The term ‘sedentary’ derives from the Latin term ‘sedere’ meaning to sit. The term characterises actions that are involved with low energy expenditure. Numerous investigations indicate that sedentary activities require an individual to utilize most of their times in sedentary behaviours which is contradictory to the need to be physically active (Torbeyns et al. 1261). Comparatively, similar studies have determined that sedentary behaviour is linked to severe illnesses. Such illnesses include cardiovascular and musculoskeletal defects. In particular, there have been growing concerns that modern day individuals are adopting a sedentary lifestyle. For instance, adults in the workplace are reported to increasingly adopted the mode of lifestyle and are increasingly being linked to augmented precedence in health issues (Prince et al. 905).
Current surveys and reports mention such instances of health issues and sedentary behaviour through qualitative research. To comprehensively understand the link between severe illnesses and sedentary lifestyle, there is need to investigate through a quantitative research perspective. The numerical approach will source for a more final outcome (Salmon et al. 178). The following literature review intends to explore and investigate the statistical data concerning behaviour, with the intention of establishing why there are varying levels of sedentary behaviour between employees based at Springfield College.
Conceptual Basis
Sedentary Behaviour: Universal Approach
Sedentary Behaviour is defined, from a universal perspective, as “any prominent action that is considered by an energy disbursement less than 1.5 metabolic equals (Prince et al. 905). Sedentary behaviour can include sitting, lying prostrate or reclining. That means that inactive behaviours are emblematic to reading, using an electronic device either seated or driving (Torbeyns et al. 1261). The distinction of slothful performance investigation especially in well-being science has augmented. The reason is that studies have produced growing indication of the link amongst excessive inactive behaviour and opposing health pointers or consequences perpetuating the interest (Torbeyns et al. 1261).
As research increases, confusion has arisen in trying to define sedentary behaviour patterns as well as episodes (Biddle, Gorely and Stensel 679). Based on the studies on determining the best way in understanding how deskbound behaviour affects health within adults, one recommendation was to define homogenous measures for accelerometer data assembly as well as limit data prejudice (Reilly et al. 61). Propositions in determining the standardized active description of lethargic bouts and breaks required and how to mathematically calculate duration have been brought to light.
In 2012, based on research to regulate the difference amongst “sedentary behaviour” besides “physical inactivity” the difference in cultures and languages would determine the variances (Salmon et al. 178). According to the studies, inactive performance is well-defined as “any waking behaviour characterised by an energy expenditure ≤ 1.5 multiple of the basal metabolic rate while sitting or reclining.” (Salmon et al. 178). Hence, in the definition factors include both vigour expenditure and stance. The limitation to the enquiry definition, based on numerous contradictory investigations, there was lack of inclusion of active component (Must and Tybor S96). By active part, means the ability to calculate energy was limited or lacked especially between postures (Must and Tybor S96).
ActivPAL
In sedentary behavioural analysis, measurement tools necessary in calculating the dates and the time-stamped activity are required and include ActivPAL monitor. The device uses a thigh-worn instrument based on accelerometer-derived information from the thigh position. The advantage to using the device measurement of postures and energy expenditure such as sitting, lying, standing or stepping as well as increase in speed. As such, the device is increasingly been used in the analysis of energy expenditure in sedentary positions. In comparison to devices such as ActiGraph Link and Garmin Vivofit among others, ActivPAL allows for self-monitoring plus analysis of behavioural change which other devices lack in measurement (Aminian and Hinckson 119).
Based on empirical studies done on non-exercise behaviours, the device has determined that there are two categories of responses. They include sedentary-which is characterised by deskbound, lying down and disbursing little vigour-as well as lightweight activity-described by upright, self-care actions and slow walking which requires stumpy energy- (Proper et al. 174). In reference to an enquiry done on more than 1714 participants (adults), the reports indicated that sedentary behaviour accounted for 58% in standard settings and lightweight activity accounted for 39% whereas, 3% considered for exercise time (Ford and Caspersen 1338). The investigation indicated that the variance in sedentary times was attributed to the amount of time taken to change from one posture to another in addition to time spent in conducting lightweight activities (Proper et al.174).
There remains a lot of loopholes in defining what terminologies exist in examining sedentary behaviours among people. Among them includes screen time, bouts and breaks take. The reason is that most of the studies under analysis in the current paper have been determined to lack more precise and non-prejudiced methods of analysing data. For instance, most of the surveys under review possess a self-report process of scrutinising data and require preciseness in articulating how factors such as discontinuities and sessions influence the accuracy of the investigations (Pate et al. 173). Hence, there remains a lot to be defined on new terms such as screen time, standing, sitting and reclining (Biddle, Gorely, and Stensel 679). Furthermore, consistent with different studies, many conditions are ill-used in specific populations especially in the workforce and among children. For instance, the standard uptake of terms such as sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity are similar or irregular in fields such as psychology and behavioural science (Dunstan et al. 1057).
On the one hand, studies in behavioural reviews determine that there are distinguishable jargons based on sedentary behaviours such as frequent sitting and standing activities in overweight adults (Wijndaele et al. 422; Elgar et al. 518). For instance, sitting behaviours such as typing and texting is considered to have a higher multiple of the basal metabolic rate above the standard threshold of 1.5 MET (Prince et al. 905). The same applies to other terms such as sedentary sessions and breaks for adults. Sedentary bouts are distinct as the minimum period of continuous sedentary time not letting “tolerance time.” For instance, the time consumed in non-sedentary actions per day or week (Elgar et al. 518.). As stated by behavioural science studies, proposed deskbound bouts are between five to ten minutes. The meaning is that for a sitting person, the allowed time of inferred movement is between five and ten minutes in adults to position to the next inactive state (Clemes et al. 189).
Inactive behaviour has been connected to premature death among those who prefer sitting for over five hours during the day (Clemes et al. 189). Reviews on behavioural science studies have determined that risks associated with sitting still for long periods of time can have independent and increase Body Mass Index of an individual. To be precise, for instance, in the work environment, there are higher risks of chronic illnesses where estimation indicates that those who sit still for over four hours a day are at risk of developing high-risk diseases of up to 40% chances (Clemes et al. 189). Contrary, research indicates that those who exercise at least four hours a day either through strenuous activities or lightweight activities reduce chances of increased health issues most especially cardiac problems (Clemes et al. 189). The reason is that lack of exercising may cause muscle atrophy which is the shrinking and weakening of the muscles. Based on investigations on muscle atrophy, increased susceptibility to physical injury can occur among workers in an office-based environment (Buckley et al. 14).
Fundamentally, researches have depicted that for any enquiry to be done on sedentary behaviour, there is need to distinguish between sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity based on different ages and abilities (Buckley et al. 14). Inferences on terminologies such as inactive bouts and breaks along with screen time ought to be incorporated to reduce biasness and limitations in data collection (Must and Tybor S96).
Empirical Basis
In the current era, consistent with cross-sectional studies done, advances in information technology, on top of labour-saving devices and factors, have been ubiquitous across diverse settings especially, among adults (Buckley et al. 15). Subsequently, physical activity, as well as energy expenditure, are miniaturised. For adults, as stated by significant inquiries done, apparent alterations are evident in the quantity of time that is consumed sitting and in inactive behaviours (Hills et al. 534.). As noted earlier, indolent behaviour is demarcated as a different class of events and actions that mandate for low levels of liveliness use in the range of 1.0-1.5 energy expenditure (Hills et al. 534.). For instance, research throughout the past two decades has determined that lethargic behaviours are more rampant in the workplace, commuting as well as within the domestic environment.
Societal indicators of reduction in human energy consumptions have increased consistently since the early 1970’s (Chau et al. 352). Consistent with the review, the average working-class individual in the developed nations spent limited time in performing lightweight duties in the workplace. That means that in every two workmates in a total of 10 performed responsibilities seated whereas, 3 in every ten performed high-energy output duties such as construction or manufacturing or farming (Tremblay et al. 727). By the 21st century, more than three in every ten adults in the working-class population were involved in light-activity jobs (Chinapaw et al. 56). Comprehensively, scientists have determined that the reduced physical activity among workers may be more complicated with there being a complex rapport between physical work, vigor expenditure and well-being benefits (or rather, health risks).
On one end, findings report that deskbound behaviour is averse to health outcomes in adults such as, with those who are in the office (Owen, Neville et al. 153). The results are compounded by observational studies and lack quantitative scrutiny to pinpoint what effects sedentary behaviour have on adults within the workplace. As stated by a remedial investigation, the summarisation of the health effect that sedentary behaviour has on adults in the workroom have been more severe and gradually decline in the general health of an individual (Brodersen et al. 142). Health issues listed include obesity or overweight, hypertension, the effect on gore glucose, type 2 diabetes besides dynamic metabolic syndrome (Brodersen et al. 142). The limitations to the surveys as pointed out earlier, is based on cross-sectional studies. Consequently, there are uncertainties on whether the health detriments occurred before or during or after exposure to deskbound behaviours (Dutta et al. 6653).
The study by Dutta et al. (6653), report that 76% of the time spent at work among adults is done so by sitting. Out of the 76%, sitting events were between periods of 3 hours and 4 hours with screen times of 30 minutes (Dutta et al. 6653). The study reported of an invariability in assessing the experimental units (that is the employees based on their administrative roles). About the review, higher-ranking officers such as managers and executive bosses spent more time in their desks than did their counterparts of lower ranking roles (Dutta et al. 6653). Complementary investigations by Brodersen et al., (142) and (Owen and Healy 105), employees spend most of their times seated. The information indicates that 77% of the time is spent seated with most of the time (51%) accumulated in periods of longer than thirty minutes. On the other hand, research that have been done to determine whether physical activity increase improves on reduced sedentary conducts, report inability to reduce deskbound behaviour. To identify factors that influence sitting actions, studies by (Owen et al. 105) determine that interventions tend to limit the behaviours and may negatively increase the need for workers to sit down more.
Studies determined that a large part of sedentary activities in adults who are in white-collar jobs are associated with lower back pain and other cardiovascular illnesses (Owen and Healy 105; Reilly et al. 619; Dutta et al. 6653; Brodersen et al. 142). Accordingly, investigation by Pate et al. (173) determine that more extended periods of occupational sitting are related to health risks. Based on the comparison of the studies conducted to provide such inferences lacked to outline the relationship between the health risks and occupational sitting as conveyed earlier in the paper (Pate et al. 173). Consistent with the reviews of scholarly articles, most of the information have determined that inactive behaviours are linked to one health risks but, not a conglomerate study has been done to determine multiple illnesses in one study.
Contrary, studies have determined that people in the workplace with advanced physical action possess lower levels of risks in mortality-oriented illnesses. They include emerging metabolic condition, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes along with cancer in addition, others (Reilly et al. 619; (Dutta et al. 6653; Brodersen et al. 142). Henceforth, they experience the improved quality of life, less strain as well as better social interface. The corporeal action is known to impact favourable brain activity by enabling neurogenerative, neuroadaptive besides neuroprotective procedures that enhance decision-making functions, reasoning and some kinds of knowledge (Elgar et al. 518.). Research has determined that grouping of physical action and cognitive challenge boost not only the physical well-being of a person and, the healthiness of a person.
About health-related studies and deskbound behaviours, reports of increased health risks associated with cardiometabolic risks have increased over the past years (Parry and Straker 296). With prolonged periods of sitting, for instance, there are less or fewer skeletal muscle contractions which result in condensed lipoprotein and lipase activity (Pate et al. 173). Lipoprotein and lipase activity are necessary when trying to lose weight among adults. As a result, with less muscular contractions, there is less glucose-mediated insulin secretion among adults especially those with long hours of seated positions and postures (Pate et al. 173).
In a comparative survey, by Gilson et al., (67), in an analysis to determine energy expenditure between obese individuals and lean individuals within the workplace, determined that obese participants seated for extended periods compared to the slimmer workmates. Within the analysis, overweight persons seated for more than 164 minutes stretched in a day whereas lean individuals sat for less than 152 minutes in a day. Baseline parameters determined that sleeping times were identical between the two groups. As such, the study reported that 89% of the time in lean workmates was spent in stand-up positions compared to the 40% time spent by obese individuals (Gilson et la. 67). Posture allocation was considered during the study, and the research conclusions reported that difference in posture allocation accounted for energy expenditure (Gilson et la. 68). In the summarisation of the study, the scholars indicated that in lean workmates the total weight loss was more than 23 kg whereas for the obese individuals was rated between 8 and 10 kg within the eight weeks of study (Gilson et al. 67).
Despite such recommendations of being physically fit, 31% of the population in the country are reported to be physically inactive (aged between fifteen and above)(Buckley et al. 23). As a result, there is a significant impact on the society specifically on the health care costs both directly and indirectly. As such, as stated by research, sedentary behaviour is reported to be a crucial contributor to the health of an individual other than physical activity (Wijndaele et al. 422). The purpose is that, with the current century, evolution in advances in technology and comfortability in life, sedentary behaviours have become more rampant than previously documented (Dutta et al. 6653.; Hills et al. 534). Accordingly, investigations have determined that lack of physical activities and in some areas, especially the workplace, sitting down is more common than standing up.
The lack of presentation of data that correlates between sitting down and standing up and increase in health issues among adults remains wanting in research (Salmon et al, 178.; Thorp et al. 765). As a result of the loopholes that previous scholar information has presented, analysis of current studies has provided a more rational and longitudinal inquiry inferences (Biddle et al. 29). Longitudinal examination offers more versatile and improved measures of sedentary behaviour based on correlations with other factors (Biddle, Gorely and Stensel 679). Overtly, longitudinal studies have been able to procure a more inferential analysis on the evidence base such as cardiometabolic biomarkers and disease outcomes in adults (Salmon et al. 178).
One survey comparatively determined that having a childhood inactive lifestyle may have contributed to the improved weight gain of an individual throughout their adult life in the office (Biddle, Gorely, and Stensel. 679). Hence, there is a strong indication that sedentary behaviour in childhood, on top of adolescence, may be a strong predictor of the indicators of obesity or weight gain during adulthood.
On the other hand, increased sedentary lifestyle especially in higher-ranking managers and dominant employees, there were chances of increased cardiometabolic biomarkers (Hills et al. 534.). The phenomenon was most common in women than in men. Biomarkers include cholesterol and leptin. The analysis of multiple studies, there lacks any conclusive evidence about the longitudinal association between inactive behaviour and metabolic conditions (Prince et al. 905; Wijndaele et al. 422).
In the workplace, to be precise, unwarranted sitting is connotated with a peril issue for cardiac illnesses, type 2 diabetes, besides untimely transience rates (Hills et al. 534.). About ergonomic studies, more than two-thirds of the work hours are spent either sitting or lying down with much of the time spent on unbroken bouts lasting more than twenty minutes (Owen and Healy 105; Reilly et al. 619). As noted in several reviews, relatively less office intervention trials have specifically addressed the prevalent sedentary behaviour with health risk factors. Most of the scholarly references that have been done on inactive behaviour among workers are on musculoskeletal wellbeing outcomes (Dunstan et al. 1057). For example, study has determined that there is evidence of reduced or interrupted sitting about health risks factors to musculoskeletal defects. As such, research gaps have emerged successively to determined other factors that can lead to health risk issues such as cardio-muscular biomarkers, and prolonged unbroken seating (Elgar et al. 518.).
Similarly, based on behavioural studies, movement among workers who are seated may be more compared to those workers who are frequently on the move, still require lengthy periods of sedentary movement (Buckley et al. 56). Accordingly, there are regular changes in postures among seated workers with approximately 50% reduced progression among workers who are seated (Must and Tybor S96). About workers who are seated most of the time, researches have inferred that there are limited opportunities for physical activity within the office setting and may warrant for a short duration of time. For instance, walking to another desk or getting specific office materials from one area to another (Must and Tybor S96). Consequently, suggestions that with most current office policies, workers are required to adopt a sit-stand workstation, and through such support, organisational change may be a prominent contributory factor to studies in sedentary behaviours (Owen et al. 154).
Organisational changes such as adoption of health promotion interventions have been approved. Intrinsically, the responses have positively addressed the work perils associated with labour-intensive handling responsibilities along with calculating tasks. The actions are documented to reduce musculoskeletal activities and injuries as well as congruent absenteeism at work (Biddle, Gorely, and Stensel 29). Likewise, organisational alterations ensure that physical activities that are moderate are maintained, and studies have recommended that office programs instituted reduce the risk of sedentary behaviours (Thorp et al., 765). Patently, acknowledgment of the standing of inactive time, in addition to the achievement of the office, are intertwined with involvements to improve the well-being issues of the workers (Must and Tybor S96).
Along with research done on the limited time required for indolent behaviour, no interventions demonstrating the significance in reduction of sitting time (Reilly et al. 619). Opinionatedly, inquiries lack the evidence of success based on the fact that sitting was self-reported. Hence, objectively, studies that incorporate sedentary time, along with the pattern of acquaintance, may offer more robust indication (Torbeyns et al. 1261). A comparative survey on staff members who adopt a sit-stand policy and those who take a sit-down system can be compared to understand how risks factors more inclined to health are associated with sedentary lifestyles (Torbeyns et al. 1261).
Most of the studies that have been conducted have been based on non-physical activity rather than focusing on physical activities, especially in the office. Previous inquiries such as Chau et al. (352) and Levine et al. (585) reported that low activity professions described high levels of free time and corporeal inactivity. As such, the suggestion was that workers attempted to compensate for their absence of professional action with no-work. In a current review by Chen et al. (797), that examined the affiliation between profession and rest-activity, the investigation determined that most studies report on self-analysis rather that imploration of systematic reviews. The information such as Levine et al. (585) determine that collar jobs were more indigenous to the health risks issues associated with sedentary behaviours compared to blue collar jobs. For instance, in an enquiry, conducted by Evans et al., (293), to examine Scottish postal workers, the study determined that there was no noteworthy variance in relaxation time of mobile postal employees linked to office-based postal workers.
The surveys, to note, fixated on physical activity and leisure time linked to transport and internal responsibilities. What can be derived from the studies is that more physical activities characterise the blue-collar jobs compared to white collar jobs. Since there lacks concrete research on the perspective, the recommendation (Chastin and Granat 83) is to provide a broader understanding as to how factors relating to the type of job a person does relates to sedentary behaviour and ultimately, health risk issues.
Consistent with Neuhaus et al., (822) and Straker et al., (522) research white collar jobs are characterised by more sitting hours compared to blue-collar jobs. In the study done by Neuhaus et al. (822), 81% of work hours under white collar jobs are spent on inactive actions. For instance, with call centre workers 82% of the time is spent seated whereas, office workers pay more than 66% of their time seated (Neuhaus et al. 822). Conclusively, the nature of the work that a person is indulged in can determine the physical capabilities of a person to burn fat. Quality of work is defined by postures, for example, lying, inactive and standing. The type of device that is used to gauge the amount of energy consumed may be a determined in the biasness and precision in the study.
Other surveys have determined that a small quantity of work periods are consumed in the light-weight action. These reviews by Ryan et al. (513) and Straker et al. (522) indicate that there is a healthy reciprocal connection amongst inactive time and light action during work periods. For the participants, they thought that the health elevation intercessions were beneficial, particularly in office surroundings. The determination was that the replacement of lightweight activity and sedentary behaviours reduces the chances of increased health risk issues and in fact promotes healthier benefits. The recommendation, under the research was that organisational cultures should incorporate sit-stand working environments to improve on lightweight activity with minimal impact on the work productivity (Dunstan et al. 1057).
Consistent with Chastin and Granat (82) review, most of the time spent by workers both efforts and non-work periods were of inactive nature. At work 97% of the time was spent seated whereas, 95% of the time spent in non-working hours were of either lightweight activity or inactive nature. As well, in the studies, Chastin and Granat 82), the mainstream of the contributors in the randomised control study, spent most of the time seated (78%) and performed the less strenuous activities (84%) on their working days likened to non-working days.
In translation, the survey concluded that office personnel spent most of their time (prolonged and uninterrupted sedentary time) with fewer breaks and bouts seated. The suggestion was that fewer tears and sessions were taken and were associated with higher health risks.
Concurrently, the study determined that depending on the rank of the individual, higher ranking officers possessed more sitting lifestyles compared to their lower officers (Ryan et al. 543). For the higher-ranking officers, more extended bouts lasting more than sixty minutes were experienced for over 12 hours of work per week. The estimates were that non-wear time of 60 minutes cut out the continuous need to sit in one stagnant position among office workers.
Conclusion
Inactive behaviour is related with poorer health consequences which have been determined as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular issues in addition to musculoskeletal problems. AS such, based on the analysis of the data above, there is a distinct variance between physically inactive and indolent behaviours. Determining the differences ensures that when carrying out a study, a researcher can differentiate from both terminologies and decide how to go about their study. Terminologies such as bouts and breaks ought to be incorporated when reviewing how sedentary behaviours and how they can be calculated. Furthermore, actions of sitting and standing plus changing of postures require dynamic analysis during such studies.
In summarisation, sedentary behaviour among working individuals has gained more attention over the years due to the health issues related to always sitting down or remitting to sedentary behaviours. Comprehensively, the following study will encapsulate all the terminologies in addition to providing a more detailed quantitative review of how sedentary behaviours are increasingly affecting those in the work environment. In particular, the study will conduct a quantitative analysis of how different roles within the work environment can contribute to the increased issues about health.
Office work is mostly characterised by sitting on a desk for long hours interacting with technology or can be of paper-based information. The work is based on little potential benefits of lightweight activity while limited workplace interventions tend to focus on incorporating work breaks with the sustenance of sedentary behaviours. Reviews of recent times have determined that workplace interventions that promote lightweight activities improve on glucose metabolism suggesting that physical mobility in significant durations of times may increase metabolism in sedentary workers. Studies, in conclusion, have determined that different factors contribute to sedentary lifestyle among workers in an organisation. Among them is the type of job-based on either white-collar job or blue-collar job which both can work within any given team. A lot of considerations have to be placed when quantitative studies are to be implored in determining sedentary behaviours among workers in an organisation more so, on their roles and job specifications.
Works Cited
Aminian, Saeideh and Erica A. Hinckson. “Examining the Validity of the ActivPAL Monitor in Measuring Posture and Ambulatory Movement in Children.” The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, vol. 9, 2012, p. 119.
Biddle, Stuart J.H., Trish Gorely, and David J. Stensel. “Health-Enhancing Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 22, no. 8, 2004, pp. 679–701.
Biddle, Stuart J.H. et al. "Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviours in Youth: Issues and Controversies.” The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, vol. 124, no. 1, 2004, pp. 29–33.
Brodersen, Naomi et al. “Trends in Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in Adolescence: Ethnic and Socioeconomic Differences.” British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 41, no. 3, 2007, pp. 140–144.
Buckley, John P. et al. “Standing-Based Office Work Shows Encouraging Signs of Attenuating Post-Prandial Glycaemic Excursion.” Occup Environ Med, 2013, p.1013.
Chastin, S. F. M., and Michael H. Granat. “Methods for Objective Measure, Quantification and Analysis of Sedentary Behaviour and Inactivity.” Gait & Posture, vol. 31, no. 1, 2010, pp. 82–86.
Chau, Josephine Y. et al. “Are Workplace Interventions to Reduce Sitting Effective? A Systematic Review.” Preventive Medicine, vol. 51, no. 5, 2010, pp. 352–356.
Chen, Shu-Mei et al. “Sedentary Lifestyle as a Risk Factor for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.” International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, vol. 82, no. 7, 2009, pp. 797–806.
Chinapaw, Mai J.M. et al. “Relationship between Young Peoples’ Sedentary Behaviour and Biomedical Health Indicators: A Systematic Review of Prospective Studies.” Obesity Reviews, vol. 12, no. 7, 2011.
Clemes, Stacy A. et al. “Sitting Time and Step Counts in Office Workers.” Occupational Medicine, vol. 64, no. 3, 2014, pp. 188–192.
Dunstan, David W. et al. “Reducing Office Workers’ Sitting Time: Rationale and Study Design for the Stand up Victoria Cluster Randomised Trial.” BMC Public Health, vol. 13, no. 1, 2013, p. 1057.
Dunstan, David W. et al. “Too Much Sitting–a Health Hazard.” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, vol. 97, no. 3, 2012, pp. 368–376.
Dutta, Nirjhar et al. “Using Sit-Stand Workstations to Decrease Sedentary Time in Office Workers: A Randomized Crossover Trial.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 11, no. 7, 2014, pp. 6653–6665.
Elgar, Frank J. et al. “Sedentary Behaviour, Physical Activity and Weight Problems in Adolescents in Wales.” Public Health, vol. 119, no. 6, 2005, pp. 518–524.
Evans, Rhian E and Henrietta O. Fawole. “Point-of-Choice Prompts to Reduce Sitting Time at Work: A Randomized Trial.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 43, no. 3, 2012, pp. 293–297.
Ford, Earl S., and Carl J. Caspersen. “Sedentary Behaviour and Cardiovascular Disease: A Review of Prospective Studies.” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 41, no. 5, 2012, pp. 1338–1353.
Gilson, Nicholas D. et al. ‘Hot’Desks Change Sedentary Work Time in an Open Plan Office?” Preventive Medicine, vol. 54, no. 1, 2012, pp. 65–67.
Hills, Andrew P. et al. “The Contribution of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviours to the Growth and Development of Children and Adolescents.” Sports Medicine, vol. 37, no. 6, 2007, pp. 533–545.
Levine, James A. et al. “Inter Individual Variation in Posture Alloc
