↓ Skip to main content

The Effectiveness of Standing on a Balance Board for Increasing Energy Expenditure

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
63 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.
Article details
Title
The Effectiveness of Standing on a Balance Board for Increasing Energy Expenditure
Published in
Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, August 2018
DOI 10.1249/mss.0000000000001595
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To investigate differences in energy expenditure (EE), heart rate (HR), productivity, fatigue, and pain while performing desk work while sitting (SIT), standing (STAND), and standing on a balance board (BOARD). Thirty healthy adults (60% female; age 39.7 ± 11.8 y; BMI 26.7 ± 5.0 kg·m) employed in sedentary-based jobs volunteered for this randomized crossover trial. Participants performed typing work in three different positions: SIT, STAND, and BOARD; each condition lasting 30 min. Oxygen consumption (VO2) was measured via indirect calorimetry and EE was calculated using respiratory quotient and corresponding caloric equivalent values. Productivity was quantified by measuring words typed per min, accuracy, and typing mistakes. Overall feelings of fatigue and pain were self-reported three times during each position using validated 10-cm visual analog scales. Repeated measures ANOVA were used to assess differences in outcome variables across conditions. VO2 was significantly different among all conditions regardless of current standing desk use (SIT 3.35 ± 0.53; STAND 3.77 ± 0.48; BOARD 3.92 ± 0.54 mL·kg·min, p<0.001). EE (kcal·min) also differed (p<0.001) among SIT (1.27 ± 0.22), STAND (1.42 ± 0.26) and BOARD (1.48 ± 0.29). Compared to sitting (67 ± 9 bpm), HR was higher in STAND (76 ± 11 bpm) and BOARD (76 ± 11 bpm, p<0.001). Measures of productivity were not different across conditions (p>0.05). Fatigue progressively increased over each 30 min condition whereas pain in SIT and BOARD increased from min 10 to 20, then leveled off between min 20 to 30. For STAND, pain continued to increase over time. Compared with sitting, a balance board may be effective for increasing EE without interfering with productivity in an occupational setting.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Lecturer 3 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 25 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Engineering 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 27 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 07 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,285,807
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#2,289
of 8,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,776
of 372,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#35
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 372,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.