Is Sitting Always Inactive and Standing Always Active? A Simultaneous Free-Living activPal and ActiGraph Analysis

Roman P. Kuster, Wilhelmus J. A. Grooten, Victoria Blom, Daniel Baumgartner, Maria Hagströmer and Örjan Ekblom
Additional contact information
Roman P. Kuster: Institute of Mechanical Systems, School of Engineering, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland
Wilhelmus J. A. Grooten: Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, 141 83 Huddinge, Sweden
Victoria Blom: Department of Physical Activity and Health, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, 114 86 Stockholm, Sweden
Daniel Baumgartner: Institute of Mechanical Systems, School of Engineering, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland
Maria Hagströmer: Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, 141 83 Huddinge, Sweden
Örjan Ekblom: Department of Physical Activity and Health, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, 114 86 Stockholm, Sweden

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 23, 1-14

Abstract: Sedentary Behavior (SB), defined as sitting with minimal physical activity, is an emergent public health topic. However, the measurement of SB considers either posture (e.g., activPal) or physical activity (e.g., ActiGraph), and thus neglects either active sitting or inactive standing. The aim of this study was to determine the true amount of active sitting and inactive standing in daily life, and to analyze by how much these behaviors falsify the single sensors’ sedentary estimates. Sedentary time of 100 office workers estimated with activPal and ActiGraph was therefore compared with Bland-Altman statistics to a combined sensor analysis, the posture and physical activity index (POPAI). POPAI classified each activPal sitting and standing event into inactive or active using the ActiGraph counts. Participants spent 45.0% [32.2%–59.1%] of the waking hours inactive sitting (equal to SB), 13.7% [7.8%–21.6%] active sitting, and 12.0% [5.7%–24.1%] inactive standing (mean [5th–95th percentile]). The activPal overestimated sedentary time by 30.3% [12.3%–48.4%] and the ActiGraph by 22.5% [3.2%–41.8%] (bias [95% limit-of-agreement]). The results showed that sitting is not always inactive, and standing is not always active. Caution should therefore be paid when interpreting the activPal (ignoring active sitting) and ActiGraph (ignoring inactive standing) measured time as SB.

Keywords: active sitting; bland-altman; inactive standing; method comparison; posture and physical activity index (POPAI); sedentary behavior (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/23/8864/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/23/8864/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:23:p:8864-:d:452975

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().