↓ Skip to main content

Acute effects of breaking up prolonged sitting on fatigue and cognition: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
41 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
41 X users
facebook
32 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
340 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Acute effects of breaking up prolonged sitting on fatigue and cognition: a pilot study
Published in
BMJ Open, February 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009630
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrik Wennberg, Carl-Johan Boraxbekk, Michael Wheeler, Bethany Howard, Paddy C Dempsey, Gavin Lambert, Nina Eikelis, Robyn Larsen, Parneet Sethi, Jessica Occleston, Jenny Hernestål-Boman, Kathryn A Ellis, Neville Owen, David W Dunstan

Abstract

To compare the acute effects of uninterrupted sitting with sitting interrupted by brief bouts of light-intensity walking on self-reported fatigue, cognition, neuroendocrine biomarkers and cardiometabolic risk markers in overweight/obese adults. Randomised two-condition crossover trial. Laboratory study conducted in Melbourne, Australia. 19 overweight/obese adults (45-75 years). After an initial 2 h period seated, participants consumed a meal-replacement beverage and completed (on 2 days separated by a 6-day washout period) each condition over the next 5 h: uninterrupted sitting (sedentary condition) or sitting with 3 min bouts of light-intensity walking every 30 min (active condition). Self-reported fatigue, executive function and episodic memory at 0 h, 4 h and 7 h. Neuroendocrine biomarkers and cardiometabolic risk markers (blood collections at 0 h, 4 h and 7 h, blood pressure and heart rate measured hourly and interstitial glucose measured using a continuous glucose monitoring system). During the active condition, fatigue levels were lower at 4 h (-13.32 (95% CI -23.48 to -3.16)) and at 7 h (-10.73 (95% CI -20.89 to -0.58)) compared to the sedentary condition. Heart rate was higher at 4 h (4.47 (95% CI 8.37 to 0.58)) and at 7 h (4.32 (95% CI 8.21 to 0.42)) during the active condition compared to the sedentary condition. There were no significant differences between conditions by time for other variables. In the sedentary condition, changes in fatigue scores over time correlated with a decrease in heart rate and plasma dihydroxyphenylalanine (DOPA) and an increase in plasma dihydroxyphenylglycol (DHPG). Interrupting prolonged sitting with light-intensity walking breaks may be an effective fatigue countermeasure acutely. Fatigue levels corresponded with the heart rate and neuroendocrine biomarker changes in uninterrupted sitting in this pilot study. Further research is needed to identify potential implications, particularly for the occupational health context. ACTRN12613000137796; Results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 340 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 337 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 61 18%
Student > Master 60 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 16%
Researcher 21 6%
Other 17 5%
Other 51 15%
Unknown 76 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 16%
Sports and Recreations 49 14%
Psychology 26 8%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Other 53 16%
Unknown 92 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 388. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2023.
All research outputs
#79,012
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#162
of 25,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,377
of 312,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#7
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.