ShareThis Page
Health

Study finds standing several hours a day could help you lose weight

| Monday, March 12, 2018, 9:00 p.m.
Shelli Groshans, an advertising sales assistant, works at her standing desk at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in St. Louis. Groshans divides her time between sitting and standing. She says it has helped her with her back pains.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Shelli Groshans, an advertising sales assistant, works at her standing desk at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in St. Louis. Groshans divides her time between sitting and standing. She says it has helped her with her back pains.
Jeff Schwarz, chief operating officer at Polsinelli in Kansas City, Missouri, prefers standing, rather than sitting at his desk.
Kansas City Star
Jeff Schwarz, chief operating officer at Polsinelli in Kansas City, Missouri, prefers standing, rather than sitting at his desk.

Standing instead of sitting for six hours a day could help people lose weight over the long term, according to a Mayo Clinic study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

In recent years, sedentary behavior, such as sitting, has been blamed for contributing to the obesity epidemic, cardiovascular disease and diabetes, says Dr. Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, senior author of the study and chair of preventive cardiology at the Mayo Clinic. Population-based studies report that, in the U.S., adults sit more than seven hours a day. The range across European countries is 3.2 to 6.8 hours of daily sitting time.

The study examined whether standing burns more calories than sitting in adults in the first systematic review and meta-analysis (combining data from multiple studies) to evaluate the difference. The researchers analyzed 46 studies with 1,184 participants. Participants, on average, were 33 years old; 60 percent were men; and the average weight was 143.3 pounds.

“Overall, our study shows that, when you put all the available scientific evidence together, standing accounts for more calories burned than sitting,” says Dr. Farzane Saeidifard, first author of the study and cardiology fellow at Mayo Clinic.

The researchers found that standing burned 0.15 calories per minute more than sitting. By substituting standing for sitting for six hours a day, a 143.3-pound adult would expend an extra 54 calories in six hours. Assuming no increase in food intake, that would equate to 5.5 pounds in one year and 22 pounds over four years.

“Standing for long periods of time for many adults may seem unmanageable, especially those who have desk jobs, but, for the person who sits for 12 hours a day, cutting sitting time to half would give great benefits,” Lopez-Jimenez says.

The authors acknowledge that more research is needed to show if replacing standing with sitting is effective and whether there are long-term health implications of standing for long periods.

In recent years, moderate to vigorous physical activities in daily life have been encouraged in efforts to maintain and lose weight, and reduce the risk of heart disease, he says. But individuals cite barriers, such as time, motivation or access to facilities. Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis, known as NEAT, a concept developed by Dr. James Levine and Dr. Michael Jensen — both Mayo Clinic endocrinologists and obesity researchers — focuses on the daily calories a person burns while doing normal daily activities, not exercising.

“Standing is one of the components of NEAT, and the results of our study support this theory,” Lopez-Jimenez says. “The idea is to work into our daily routines some lower-impact activities that can improve our long-term health.”

Of note, the researchers found that calories burned between standing and sitting is about twice as high in men as in women. This likely reflects the effect of greater muscle mass in men on the number of calories burned, because calories burned is proportional to the muscle mass activated while standing, researchers found.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me