each position pair studied (all P>0.321). Our findings support the fact that increasing the time spent standing could be a simple strategy to slightly increase EE. Therefore, our results have important clinical implications including a better monitoring, characterizing, and promoting countermeasures to sedentariness through low-level physical activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.