Controversies in the Science of Sedentary Behaviour and Health: Insights, Perspectives and Future Directions from the 2018 Queensland Sedentary Behaviour Think Tank

Abstract

The development in research concerning sedentary behaviour has been rapid over the past two decades. This has led to the development of evidence and views that have become more advanced, diverse and, possibly, contentious. These include the effects of standing, the breaking up of prolonged sitting and the role of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in the association between sedentary behaviour and health outcomes. The present aim is to report the views of experts (n = 21) brought together (one-day face-to-face meeting in 2018) to consider these issues and provide conclusions and recommendations for future work. Each topic was reviewed and presented by one expert followed by full group discussion, which was recorded, transcribed and analysed. The experts concluded that (a). standing may bring benefits that accrue from postural shifts. Prolonged (mainly static) standing and prolonged sitting are both bad for health; (b). ‘the best posture is the next posture’. Regularly breaking up of sitting with postural shifts and movement is vital; (c). health effects of prolonged sitting are evident even after controlling for MVPA, but high levels of MVPA can attenuate the deleterious effects of prolonged sitting depending on the health outcome of interest. Expert discussion addressed measurement, messaging and future directions.

Full text

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762; doi:10.3390/ijerph16234762 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Commentary
Controversies in the Science of Sedentary Behaviour
and Health: Insights, Perspectives and Future
directions from the 2018 Queensland Sedentary
Behaviour Think Tank
Stuart J.H. Biddle 1,*, Jason A. Bennie 1, Katrien De Cocker 1, David Dunstan 2, Paul A. Gardiner 3,
Genevieve N. Healy 3, Brigid Lynch 4, Neville Owen 2, Charlotte Brakenridge 5, Wendy Brown 6,
Matthew Buman 7, Bronwyn Clark 3, Ing-Mari Dohrn 8, Mitch Duncan 9, Nicholas Gilson 6,
Tracy Kolbe-Alexander 1, Toby Pavey 10, Natasha Reid 3, Corneel Vandelanotte 11, Ineke Vergeer 1
and Grace E. Vincent 12
1 Institute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland,
Springfield Central, QLD 4300, Australia; jason.bennie@usq.edu.au (J.A.B.);
katrien.decocker@usq.edu.au (K.D.C.); tracy.kolbe-alexander@usq.edu.au (T.K.-A.);
ineke.vergeer@usq.edu.au (I.V.)
2 Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia;
david.dunstan@bakeridi.edu.au (D.D.); neville.owen@bakeridi.edu.au (N.O.)
3 School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia;
p.gardiner@uq.edu.au (P.A.G.); g.healy@sph.uq.edu.au (G.N.H.); b.clark3@uq.edu.au (B.C.);
n.reid@uq.edu.au (N.R.)
4 Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne VIC 3004, Australia; brigid.lynch@cancervic.org.au
5 The University of Queensland, RECOVER Injury Research Centre, Faculty of Health and Behavioural
Sciences, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; c.brakenridge@uq.edu.au
6 School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; wbrown@uq.edu.au (W.B.); n.gilson1@uq.edu.au (N.G.)
7 College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA; mbuman@asu.edu
8 Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institute, 11330 Stockholm, Sweden;
ing-mari.dohrn@ki.se
9 Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia;
mitch.duncan@newcastle.edu.au
10 Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia;
toby.pavey@qut.edu.au
11 School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University,
Rockhampton, QLD 4702, Australia; c.vandelanotte@cqu.edu.au
12 School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University,
Wayville, SA 5034, Australia; g.vincent@cqu.edu.au
* Correspondence: stuart.biddle@usq.edu.au; Tel: +61 7 3470 4119
Received: 6 November 2019; Accepted: 20 November 2019; Published: 27 November 2019
Abstract: The development in research concerning sedentary behaviour has been rapid over the
past two decades. This has led to the development of evidence and views that have become more
advanced, diverse and, possibly, contentious. These include the effects of standing, the breaking up
of prolonged sitting and the role of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in the
association between sedentary behaviour and health outcomes. The present aim is to report the
views of experts (n = 21) brought together (one-day face-to-face meeting in 2018) to consider these
issues and provide conclusions and recommendations for future work. Each topic was reviewed
and presented by one expert followed by full group discussion, which was recorded, transcribed
and analysed. The experts concluded that (a). standing may bring benefits that accrue from postural
shifts. Prolonged (mainly static) standing and prolonged sitting are both bad for health; (b). ‘the best
posture is the next posture’. Regularly breaking up of sitting with postural shifts and movement is

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 2 of 20
vital; (c). health effects of prolonged sitting are evident even after controlling for MVPA, but high
levels of MVPA can attenuate the deleterious effects of prolonged sitting depending on the health
outcome of interest. Expert discussion addressed measurement, messaging and future directions.
Keywords: breaks; debate; health; mediation; moderation; physical activity; posture; sedentary;
standing
1. Introduction
Sedentary behaviour has been defined as “any waking behaviour characterized by an energy
expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs), while in a sitting, reclining or lying posture”. It has
been identified as a distinct behavioural entity from physical inactivity [1], which is the term used to
reflect insufficient physical activity or exercise for health gains. Hence, an individual could have
rather little ‘sitting’, due to their job, for example, but equally engage in a very low volume of health-
enhancing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Conversely, a highly active person (e.g.,
a daily runner) is clearly not inactive, but could engage in high amounts of sitting throughout the rest
of the day.
The field of sedentary behaviour research expanded greatly from the early 2000s. Searches of
SCOPUS to the end of 2018 reveal an exponential increase in papers with ‘sedentary’ and ‘sedentary
behavio[u]r’ in the title (see Figure 1). With ‘sedentary behaviour’ probably better reflecting the
literature of interest to the current paper, it can be seen that there has been a greater than 10-fold
increase in the number of published papers over the past two decades. Epstein’s seminal laboratory
studies with children were important papers concerning behavioural influences and changes in both
physical activity and sedentary behaviours [2]. However, it was Salmon’s initial population-based
findings showing relationships of TV time with body mass index (BMI) across physical activity strata,
along with the review presented by Owen et al. of environmental determinants of physical activity
and sedentary behaviour, that signalled important early contributions to the field in adults [3,4].
Figure 1. Number of published papers with ‘sedentary’ and ‘sedentary behavio[u]r’ in the title from
SCOPUS searches.
There is an even longer history, however, of systematic research on seated occupations and the
use of adjustable workstations in ergonomics [5,6], effects of long-haul flights on conditions such as
venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis; DVT, with case studies reported in French as early
as 1951) [7,8] and the health effects of seated leisure pursuits, such as TV viewing in children and
adolescents [9], as well as the seminal occupational physical activity research by Morris and
colleagues [10]. In the latter, seated occupations, such as bus driving, were compared with more
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1990-99 2000-09 2010-18
Sedentary Sedentary Behaviour

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 3 of 20
active jobs in respect of health outcomes. While Morris’ work is considered to be the foundation of
modern-day ‘physical activity epidemiology’, attention was primarily directed to the health effects
of physical ‘inactivity’ rather than sitting per se. For example, it was concluded that “men in
physically active jobs have a lower incidence of coronary heart disease in middle age than have men
in physically inactive jobs” [10] p. 1120. However, it could be reasonably argued that such work was
also influential, albeit much later, in considering the evident trend towards less physical activity at
work and its replacement by ‘lighter’ moving or sedentary tasks. This is illustrated by declining
energy expenditure in the occupational setting over the past five decades [11].
The development of sedentary behaviour research can be mapped onto the behavioural
epidemiology framework [12]. The phases of this framework comprise measurement of the
behaviour, the association between the behaviour and health, correlates of the behaviour, behaviour
change through interventions and translational efforts to roll out behaviour change solutions.
Considerable scientific endeavour has been directed towards each of these phases. For example, the
measurement of sedentary behaviour has involved the development of self-reported measures that
attempt to capture total sedentary time as well as sitting in different domains (e.g., work, leisure,
transport) [13–16]. Moreover, developments in technology now allow for the assessment of posture
and movement using wearable devices [17]. Extensive research efforts have been invested in testing
associations between sedentary behaviour and multiple health outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality,
cardiovascular disease (CVD)). One of the first such studies showed that a simple five-category self-
report (‘almost none of the time, one fourth of the time, half of the time, three fourths of the time,
almost all of the time’) of sitting time was associated with mortality in a large population sample of
Canadians. Such an association remained, but with attenuation for those deemed physically active
[18] (see later in this paper for further consideration on this topic). In the following six years, several
meta-analyses confirmed these observational findings [19–21], and laboratory experimental evidence
linking sedentary behaviour with biomarkers of chronic disease risk (e.g., 2-hour fasting glucose)
emerged [22,23]. The latest U.S. guidelines state that “the potential population health impact of
sedentary behavior is substantial” [24]. Numerous studies of the correlates of sedentary behaviour
have also emerged [25], and subsequent intervention trials have been developed [26] and scaled-up
for translation to larger numbers [27]. Moreover, the first two edited books have recently been
published, specifically focussing on sedentary behaviour and health, covering more than 50 chapters
and 1,000 pages [28,29].
With such rapid change in this research field over only the past decade or so, it is inevitable that
evidence and views will develop to become more advanced, diverse and, possibly, contentious [30].
This is no different from the physical activity literature or other areas of health behaviour research,
such as nutrition research, where an evolution of thinking is evident and inevitable. Indeed,
researchers in psychology have labelled the changing landscape in a new area of research the ‘decline
effect’ [31]. This does not mean that evidence necessarily gets less supportive of an initial point of
view, but rather that evidence builds in a more sophisticated and nuanced way. Studies get larger,
use better measures, control for important confounders in better ways and, where feasible, provide
experimental rather than just observational evidence. It is almost inevitable that early, possibly
simplistic, conclusions will be refined. Some hypotheses will continue to be supported, others
modified.
For physical activity, for example, early guidelines stated that ‘exercise’ needed to be undertaken
on a few days of the week largely at a vigorous intensity [32]. Evidence later suggested that
substantial benefits for health could be gained by moderate intensity and moderate-to-vigorous
intensity physical activity undertaken more frequently [33]. The initial guideline was not incorrect,
but given the emergence of newer evidence, it was modified over time. Indeed, physical activity
guidelines are still being changed and clarified [34]. Similarly, early research on the ‘causal’
association between TV viewing and adiposity in children [9] was later modified to a more cautious
conclusion that such an association, while evident, is complex and likely dependent on many factors
[35]. In short, we should not expect a field of research to stand still, but to evolve, develop and become
more sophisticated in its evidence and conclusions. Given the rapidly developing evidence base for

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 4 of 20
sedentary behaviour, therefore, some areas for consideration and debate have emerged. These
include the relative effects of standing rather than sitting, the contribution of patterns of sitting
accumulation rather than just total time sitting and the role of MVPA in modifying associations
between sitting and health. These issues formed the basis for the Think Tank reported in this paper.
The ‘Queensland Sedentary Behaviour Think Tank’ meeting was held in May 2018 and brought
together people with extensive expertise on sedentary behaviour in the state of Queensland,
Australia. The primary purpose was to discuss areas of debate that have emerged within the
sedentary behaviour literature, primarily concerning adults.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
An invitation to attend the Think Tank was initially extended to researchers within Queensland,
Australia; however, we were fortunate that additional physical activity and sedentary behaviour
experts were willing and able to attend the meeting (including one by video conferencing).
2.2. Procedures
The purpose of the meeting was to address three key issues that have been central to early
research on sedentary behaviour and health and have recently garnered debate: the health effects of
standing [30], the role of targeting prolonged sedentary time (‘sedentary breaks’) [36] and the
interactive effects of MVPA and sedentary behaviour on health outcomes [37,38]. The meeting invited
three experts to lead 10-minute ‘stimulus presentations’ covering each of these topics. Another expert
chaired the session, consisting of a discussion of about 50 minutes, and a third person took notes
alongside an audio recording (see below).
2.2.1. Stimulus Presentations.
These 10-minute presentations by invited experts were not comprehensive systematic reviews
of evidence. Rather, ‘expert opinion’ was used in the presentation of evidence from key reviews and
large-scale studies, drawing conclusions that were then subjected to scrutiny and discussion. The
summary content from these presentations is presented in this paper. Only in exceptional cases did
we include important updated evidence subsequent to the Think Tank when writing this manuscript.
2.2.2. Topic-Focussed Discussions.
During and after each presentation, discussions were recorded and transcribed. As a backup,
notes were taken by PhD students (one student per topic area). The discussion content was analysed
by the first and third authors using thematic narrative analysis [39].
The meeting was designed as a ‘think tank’. This is a form of meeting where the agenda is open
to members to discuss evidence, perspectives and future directions with a view to clarifying
inconsistencies and highlighting priority areas of work.
Prior to coverage of each of the three selected topics, participants were reminded of the
complexity of the behaviour in question. In any appraisal of health outcomes of sedentary behaviour,
we should note the following:
• Sedentary behaviour has been shown to have differential effects on some health outcomes.
For example, vascular and metabolic outcomes may show stronger effects than weight loss
or mood and may vary by initial health status. However, despite being a comparatively
weaker, albeit opposing, physiological stimulus (vs. moderate-vigorous physical activity),
sedentary behaviour is often undertaken for long periods and is highly prevalent in many
population groups. Regular exercise has clear effects on multiple aspects of health (i.e., can
be a strong stimulus) but is undertaken for short periods and has low population
prevalence.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 5 of 20
• The behaviour itself—sedentary behaviour—is commonly assessed through self-reported
methods or with wearable technology. Measures typical in the research literature include
total sedentary time or time spent in individual domains of behaviour or settings, such as
screen-viewing time or sitting at work.
• Assessment of health-related outcomes have included mortality, incident chronic disease
(e.g., colon cancer, type II diabetes), cardio-metabolic biomarkers, adiposity, musculo-
skeletal integrity, physical fitness, physical function, mental health and behavioural
outcomes (e.g., work engagement).
• Combining all the above factors makes the area complex, and one should not necessarily
expect simple or single answers or solutions.
3. Results
A total of 21 researchers were invited to participate in the Think Tank, including 15 from
Queensland, three from other states of Australia and two from overseas (Sweden and U.S.). Most
participants were university employees (n = 17), with two from medical research institutes and one
based at a not-for-profit health agency. One PhD student was invited specifically for her expertise
and is included in the 21, with three additional PhD candidates attending and assisting, with the
option of contributing to the discussion (not included in the 21).
3.1. Topic 1: Is Standing a Sufficient Stimulus to Mitigate the Detrimental Health Effects of Prolonged
Sitting?
A narrative review process examining the current literature on the health effects of standing
included 11 review studies (n = 6 on the health effects of sit-stand workstations), two prospective
studies, nine isotemporal substitution analyses and several experimental studies (see Table 1 for
overview).
Table 1. Overview of associations between standing and health outcomes by type of evidence.
Source type of
evidence
Standing is
in favour of
Standing is
detrimental for
Standing is not
associated with
Inconsistent findings on the
link with standing
Review studies
(k = 5)
Energy expenditure
(MA1)
(gender ≠)
Low back pain
(MA1)
Lower extremity
symptoms
Vascular problems
Fatigue &
discomfort
Causality low back pain
Upper extremity
symptoms
Review studies sit-
stand desks
(k = 6)
Performance/
productivity
Sick leave
Musculoskeletal discomfort
Mood states
Energy expenditure
Prospective
(k = 2)
All-cause mortality
CVD2 mortality
Other mortality
Cancer mortality
Isotemporal
substitutions
(k = 9)
Cardio-metabolic
health
Mortality
Metabolic syndrome
Type 2 diabetes
Inflammation
Physical functioning
Disability
Fatigue
Cardiorespiratory
fitness
Quality of life
Role functioning
Social functioning
Depression
Anxiety
Adiposity
Experiments
(k = 13) Energy expenditure
Cardio-metabolic health
Blood pressure
Musculoskeletal health
Cognitive functions
1 meta-analysis; 2 cardio-vascular disease; k = number of studies; ≠: not equal.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 6 of 20
3.1.1. Review-Level Evidence
The majority of the review studies looking at the association of standing and health outcomes
have focused on the impacts of prolonged, static standing. Most evidence is on musculoskeletal
outcomes among healthy populations. Occupational (prolonged) standing was found to be associated
with increased risks of low back pain [40,41], vascular problems [40], fatigue and discomfort [40] and
lower extremity symptoms [41], but not with upper extremity symptoms [41]. While causality
between occupational standing and low back pain could not be shown [42], a dose-response analysis
of laboratory studies reported clinically relevant levels of low back symptoms after (i) 71 minutes of
prolonged standing in the general population and (ii) 42 minutes in those considered ‘pain
developers’ [43].
There has been limited review-level evidence reporting the potential benefits of standing
compared with sitting. A recent meta-analysis showed that energy expenditure is modestly higher
when standing compared with sitting [44].
3.1.2. Prospective Evidence
Large cohort studies have examined prospective associations between self-reported standing
and mortality. In Canadian adults, a negative dose-response relationship was found between
standing (over a quarter of the time) with all-cause, CVD and other causes of mortality [45], but not
with cancer mortality. These associations (greater amounts of standing related to lower mortality
risks) were true for both men and women but only among physically inactive individuals (see Topic
3). Similarly, Australian data for adults aged 45 years and older also revealed a beneficial relation
between standing (over 2 hours/day) and all-cause mortality. This association was found to be
consistent across subgroups based on sex, BMI, sitting time, physical activity and cardiovascular and
diabetes health status [46]. In contrast, Smith et al. [47] reported that people in occupations involving
predominantly standing had an approximately 2-fold increased risk of heart disease compared with
occupations involving predominantly sitting.
3.1.3. Isotemporal Substitution
Across a 24-hour day, movement behaviours are finite. That is, by not being physically active,
for example, one must be either sedentary or sleeping. To test for the hypothetical effects of such
behavioural substitution, isotemporal substitution analysis can be used. This is a statistical method
that allows for the estimation of the effect of replacing one behaviour (e.g., physical activity) with
another (e.g., sitting).
Overall, studies using isotemporal substitution have estimated that when 30–60 minutes of
sitting is replaced with standing, favourable effects may be observed for cardio-metabolic health [48–
51], mortality [52], metabolic syndrome [51], type 2 diabetes [51], inflammation [53], physical
functioning [54], disability [54] and fatigue [54]. However, no favourable effects were observed for
cardiorespiratory fitness [55], quality of life [54], role and social functioning [54], depression [54] or
anxiety [54]. The evidence for reduced adiposity after replacing sitting with standing was inconsistent
[49,51,56].
3.1.4. Experimental Evidence
Experimental studies, mostly in smaller samples (n = 10–20) of healthy or overweight/obese
adults, have examined the acute (typically 1 day) effects of increased standing on health outcomes.
Inconsistent findings were observed regarding cardio-metabolic outcomes [57–60], blood pressure
[61,62], musculoskeletal outcomes [63–65], fatigue [65], mood [59] and cognitive function [59,65–68].
However, energy expenditure was shown to be increased in the afternoon standing experimental
conditions, by 174 kcal over a 210-minute period. By contrast, the meta-analytic review by Saeidifard
et al. [44] found a more modest effect, with a mean difference of 0.15 kcal/minute between standing
and sitting.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 7 of 20
3.1.5. Sit-to-Stand Workstations
Regarding the use of sit-to-stand workstations, reviews showed mixed findings regarding
kinematics [69], physiological health [69,70], (low back/ musculoskeletal) discomfort [69,71–73],
mood states [70] and energy expenditure [70,74]. Productivity/performance [70,71,73–75] and sick
leave [73] were not decreased by the use of sit-to-stand desks.
3.1.6. Research Summary
Some review studies show that energy expenditure is marginally higher when standing
compared with sitting. However, prolonged standing is positively associated with low back pain,
lower extremity symptoms and fatigue. Currently, there is a lack of meta-analyses or review studies
looking at the link between (prolonged) standing and mortality, cardio-metabolic and cognitive
outcomes. However, two prospective cohort studies suggest a negative dose-response relation with
mortality. Lastly, studies based on isotemporal substitution analyses seem to support the benefits of
replacing sitting with standing for some (cardio-metabolic) health outcomes.
3.1.7. Think Tank Discussion
Initial discussion among the experts recognised the importance of early relevant physiological
research on more extreme forms of sitting/standing through studies on bed rest and space flight
weightlessness. Analysis of the transcript of the discussion revealed two main themes, in addition to
future directions. The two themes concern the measurement of standing and the messaging of
standing/sitting for guidelines.
• Measurement of standing.
Three sub-themes were evident from the discussion on measurement. The first concerned
measurement methods, the second referred to patterns of standing behaviours and the third was on
the context of assessing standing. Regarding methods, it was considered important to agree to a
definition of standing and to differentiate passive from active standing. Tremblay et al. [1] p. 9, define
standing as “a position in which one has or is maintaining an upright position while supported by
one’s feet”, with passive standing defined as a “standing posture characterized by an energy
expenditure ≤2.0 METs, while standing without ambulation” and active standing defined as “a
standing posture characterized by an energy expenditure >2.0 METs, while standing without
ambulation”.
Debate among the experts in the Think Tank centered on whether we need to develop measures
of standing, for example, in cohort studies, or whether assessing sitting was sufficient. The difficulties
in differentiating forms of standing from light-intensity physical activity (LIPA) were noted.
Moreover, it may be sufficient, and indeed preferential, to employ gold s tandard measures of posture
(e.g., with inclinometers and accelerometers) than self-reported measures of standing/sitting. As with
physical activity and sitting measurements, the quality of self-reported measures of standing was
questioned, although estimating the percentage of time spent standing in some contexts (e.g., work)
might be useful [16].
In the second sub-theme, it was agreed that very little is known about patterns of standing in
terms of accumulation or short and long bouts of daily standing. For example, cohort studies that
have used device-based measures, such as AusDiab [49], suggest that people stand for about 4
hours/day, but little is known about the patterning of this. Similarly, people may report that they
have ‘been on their feet’ for large portions of the day, but the validity of such statements is not known.
The third sub-theme concerned the context of standing. It was noted that there will be variability
within occupations for standing, and related issues involved the free will to stand and the social and
behavioural contexts of standing. For example, Mansfield et al. [76] reported that some people are
reluctant to stand in some work-related contexts as they felt it was a form of ‘norm violation’.
• Evidence to inform messages on standing.
It was noted that, with the exception of the statement by Buckley and colleagues [77], there is
little said in guideline documents about standing. It was noted that the evidence-informed

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 8 of 20
determination of any messaging concerning standing would be a complex matter. Some of the key
issues in this complexity are as follows: too much (prolonged) standing is assumed to be harmful;
any health outcomes of standing will depend on the outcome of interest (e.g., musculoskeletal vs.
metabolic); a simple energy expenditure explanation for any health effects of standing is too
simplistic; the context will vary greatly—not everyone is at work, and some occupations will involve
high levels of standing; there will be large differences in contexts between young people, adults and
older adults; psychological reactions to standing will partly be dependent on the degree of free will
involved; some forms of standing will be more dynamic than others.
The experts agreed that any evidence-informed messages concerning standing should be
focused on the importance of frequent postural changes and breaking up prolonged sitting as often
as possible.
• Key future research directions.
While many of the issues raised so far can be formulated as research questions, additional key
research directions identified by the experts included the identification of the correlates and
determinants of standing, consistent with the behavioural epidemiological framework: the
identification of the facilitators of standing; better understanding of dose-response effects of standing,
including volume, time and patterns; and examination of underlying mechanisms of positive and
negative effects of different bouts of standing.
3.2. Topic 2: Are there Beneficial Effects for Breaking up Sedentary Time?
The importance of reducing the duration of prolonged sitting bouts (i.e., breaking up sitting) has
been accepted in many statements from national guidelines. For example, guidance in Australia uses
the phrase “Minimise the amount of time spent in prolonged sitting” (see
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pubhlth-strateg-phys-act-
guidelines#apaadult). It has long been thought that prolonged sitting is not healthy, as shown in bed
rest studies, with astronauts during weightless space flights [78] and commonly held assumptions
regarding breaking up sitting on long-haul commercial flights. However, it was not until 2008, after
several years of research on sedentary behaviour, that researchers presented data suggesting
breaking up prolonged sitting might have important effects for health [79].
3.2.1. Observational and Isotemporal Substitution Studies
The first study to investigate the effects of breaks in sedentary time comprised a sample of 168
adults recruited from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) Study [79]. Hip-worn
accelerometer-determined sedentary time was assessed over one week. Data were analysed in 60
second epochs, with a break in sedentary time identified as a transition between a sedentary (<100
counts per minute) and non-sedentary epoch. The total number of breaks from sedentary time was
beneficially associated with metabolic markers, especially for lower waist circumference and BMI,
lower triglycerides and lower 2-h plasma glucose. These effects were shown after controlling for total
sedentary time and MVPA.
Further tests of associations with sedentary breaks were made through the 2003/04 and 2005/06
US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) [80]. Cross-sectional analyses
were conducted using data from more than 4700 participants using accelerometer-assessed sedentary
time and breaks in sedentary time. Findings were in line with those from the AusDiab study, with
breaks in sedentary time being beneficially associated with waist circumference and C-reactive
protein (an inflammatory marker) following adjustment for sedentary time and potential
confounders.
A systematic review and meta-analysis by Chastin et al. [81] found that, in observational studies,
the only consistent beneficial association for breaks in sedentary time, once the analysis adjusted for
total sedentary time, was with indices of obesity. This review also noted that the “breaks” measure
(number of transitions from sedentary to non-sedentary) is a simplistic measure of the underlying
concept—namely, that how sedentary time is accrued may be relevant for health. Bellettiere et al. [82]
used the activPAL data collected in the 3rd wave of the AusDiab study to explore this concept in

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 9 of 20
more depth, examining the associations of sitting time, sitting time accrued in prolonged bouts ≥30
minutes and three measures of sitting accumulation patterns, together with cardio-metabolic risk
markers. They reported that sitting accumulation patterns that reflected more frequent interruptions
(compared with those with relatively more prolonged sitting) were beneficial for several biomarkers,
and the effect sizes for the associations were typically larger for the accumulation patterns than for
sitting time volume. Diaz et al. [83] reported that both total sedentary time and the duration of the
sedentary bouts were associated with all-cause mortality, with those classified as high for both
sedentary time and high bout duration having the highest mortality risk.
3.2.2. Experimental and Review-Level Evidence
Building on observational evidence, tests of the effects of sedentary breaks on health indicators
have been undertaken in experimental settings. However, it should be noted that in observational
research, sedentary breaks have typically reflected an interruption (i.e., transition from sitting to
standing or moving) as determined by accelerometer cut-points. On the other hand, the focus in the
experimental trials has been on investigating ‘activity breaks’ during prolonged sitting whereby
periods of sitting have been intermittently replaced by some form of physical activity, ranging from
standing to moderate-to-vigorous activity. Typically, the prolonged sitting condition in the
experimental studies has been used as the ‘control’, and the mitigating influence of the activity breaks
has been the focus of attention. Recent pooled analyses of laboratory-based trials indicate that higher
energy expenditures of different types of activity breaks (standing, light- or moderate-intensity
walking) were associated with lower postprandial glucose and insulin responses in a dose-response
manner in overweight/obese sedentary adults [84], and that those with higher underlying levels of
insulin resistance may derive greater metabolic benefits from regularly interrupting prolonged sitting
with activity breaks than their healthier counterparts [85]. Similar findings were observed in a
systematic review and meta-analysis by Saunders et al. [86]. This review compared the acute (<24
hours) effects of prolonged sitting with those of repeated short bouts of light to moderate activity
(‘regular activity breaks’, less than 10 minutes in duration) on postprandial glucose, insulin and
triglyceride concentrations. Prolonged sitting resulted in higher postprandial glucose and insulin
than when light- or moderate-intensity physical activity breaks interrupted the sitting. The medium
effect size was considered to be “clinically relevant if experienced on a regular basis” [85] p. 2352.
However, these effects seemed more evident for light- and moderate-intensity movement rather than
standing per se. The authors of this review concluded that standing breaks that are less than about
10 minutes may not be sufficient to change some of these cardiometabolic biomarkers, especially in
healthy participants.
Duvivier et al. [87] provided preliminary experimental evidence that the patterning of the
interruptions is important, reporting that when energy expenditure is comparable, standing and
walking for longer duration improved cardio-metabolic biomarkers more so than shorter periods of
higher intensity physical activity, at least in the short term.
3.2.3. Research Summary
Bed rest studies have clearly demonstrated that prolonged, unbroken sitting is harmful;
however, the sophistication of measures needed to assess sedentary accumulation patterns in free-
living adults means that this research area is in its infancy. Nevertheless, both observational and
experimental studies suggest that the pattern of sitting accumulation may be important for messages
concerning the reduction of sitting time.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 10 of 20
3.2.4. Think Tank Discussion
The experts agreed that the desirability of breaking up prolonged bouts of sitting was supported
by empirical and anecdotal evidence. The converse was not to oppose nor discourage prolonged
sitting. The discussion centered on the frequency of breaks and the messaging of sitting breaks.
• Frequency of breaks from sitting.
It was recognised that differences in biomarker assessments when analysed by the frequency of
sitting breaks are small (but still important) compared with those from moderate or higher intensity
physical activity. Experts agreed that it was appropriate to encourage more breaks from sitting and
more physical activity. The importance of the smaller stimulus of breaking up prolonged sitting,
however, is thought to be particularly significant for those with chronic disease and for older adults.
For example, rising from a seated position requires strength and balance, both important markers of
physical function. In the latest U.S. guidelines, however, it was stated that “the literature was
insufficient to recommend a specific target for adults or youth for how many times during the day
sedentary time should be interrupted with physical activity” [24] p. 21.
• Informing messages about breaks in sitting.
The expert group was very clear: it is important to encourage less sedentary behaviour and more
physical activity. It should not be stated as ‘or’. It was felt that experts needed to be cautious about
being too prescriptive in light of the current state of evidence. However, in the context of advice on
evidence-informed messages, sometimes it was felt that a focus on time limits could be justified,
despite a lack of strong evidence on what these times should be. Based on other occupational and
behavioural guidelines, as well as expert opinion, an emphasis on breaking up sitting with movement
every 30 minutes was thought likely to be appropriate. Moreover, it was felt that there would be no
risk or down-side to this; it would be encouraging the breaking up of sitting and change of posture.
These issues are more behavioural than biological, and account must be taken of preferences and
circumstances. Discussion at the meeting also considered taking standing breaks (from sitting) and
felt that these would be acceptable, whereas messages about sitting as little as possible may be less
likely to be accepted [88]. Overall, there was clear consensus about the importance of breaking up
prolonged sitting time, even if it is not yet known with quantitative precision how often or for how
long to do this.
• Future research directions.
Three priority research issues were identified. First, there is a need to better understand how
people will react to different messages concerning sitting breaks, including across different groups
that vary in physical function, age and chronic disease. Second, different study designs may be
required to address different research questions, such as adoption and maintenance of the behaviour
of breaking up prolonged sitting. Third, more research is needed on identifying the mechanisms of
any benefits of breaking up prolonged sitting; examples include blood flow and vascular reaction.
3.3. Topic 3: Does Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity Attenuate the Adverse Health Effects of Sitting?
Consideration was given to literature examining the adverse health effects of sedentary
behaviour when either adjusting for the effects of MVPA or when different levels of MVPA were
used to test for moderation effects on the associations between sedentary behaviour and health
outcomes. Results were drawn from systematic reviews and cohort studies. To make the process
manageable, mortality was used as the primary health outcome marker.
3.3.1. Effects of Sitting or Sedentary Behaviour after Adjusting for the Effects of Physical Activity
Initial studies tended to adjust statistical models for time spent in MVPA—usually in leisure
time—when estimating the effects of sedentary behaviour on health. For example, the European
Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) Norfolk cohort study in the UK reported by Wijndaele et
al. [89] showed that TV viewing time was associated with mortality (all-cause and cardiovascular,
but not cancer) after controlling for confounders that included physical activity energy expenditure.
With a growing number of similar studies assessing these associations, along with various measures

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 11 of 20
of sedentary time and mortality, several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have appeared in the
literature [90]. For example, Wilmot et al. [19] reviewed eight large cohort studies and compared
mortality between the highest and lowest categories of sedentary behaviour. Results showed that the
most sedentary were at 49% greater risk of all-cause mortality, and that such associations remained
after controlling for MVPA (i.e., adding MVPA to statistical models as a confounder). Based on a
review of eight systematic reviews, including the review by Wilmot et al. [19], and an analysis of
causality using epidemiological criteria proposed by Hill [91], Biddle et al. [90] concluded that “there
is reasonable evidence for a likely causal relationship between sedentary behaviour and all-cause
mortality based on the epidemiological criteria of strength of association, consistency of effect, and
temporality” [89] p.1. The largest review included in this analysis was by Biswas et al. [20], who
analysed only studies that controlled for MVPA in assessing relationships between sedentary
behaviour and mortality. They concluded that an association existed “regardless of physical activity”
[20] p. 123, but also stated that “the deleterious outcome effects associated with sedentary time
generally decreased in magnitude among persons who participated in higher levels of physical
activity compared with lower levels” [20] p. 127 (see later).
Since the synthesis of reviews by Biddle et al. [90], there have been two large meta-analyses
examining the association between sedentary behaviour and mortality, where physical activity has
been considered a confounder. Patterson et al. [92] reported from 12 studies that associations between
largely self-reported total sedentary time and all-cause mortality yielded a relative risk (RR) of 1.03
per hour/day. This remained significant and was only marginally attenuated by adjusting for
physical activity (RR = 1.02). Such associations were non-linear and suggested that the risk was higher
after about 8 hours of sedentary time per day. Similar trends were found for TV viewing time,
although relative risk values were higher (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Data from Patterson et al. [91] showing risk ratios per hour for total sedentary behaviour
and TV viewing with all-cause mortality.
In an analysis of 19 studies and more than one million participants, Ku et al. [93] reported a log-
linear association between sedentary time—measured with devices (mainly Actigraph
accelerometers) and self-reporting—and all-cause mortality. Inspection of the dose-response curve
suggested that a significant risk for all-cause mortality was evident from about 7.5 hours of sedentary
time per day. However, for self-reported studies, this was around 7 hours, while for studies using
devices, the value was closer to 9 hours. The authors stated that MVPA was controlled for in all studies.
In contrast, when using tri-axial accelerometers, the large Women’s Health Study cohort (n = 16,741; mean
age at baseline = 72 years) showed that associations between sedentary time and all-cause mortality
that were evident in the highest two quartiles of sedentary time were completely attenuated after
1
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
Total sedentary TV viewing
RR per hour
Without PA adjustment With PA adjustment

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 12 of 20
accounting for time in MVPA [94]. However, Belletiere et al. [95] recently reported on accelerometer
data on older women from the OPACH Study (Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular
Health; n = 5638, aged 63–97 years). This study, with 5-year follow-up, showed that high sedentary
time and long mean sedentary bout durations were associated, after adjustment for accelerometer-
determined MVPA, in a dose-response manner with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
In appraising studies that assessed the association between sedentary behaviour and health and
where physical activity was adjusted for as a confounder, it could be concluded that sitting time is
usually associated with deleterious health outcomes, at least for mortality and mostly for self-
reported data. However, this does not answer the question whether those undertaking higher levels
of physical activity are protected from negative health outcomes of sitting. Therefore, we also
considered studies that analysed MVPA as a moderator of the association between sedentary
behaviour and health.
3.3.2. Moderation Effects of MVPA on Sedentary Behaviour and Health Relationships
The first cohort study to consider this was an analysis of the Canada Fitness Survey by
Katzmarzyk et al. [18]. Participants were requested to estimate their sitting using a fairly crude
instrument comprising five categories ranging from sitting ‘almost none of the time’ to ‘almost all of
the time’. Sitting time was positively associated with all-cause, cardiovascular and ‘other’ mortality,
but not cancer. When participants were split into ‘inactive’ and ‘active’, the latter being active at a
level of at least 7.5 MET hours/week—commensurate with current physical activity guidelines—both
groups showed a dose-response association between sitting and mortality. However, the effect was
attenuated for those deemed physically active such that those most at risk were those who were
physically inactive in the two highest sitting groups.
Using accelerometer data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES) in the United States, Loprinzi et al. [96] found that all-cause mortality was associated
with higher sedentary time and lower levels of MVPA. However, an increase in sedentary time was
not associated with mortality for those above the median for MVPA.
Ekelund et al. [37] reported results from a harmonised data analysis of studies that examined
self-reported sitting time (k = 13), TV viewing time (k = 6) and all-cause mortality. The sitting time
studies included 1,005,791 individuals who were followed for 2–18 years. During this period, 84,609
(8.4%) died. Self-reported sitting time was categorised into four groups (0–<4 hours/day; 4–<6 h/day;
6–8 h/day; >8h/day), with self-reported MVPA as quartiles. Analyses then investigated the mortality
risk for each combination of sitting and MVPA. This was repeated for TV viewing, where four groups
were created (<1 h/day; 1–2h/day; 3–4 h/day; >5 h/day). Results showed dose-response curves for
sitting time and mortality; however, these flattened out and became non-significant for the highest
activity group. There was little or no effect of sitting among those who reported 60–75 minutes/day
of MVPA. For participants meeting physical activity guidelines at 16 MET-h/week, a dose-response
effect for sitting was shown for mortality. Effects for TV viewing were stronger; high TV viewers had
elevated risk of mortality even if highly physically active. This study concluded that high levels of
MVPA can attenuate or even eliminate the deleterious effects of sitting on mortality, but the effects
were less marked for TV. The highest quartile for sitting was set at >8 h/day, which is around the
level at which risk is expected to increase. In conclusion, in studies in which different levels of MVPA
are considered, the effects of high levels of sitting time on mortality are much less marked when PA
levels are high, which, in the paper by Ekelund et al. [37], equated with about 60 minutes of moderate
intensity activity or 30 minutes of vigorous activity daily. While this may initially seem to be a high
target, this level of self-reported physical activity was reported by one quarter of those whose data
were included in the meta-analysis. An important consideration here and for future studies is that of
‘plausible’ and ‘theoretical’ risk. In the meta-analysis conducted by Ekelund et al. [37], the analysis
by quartiles suggests that 75% of the population is at increased risk of mortality from higher levels of
sitting, reflecting a ‘plausible risk’ for sedentary behaviour. Depending on the intensity of physical
activity, in the U.S. guidelines documentation, Katzmarzyk et al. [97] estimated from self-reported

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 13 of 20
data that 11%–33% of the U.S. population would meet the higher level of physical activity reported
by Ekelund et al. [37], although it is recognised that this may differ across countries.
3.3.3. Research Summary
Sedentary behaviour is associated with all-cause mortality [96]. However, early conclusions that
sedentary behaviour affected health ‘independently’ of levels of physical activity were drawn mainly
from studies where MVPA or other markers of physical activity were statistically used as
confounding variables. Attenuation effects tended to be small, with some exceptions. However, in
studies in which results were analysed by different levels of physical activity, hence testing for
moderation effects, higher volumes of physical activity were shown to be protective of the effects of
extended periods of sitting on mortality. Strong attenuation effects were evident for mortality when
levels of MVPA were high. Hence, it is important to continue to promote increased participation in
regular physical activity, particularly for those at the upper end of the range of current U.S. and
Australian guidelines, in order to reduce the negative health effects of too much sitting.
3.3.4. Think Tank Discussion
In addition to future research directions, two themes emerged from the discussion:
methodological issues and messaging.
• Methodological issues.
Three sub-themes were discussed: statistics, exposure and outcome measures and sampling bias.
There was agreement that the choice of statistical model was important. There was some disparity
between results of studies of sedentary behaviour and mortality when using adjusting or moderating
analyses. Given the nature of the relationships between both sedentary time and mortality (‘J’ shaped
with an extended flat line at the bottom) and physical activity and mortality (marked decline in risk
with any PA, followed by a plateau), this is not surprising. Experts felt that some form of triangulation
of findings was needed across study designs and analytic methods, in particular, looking at studies
that include multiple assessments of sedentary behaviour in relation to mortality risk.
Regarding exposure and outcome measures, it was noted that the large population cohort
studies focussed a great deal on mortality. Synthesis of data on other outcomes needs to expand.
Analyses might usefully be conducted by groups of exposure variables (e.g., total vs. domain-specific
sedentary behaviours), but with a cautionary note regarding the skewness of the distribution of these
variables. With the assessment of sedentary behaviour using accelerometers, it was noted that
sedentary time is strongly inversely associated with light-intensity physical activity. Moreover, the
clustering of behaviours, such as movement, sleep and diet, makes the field complex. Regarding
sampling, concern was expressed about sampling bias in cohort studies and the likelihood that the
most sedentary are under-represented.
• Messaging concerning the role of MVPA in the health effects of sitting.
Confusion seems to occur when similar results (e.g., effect sizes) have led to different conclusions
and messages. This has been the case regarding sitting and obesity where some conclude clear effects
and others highlight a complex set of influences [98], as well as messages that over-state an effect
(e.g., ‘sitting is the new smoking’) [99]. Moreover, if people think it will be easy to reduce sitting in
comparison to being more physically active, the latter may be under-emphasised. This would be a
mistake, especially given the known potent effect of MVPA on health and well-being. For this reason,
it was restated that messages must include reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing physical
activity [100], particularly for those who are already insufficiently active.
Who is responsible for messaging was an important issue debated by the experts. It was agreed
that academics must make their research findings accessible through appropriate dissemination, but
equally, the pressures for research funding and the need for academic impact may distort messages.
The industry stakeholders with a vested interest in either sedentary behaviours (e.g., selling chairs)
or reducing sedentary time (e.g., companies selling sit-to-stand desks) may want to highlight certain
types of messages and could distort the evidence.
• Future research directions.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 14 of 20
It was agreed that researchers must work towards a stronger hierarchy of evidence to inform
causal inference; triangulation of methods is critical here. In addition, we need to know more about
the influence of other health-related behaviours and the optimal mix of concurrent health behaviours.
This could include sedentary behaviour, physical activity, sleep and diet. Moreover, associations
between sleep, sedentary behavior and different intensities of physical activity require continued
investigation across finite periods (e.g., 24-hours) whereby one behavior has to be replaced with
another, as recognised in isotemporal substitution and compositional analytic methods.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The ‘Queensland Sedentary Behaviour Think Tank’ meeting brought together people with
extensive expertise on sedentary behaviour, although it is recognised that they may not represent all
perspectives and beliefs within the field of sedentary behaviour. The primary purpose was to discuss
areas of debate that have emerged in the literature. Focussed presentations and discussion took place,
although systematic reviews were not undertaken, and this is recognised as a limitation. Key
conclusions were:
• Standing is important. Benefits may accrue from postural shifts and these include metabolic
and cardiovascular adaptations with considerable health benefits and may or may not be
related to energy expenditure.
• Prolonged (mainly static) standing and prolonged sitting are both bad for health.
• Postural transitions are vital—‘the best posture is the next posture’; regularly breaking up
sitting time and replacing this with postural shifts and movement is important
• Many health effects of sitting are evident even after controlling for levels of MVPA, but those
undertaking high levels of MVPA are likely to have marked attenuation of deleterious effects
of high levels of or prolonged sitting.
For research, it was agreed future directions should include the determinants and facilitators of
standing, better knowledge concerning the dose-response effects of standing and an examination of
th e un derl yin g mec han isms of po sit ive a nd ne gat ive effects of standing. Moreover, research on sitting
breaks should address issues concerning how people react to certain types of messages on breaks,
how different study designs may be required for adoption and maintenance of sitting breaks and
research on the mechanisms of the benefits of breaking up prolonged sitting for wider aspects of
health, such as blood flow. Research directions should also address evidence that can lead to
conclusions regarding causality, what the influence of other health behaviours might be alongside,
or co-existing with, sitting (e.g., diet) and the advancement of the understanding of interrelated
behaviours across a 24-h day.
As the field of sedentary behaviour research and translation develops, a number of issues require
continued attention, including measurement and messaging. Further work is required concerning
the juxtaposition of self-reported domains and contexts of sitting alongside device-based measures,
as well as the development and evaluation of evidence-based messages. The latter need to be
delivered appropriately for public consumption and without false claims. Moreover, it is important
to recognise the complexity of the field and the need for further nuanced approaches and conclusions.
Author Contributions: All authors materially contributed to this paper. S.J.H.B.; J.A.B.; K.D.C.; D.D.; P.A.G.;
G.N.H.; B.L. and N.O. contributed to the conceptualization; the methodology was developed and undertaken
by S.J.H.B.; K.D.C. and G.H.; original draft writing preparation was done by S.J.H.B.; K.D.C.; G.H. Finally, J.A.B.;
D.D.; P.A.G.; B.L.; N.O. and all authors contributed to the content, reviewing and editing.
Funding: This research received no external funding. The work of P.A.G. was supported by the National Health
and Medical Research Council of Australia and Australian Research Council (Dementia Research Development
Fellowship #110331).
Acknowledgments: We thank the Institute for Resilient Regions (USQ) for supporting the meeting and PhD
candidates Jonathan Cagas, Oscar Castro, Simone Ciaccioni and George Thomas for their assistance during the
Think Tank.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 15 of 20
References
1. Tremblay, M.S.; Aubert, S.; Barnes, J.D.; Saunders, T.J.; Carson, V.; Latimer-Cheung, A.E.; Chastin, S.F.M.;
Altenburg, T.M.; Chinapaw, M.J.M.; SBRN Terminology Consensus Project Participants. Sedentary
Behavior Research Network (SBRN): Terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int. J. Behav.
Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8.
2. Epstein, L.H.; Valoski, A.M.; Vara, L.S.; McCurley, J.; Wisniewski, L.; Kalarchian, M.A.; Klein, K.R.; Shrager,
L.R. Effects of decreasing sedentary behavior and increasing activity on weight change in obese children.
Health Psychol. 1995, 14, 109–115.
3. Owen, N.; Leslie, E.; Salmon, J.; Fotheringham, M.J. Environmental determinants of physical activity and
sedentary behavior. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2000, 28, 153–158.
4. Salmon, J.; Bauman, A.; Crawford, D.; Timperio, A.; Owen, N. The association between television viewing
and overweight among Australian adults participating in varying levels of leisure-time physical activity.
Int. J. Obes. 2000, 24, 600–606, doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0801203.
5. Green, R.A.; Briggs, C.A. Effect of overuse injury and the importance of training on the use of adjustable
workstation by keyboard operators. J. Occup. Med. 1989, 31, 557–561.
6. Shea, J.B.; Baute, K.J. Ergonomics of redesigning sitting. In Sedentary Behavior and Health: Concepts,
Assessment, and Interventions; Zhu, W., Owen, N., Eds.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2017; pp. 321–
331.
7. Hughes, R.J.; Hopkins, R.J.; Hill, S.; Weatherall, M.; Van de Water, N.; Nowitz, M.; Milne, D.; Ayling, J.;
Wisher, M.; Beasley, R. Frequency of venous thromboembolism in low to moderate risk long distance air
travellers: The New Zealand Air Traveller's Thrombosis (NZATT) study. Lancet 2003, 362, 2039–2044,
doi:10.1016/S0140-673615097-0.
8. Kuipers, S.; Cannegieter, S.C.; Middeldorp, S.; Robyn, L.; Büller, H.R.; Rosendaal, F.R. The absolute risk of
venous thrombosis after air travel: A cohort study of 8755 employees of international organisations. PLoS
Med. 2007, 4, e290, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040290.
9. Dietz, W.H.; Gortmaker, S.L. Do we fatten our children at the television set? Obesity and television viewing
in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 1985, 75, 807–812.
10. Morris, J.N.; Heady, J.A.; Raffle, P.A.B.; Roberts, C.G.; Parks, J.W. Coronary heart disease and physical
activity of work. Lancet 1953, 262, 1053–1057; 111–120, doi:10.1016/S0140-673691495-0.
11. Church, T.S.; Thomas, D.M.; Tudor-Locke, C.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Earnest, C.P.; Rodarte, R.Q.; Martin, C.K.;
Blair, S.N.; Bouchard, C. Trends over 5 decades in U.S. occupation-related physical activity and their
associations with obesity. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e19657, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019657.
12. Owen, N.; Healy, G.N.; Matthews, C.E.; Dunstan, D.W. Too much sitting: The population health science of
sedentary behavior. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2010, 38, 105–113, doi:0091-6331/3803/105Y113.
13. Clark, B.K.; Sugiyama, T.; Healy, G.N.; Salmon, J.; Dunstan, D.W.; Owen, N. Validity and reliability of
measures of television viewing time and other non-occupational sedentary behaviour of adults: A review.
Obes. Rev. 2009, 10, 7–16.
14. Marshall, A.L.; Miller, Y.D.; Burton, N.W.; Brown, W.J. Measuring total and domain-specific sitting: A study
of reliability and validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010, 42, 1094–1102, doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181c5ec18.
15. Lynch, B.M.; Friedenreich, C.M.; Khandwala, F.; Liu, A.; Nicholas, J.; Csizmadi, I. Development and testing
of a past year measure of sedentary behavior: The SIT-Q. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 899, doi:10.1186/1471-
2458-14-899.
16. Chau, J.Y.; Van der Ploeg, H.P.; Dunn, S.; Kurko, J.; Bauman, A.E. Validity of the occupational sitting and
physical activity questionnaire. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012, 44, 118–125, doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182251060.
17. Atkin, A.J.; Gorely, T.; Clemes, S.A.; Yates, T.; Edwardson, C.; Brage, S.; Salmon, J.; Marshall, S.J.; Biddle,
S.J. Methods of measurement in epidemiology: Sedentary behaviour. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2012, 41, 1460–1471,
doi:10.1093/ije/dys118.
18. Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Church, T.S.; Craig, C.L.; Bouchard, C. Sitting time and mortality from all causes,
cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 2009, 41, 998–1005,
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181930355.
19. Wilmot, E.G.; Edwardson, C.L.; Achana, F.A.; Davies, M.J.; Gorely, T.; Gray, L.J., Kunthi, K.; Yates, T.;
Biddle, S.J. Sedentary time in adults and the association with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and death:
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2012, 55, 2895–2905, doi:10.1007/s00125-012-2677-z.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 16 of 20
20. Biswas, A.; Oh, P.I.; Faulkner, G.E.; Bajaj, R.R.; Silver, M.A.; Mitchell, M.S.; Alter, D.A. Sedentary time and
its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015, 162, 123–132, doi:10.7326/M14-1651.
21. Chau, J.Y.; Grunseit, A.C.; Chey, T.; Stamatakis, E.; Brown, W.J.; Matthews, C.E.; Bauman, A.E.; van der
Ploeg, H.P. Daily sitting time and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e80000,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080000.
22. Henson, J.; Davies, M.J.; Bodicoat, D.H.; Edwardson, C.L.; Gill, J.M.; Stensel, D.J.; Tolfrey, K.; Dunstan, D.W.;
Khunti, K.; Yates, T. Breaking up prolonged sitting with standing or walking attenuates the postprandial
metabolic response in postmenopausal women: A randomized acute study. Diabetes Care 2016, 39, 130–138,
doi:10.2337/dc15-1240.
23. Dempsey, P.C.; Owen, N.; Yates, T.E.; Kingwell, B.A.; Dunstan, D.W. Sitting less and moving more:
Improved glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes prevention and management. Curr. Diab. Rep. 2016, 16, 114,
doi:10.1007/s11892-016-0797-4.
24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd ed.; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
25. Owen, N.; Sugiyama, T.; Eakin, E.E.; Gardiner, P.A.; Tremblay, M.S.; Sallis, J.F. Adults’ sedentary behavior:
Determinants and interventions. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 41, 189–196, doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.05.013.
26. Pronk, N.P.; Katz, A.S.; Lowry, M.; Payfer, J.R. Reducing occupational sitting time and improving worker
health: The Take-a-Stand Project, 2011. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2012, 9, 110323, doi:10.5888.pcd9.23.
27. Healy, G.N.; Goode, A.; Schultz, D.; Lee, D.; Leahy, B.; Dunstan, D.; Gilson, N.; Eakin, E. The BeUpstanding
Program: Scaling up the Stand Up Australia workplace intervention for translation into practice. AIMS
Public Health 2016, 3, 341–347, doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.2.341.
28. Zhu, W.; Owen, N. Sedentary Behavior and Health: Concepts, Assessments, and Interventions; Human Kinetics:
Champaign, IL, USA, 2017.
29. Leitzmann, M.; Jochem, C.; Schmid, D. Sedentary Behavior Epidemiology; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
30. Van der Ploeg, H.P.; Hillsdon, M. Is sedentary behaviour just physical inactivity by another name? Int. J.
Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 142, doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0601-0.
31. de Bruin, A.; Della Salla, S. How biases inflate scientific evidence. The Psychologist 2016, 29, 36–39.
32. American College of Sports Medicine. Position statement on the recommended quantity and quality of
exercise for developing and maintaining fitness in healthy adults. Med. Sci. Sports 1978, 10, vii–x.
33. Pate, R.R.; Pratt, M.; Blair, S.N.; Haskell, W.L.; Macera, C.A.; Bouchard, C.; Buchner, D.; Ettinger, W.; Heath,
G.W.; King, A.C.; Kriska, A.; Leon, A.; Marcus, B.; Morris, J.; Paffenbarger, R.S.; Patrick, K.; Pollock, M.L.;
Rippe, J.M.; Sallis, J.; Wilmore, J.H. Physical activity and public health: A recommendation from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA 1995, 273, 402–407.
34. Piercy, K.L.; Troiano, R.P.; Ballard, R.M.; Carlson, S.A.; Fulton, J.E.; Galuska, D.A.; George, S.M.; Olson, R.D.
The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA 2018, 320, 2020–2028, doi:10.1001/jama.2018.14854.
35. Biddle, S.J.H.; Pearson, N.; Salmon, J. Sedentary behaviors and adiposity in young people: Causality and
conceptual model. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2018, 46, 18–25, doi:10.1249/JES.0000000000000135.
36. Stamatakis, E.; Ekelund, U.; Ding, D.; Hamer, M.; Bauman, A.E.; Lee, I.M. Is the time right for quantitative
public health guidelines on sitting? A narrative review of sedentary behaviour research paradigms and
findings. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 377–382, doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099131.
37. Ekelund, U.; Steene-Johannessen, J.; Brown, W.J.; Fagerland, M.W.; Owen, N.; Powell, K.E.; Bauman, A.;
Lee, I.M.; Lancet Physical Activity Series 2 Executive Committe; Lancet Sedentary Behaviour Working
Group. Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with
mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. Lancet 2016, 388,
1302–1310, doi:10.1016/S0140-673630370-1.
38. Stamatakis, E.; Gale, J.; Bauman, A.; Ekelund, U.; Hamer, M.; Ding, D. Sitting time, physical activity, and
risk of mortality in adults. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 73, 2062–2072, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.031.
39. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101,
doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
40. Waters, T.R.; Dick, R.B. Evidence of health risks associated with prolonged standing at work and
intervention effectiveness. Rehabil. Nurs. 2015, 40, 148–165, doi:10.1002/rnj.166.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 17 of 20
41. Coenen, P.; Willenberg, L.; Parry, S.; Shi, J.W.; Romero, L.; Blackwood, D.M.; Maher, C.G.; Healy, G.N.;
Dunstan, D.; Straker, L.M. Associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms: A
systematic review with meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 176–183, doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096795.
42. Roffey, D.M.; Wai, E.K.; Bishop, P.; Kwon, B.K.; Dagenais, S. Causal assessment of occupational standing or
walking and low back pain: Results of a systematic review. Spine J. 2010, 10, 262–272,
doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2009.12.023.
43. Coenen, P.; Parry, S.; Willenberg, L.; Shi, J.W.; Romero, L.; Blackwood, D.M.; Healy, G.N.; Dunstan, D.;
Straker, L.M. Associations of prolonged standing with musculoskeletal symptoms—A systematic review of
laboratory studies. Gait Posture 2017, 58, 310–318, doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.08.024.
44. Saeidifard, F.; Medina-Inojosa, J.R.; Supervia, M.; Olson, T.P.; Somers, V.K.; Erwin, P.J; Lopez-Jiminez, F.
Differences of energy expenditure while sitting versus standing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2018, 25, 522–538, doi:10.1177/2047487317752186.
45. Katzmarzyk, P.T. Standing and mortality in a prospective cohort of Canadian adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
2014, 46, 940–946, doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000198.
46. Van der Ploeg, H.P.; Chey, T.; Ding, D.; Chau, J.Y.; Stamatakis, E.; Bauman, A.E. Standing time and all-cause
mortality in a large cohort of Australian adults. Prev. Med. 2014, 69, 187–191,
doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.004.
47. Smith, P.; Ma, H.; Glazier, R.H.; Gilbert-Ouimet, M.; Mustard, C. The relationship between occupational
standing and sitting and incident heart disease over a 12-year period in Ontario, Canada. Am. J. Epidemiol.
2018, 187, 27–33, doi:10.1093/aje/kwx298.
48. Edwardson, C.L.; Henson, J.; Bodicoat, D.H.; Bakrania, K.; Khunti, K.; Davies, M.J.; Yates, T. Associations of
reallocating sitting time into standing or stepping with glucose, insulin and insulin sensitivity: A cross-
sectional analysis of adults at risk of type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e014267, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-
014267.
49. Healy, G.N.; Winkler, E.A.H.; Owen, N.; Anuradha, S.; Dunstan, D.W. Replacing sitting time, standing or
stepping: Associations with cardio-metabolic risk biomarkers. Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 2643–2649,
doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv308.
50. Ryan, D.J.; Wullems, J.A.; Stebbings, G.K.; Morse, C.I.; Stewart, C.E.; Onambele-Pearson, G.L. Segregating
the distinct effects of sedentary behavior and physical activity on older adults’ cardiovascular profile: Part
2—Isotemporal substitution approach. J. Phys. Act. Health 2018, 15, 537–542, doi:10.1123/jpah.2017-0326.
51. Van der Berg, J.D.; Van der Velde, J.H.P.M.; De Waard, E.A.C.; Bosma, H.; Savelberg, H.H.C.M.; Schaper,
N.C.; Van Den Bergh, J.P.W.; Geusens, P.P.M.M.; Schram, M.T.; Sep, S.J.S.; Van Der Kallen, C.J.H.; Henry,
R.M.A.; Dagnelie, P.C.; Eussen, S.J.P.M.; Van Dongen, M.C.J.M.; Köhler, S.; Kroon, A.A.; Stehouwer,
C.D.A; Koster, A. Replacement effects of sedentary time on metabolic outcomes: The Maastricht Study. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc. 2017, 49, 1351–1358, doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000001248.
52. Stamatakis, E.; Rogers, K.; Ding, D.; Berrigan, D.; Chau, J.; Hamer , M.; Bauman, A. All-cause mortality effects
of replacing sedentary time with physical activity and sleeping using an isotemporal substitution model: A
prospective study of 201,129 mid-aged and older adults. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 121,
doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0280-7.
53. Henson, J.; Edwardson, C.L.; Bodicoat, D.H.; Bakrania, K.; Davies, M.J.; Khunti, K.;Talbot, D.C.S.; Yates, T.
Reallocating sitting time to standing or stepping through isotemporal analysis: Associations with markers
of chronic low-grade inflammation. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 1586–1593, doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1405709.
54. Van Roekel, E.H.; Bours, M.J.; Breedveld-Peters, J.J.; Willems, P.J.; Meijer, K.; Kant, I.; van den Brandt,
P.A.; Beets, G.L.; Sanduleanu, S.; Weijenberg, M.P. Modeling how substitution of sedentary behavior with
standing or physical activity is associated with health-related quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors.
Cancer Causes Control. 2016, 27, 513–525, doi:10.1007/s10552-016-0725-6.
55. Van Der Velde, J.; Koster, A.; Van Der Berg, J.; Sep S.J.S.; Van Der Kallen C.J.H.; Dagnelie P.C.; Schram
M.T.; Henry R.M.A.; Eussen S.J.P.M.; Van Dongen M.C.J.M.; Stehouwer C.D.A.; Schaper N.C.; Savelberg
H.H.C.M.. Sedentary behavior, physical activity, and fitness—The Maastricht Study. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
2017, 49, 1583–1591, doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000001262.
56. Gupta, N.; Heiden, M.; Aadahl, M.; Korshøj, M.; Jørgensen, M.B.; Holtermann, A. What is the effect on
obesity indicators from replacing prolonged sedentary time with brief sedentary bouts, standing and
different types of physical activity during working days? A cross-sectional accelerometer-based study
among blue-collar workers. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154935, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154935.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 18 of 20
57. Thorp, A.A.; Kingwell, B.A.; Sethi, P.; Hammond, L.; Owen, N.; Dunstan, D.W. Alternating bouts of sitting
and standing attenuate postprandial glucose responses. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2014, 46, 2053–2061,
doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000337.
58. Crespo, N.C.; Mullane, S.L.; Zeigler, Z.S.; Buman, M.P.; Gaesser, G.A. Effects of standing and light-intensity
walking and cycling on 24-h glucose. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2016, 48, 2503–2511,
doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000001062.
59. Duvivier, B.M.F.M.; Schaper, N.C.; Koster, A.; van Kan, L.; Peters, H.P.F; Adam, J.J.; Giesbrecht, T.; Kronips,
E.; Hulsbosch, M.; Willems, P.; Hesselink, M.K.C.; Schrauwen, P., Savelberg, H.H.C.:. Benefits of
substituting sitting with standing and walking in free-living conditions for cardiometabolic risk markers,
cognition and mood in overweight adults. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00353.
60. Buckley, J.P.; Mellor, D.D.; Michael, M.; Franklin, J. Standing-based office work shows encouraging signs of
attenuating post-prandial glycaemic excursion. Occup. Environ. Med. 2014, 71, 109–111, doi:10.1136/oemed-
2013-101823.
61. Barone Gibbs, B.; Kowalsky, R.J.; Perdomo, S.J.; Taormina, J.M.; Balzer, J.R.; Jakicic, J.M. Effect of alternating
standing and sitting on blood pressure and pulse wave velocity during a simulated workday in adults with
overweight/obesity. J. Hypertens. 2017, 35, 2411–2418, doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000001463.
62. Zeigler, Z.S.; Mullane, S.L.; Crespo, N.C.; Buman, M.P.; Gaesser, G.A. Effects of standing and light-intensity
activity on ambulatory blood pressure. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2016, 48, 175–181,
doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000754.
63. Danquah, I.H.; Kloster, S.; Holtermann, A.; Aadahl, M.; Tolstrup, J.S. Effects on musculoskeletal pain from
“Take a Stand!”—A cluster-randomized controlled trial reducing sitting time among office workers. Scand.
J. Work Environ. Health 2017, 43, 350–357, doi:10.5271/sjweh.3639.
64. Lunde, L.K.; Koch, M.; Knardahl, S.; Veiersted, K.B. Associations of objectively measured sitting and
standing with low-back pain intensity: A 6-month follow-up of construction and healthcare workers. Scand.
J. Work Environ. Health 2017, 43, 269–278, doi:10.5271/sjweh.3628.
65. Thorp, A.A.; Kingwell, B.A.; Owen, N.; Dunstan, D.W. Breaking up workplace sitting time with intermittent
standing bouts improves fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort in overweight/obese office workers.
Occup. Environ. Med. 2014, 71, 765–771, doi:10.1136/oemed-2014-102348.
66. Baker, R.; Coenen, P.; Howie, E.; Lee, J.; Williamson, A.; Straker, L. A detailed description of the short-term
musculoskeletal and cognitive effects of prolonged standing for office computer work. Ergonomics 2018, 61,
1–14, doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.1420825.
67. Mullane, S.L.; Buman, M.P.; Zeigler, Z.S.; Crespo, N.C.; Gaesser, G.A. Acute effects on cognitive
performance following bouts of standing and light-intensity physical activity in a simulated workplace
environment. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 489–493, doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2016.09.015.
68. Russell, B.A.; Summers, M.J.; Tranent, P.J.; Palmer, M.A.; Cooley, P.D.; Pedersen, S.J. A randomised control
trial of the cognitive effects of working in a seated as opposed to a standing position in office workers.
Ergonomics 2016, 59, 737–744, doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1094579.
69. Karol, S.; Robertson, M.M. Implications of sit-stand and active workstations to counteract the adverse effects
of sedentary work: A comprehensive review. Work 2015, 52, 255–267, doi:10.3233/wor-152168.
70. MacEwen, B.T.; MacDonald, D.J.; Burr, J.F. A systematic review of standing and treadmill desks in the
workplace. Prev. Med. 2015, 70, 50–58, doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.11.011.
71. Karakolis, T.; Callaghan, J.P. The impact of sit-stand office workstations on worker discomfort and
productivity: A review. Appl. Ergon. 2014, 45, 799–806, doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.10.001.
72. Agarwal, S.; Steinmaus, C.; Harris-Adamson, C. Sit-stand workstations and impact on low back discomfort:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ergonomics 2018, 61, 538–552, doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.1402960.
73. Shrestha, N.; Ijaz, S.; Kukkonen-Harjula, K.T.; Kumar, S.; Nwankwo, C.P. Workplace interventions for
reducing sitting at work. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub2.
74. Tudor-Locke, C.; Schuna, J.M.; Frensham, L.J., Jr.; Proenca, M. Changing the way we work: Elevating energy
expenditure with workstation alternatives. Int. J. Obes. 2014, 38, 755–765, doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.223.
75. Ojo, S.O.; Bailey, D.P.; Chater, A.M.; Hewson, D.J. The impact of active workstations on workplace
productivity and performance: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15,
doi:10.3390/ijerph15030417.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 19 of 20
76. Mansfield, L.; Hall, J.; Smith, L.; Rasch, M.; Reeves, E.; Dewitt, S., Gardner, B. “Could you sit down please?”
A qualitative analysis of employees’ experiences of standing in normally-seated workplace meetings. PLoS
ONE 2018, 13, e0198483, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198483.
77. Buckley, J.P.; Hedge, A.; Yates, T.; Copeland, R.J.; Loosemore, M.; Hamer, M.; Bradley, G.; Dunstan, D.W.
The sedentary office: An expert statement on the growing case for change towards better health and
productivity. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015, 49, 1357–1362, doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094618.
78. Vernikos, J. Gravity, sitting, and health. In Sedentary Behavior and Health: Concepts, Assessments, and
Interventions; Zhu, W., Owen, N., Eds.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2017; pp. 13–29.
79. Healy, G.N.; Dunstan, D.W.; Salmon, J.; Cerin, E.; Shaw, J.E.; Zimmet, P.Z.; Owen, N. Breaks in sedentary
time: Beneficial associations with metabolic risk. Diabetes Care 2008, 31, doi:10.2337/dc07-2046.
80. Healy, G.N.; Matthews, C.E.; Dunstan, D.W.; Winkler, E.A.; Owen, N. Sedentary time and cardio-metabolic
biomarkers in US adults: NHANES 2003–06. Eur. Heart J. 2011, 32, 590–597, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq451.
81. Chastin, S.F.; Egerton, T.; Leask, C.; Stamatakis, E. Meta-analysis of the relationship between breaks in
sedentary behavior and cardiometabolic health. Obesity 2015, 23, 1800–1810, doi:10.1002/oby.21180.
82. Bellettiere, J.; Winkler, E.A.; Chastin, S.F.M.; Kerr, J.; Owen, N.; Dunstan, D.W.; Healy, G.N. Associations of
sitting accumulation patterns with cardio-metabolic risk biomarkers in Australian adults. PLoS ONE 2017,
12, e0180119, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180119.
83. Diaz, K.M.; Howard, V.J.; Hutto, B.; Colabianchi, N.; Vena, J.E.; Safford, M.M.; Blair, S.N.; Hooker, S.P.
Patterns of sedentary behavior and mortality in U.S. middle-aged and older adults: A national cohort study.
Ann. Intern. Med. 2017, 167, 465–475, doi:10.7326/m17-0212.
84. Larsen, R.N.; Dempsey, P.C.; Dillon, F.; Grace, M.; Kingwell, B.A.; Owen, N.; Dunstan, D.W. Does the type
of activity “break” from prolonged sitting differentially impact on postprandial blood glucose reductions?
An exploratory analysis. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2017, 42, 897–900, doi:10.1139/apnm-2016-0642.
85. Dempsey, P.C.; Larsen, R.N.; Winkler, E.A.H.; Owen, N.; Kingwell, B.A.; Dunstan, D.W. Prolonged
uninterrupted sitting elevates postprandial hyperglycaemia proportional to degree of insulin resistance.
Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2019, 20, 1526–1530, doi:10.1111/dom.13254.
86. Saunders, T.J.; Atkinson, H.F.; Burr, J.; MacEwen, B.; Skeaff, C.M.; Peddie, M.C. The acute metabolic and
vascular impact of interrupting prolonged sitting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018,
48, 2347–2366, doi:10.1007/s40279-018-0963-8.
87. Duvivier, B.M.F.M.; Schaper, N.C.; Bremers, M.A.; van Crombrugge, G.; Menheere, P.P.; Kars, M.;
Savelberg, H.H. Minimal intensity physical activity (standing and walking) of longer duration improves
insulin action and plasma lipids more than shorter periods of moderate to vigorous exercise (cycling) in
sedentary subjects when energy expenditure is comparable. PLoS ONE 2013, 82, e55542,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055542.
88. Alley, S.J.; Vandelanotte, C.; Duncan, M.J.; Short, C.E.; Maher, J.P.; Schoeppe, S.; Rebar, A. Should I sit or
stand: Likelihood of adherence to messages about reducing sitting time. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 871,
doi:0.1186/s12889-019-7189-z.
89. Wijndaele, K.; Brage, S.; Besson, H.; Khaw, K.T.; Sharp, S.J.; Luben, R.; Wareham, N.J., Ekelund, U.
Television viewing time independently predicts all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: The EPIC Norfolk
Study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 40, 150–159, doi:10.1093/ije/dyq10.
90. Biddle, S.J.H.; Bennie, J.; Bauman, A.; Chau, J.Y.; Dunstan, D.W.; Owen, N.; Stamatakis, E.; van Uffelen, J.G.
Too much sitting and all-cause mortality: Is there a causal link? BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 635,
doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3307-3.
91. Hill, A.B. The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 1965, 58, 295–300.
92. Patterson, R.; McNamara, E.; Tainio, M.; de Sá T.H.; Smith, A.D.; Sharp, S.J.; Edwards, P.; Woodcock, J.;
Brage, S.; Wijndaele, K. Sedentary behaviour and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and
incident type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and dose response meta-analysis. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2018,
doi:10.1007/s10654-018-0380-1.
93. Ku, P.W.; Steptoe, A.; Liao, Y.; Hsueh, M.C.; Chen, L.J. A cut-off of daily sedentary time and all-cause
mortality in adults: A meta-regression analysis involving more than 1 million participants. BMC Med. 2018,
16, 74, doi:10.1186/s12916-018-1062-2.
94. Lee, I.M.; Shiroma, E.J.; Evenson, K.R.; Kamada, M.; LaCroix, A.Z.; Buring, J.E. Accelerometer-measured
physical activity and sedentary behavior in relation to all-cause mortality. Circulation 2018, 137, 203–205,
doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031300.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4762 20 of 20
95. Bellettiere, J.; LaMonte, M.J.; Evenson, K.R.; Rillamas-Sun, R.; Kerr, J.; Lee, I.M.; Rosenberg, D.E.; Stefanick,
M.; Buchner, D.; Hovell, M.F.; LaCroix, A.Z. Sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease in older women.
Circulation 2019, 139, 1036–1046, doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035312.
96. Loprinzi, P.D.; Loenneke, J.P.; Ahmed, H.M.; Blaha, M.J. Joint effects of objectively-measured sedentary time
and physical activity on all-cause mortality. Prev. Med. 2016, 90, 47–51.
97. Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Powell, K.E.; Jakicic, J.M.; Troiano, R.P.; Piercy, K.; Tennant, B.; 2018 Physical Activity
Guidelines Advisory Committee. Sedentary behavior and health: Update from the 2018 Physical Activity
Guidelines Advisory Committee. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019, 51, 1227–1241,
doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000001935.
98. Biddle, S.J.H.; García Bengoechea, E.; Bennie, J.; Pedisic, Z.; Vergeer, I.; Wiesner, G. Screen time, other
sedentary behaviours, and obesity risk in adults: A review of reviews. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2017, 6, 134–147,
doi:10.1007/s13679-017-0256-9.
99. Vallance, J.K.; Gardiner, P.A.; Lynch, B.M.; D’Silva, A.; Boyle, T.; Taylor, L.; Johnson, S.T.; Buman, M.P.;
Owen, N. Evaluating the evidence on sitting, smoking, and health: Is sitting really the new smoking? Am. J.
Public Health 2018, 108, 1478, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304649.
100. Ekelund, U.; Tarp, J.; Steene-Johannessen, J.; Hansen, B.H.; Barbara Jefferis, B.; Fagerland, M.W.; Whincup,
P.; Diaz, K.M.; Hooker, S.P.; Chernofsky, A.; Larson, M.G.; Spartano, N.; Vasan, R.S.; Dohrn, I.M.;
Hagströmer, M.; Edwardson, C., Yates, T.; Shiroma, E.; Anderssen, S.A.; Lee, I.M. Dose-response
associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality:
Systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. BMJ 2019, 366, l4570, doi:10.1136/bmj.l4570.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).