4.6 Article

RAAAF's office landscape The End of Sitting: Energy expenditure and temporary comfort when working in non-sitting postures

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187529

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An earlier study suggested that the activity-inviting office landscape called The End of Sitting, designed by Rietveld Architecture Art Affordances (RAAAF), should be considered as an alternative working environment to prevent sedentary behavior. The End of Sitting lacks chairs and tables but consists instead of a myriad of sloped surfaces at different heights that afford workers to stand, lean or recline at different locations. In this study, we assessed the impact of four of its workspaces on physical intensity, temporary comfort and productivity of office work and compared the outcomes with sitting and standing behind a desk. Twenty-four participants worked for 10 minutes in each of the six test conditions. Energy expenditure, measured by indirect calorimetry, and heart rate were recorded. Questionnaires were used to assess the perceived comfort. The number of words found in the word search test was counted as a measure of productivity. The majority of The End of Sitting workspaces led to a significant increase in energy expenditure compared with sitting behind a desk (ps < .05). Average MET values ranged from 1.40 to 1.58 which is a modest rise in energy expenditure compared to sitting (1.32 METs) and not significantly different from standing (1.47 METs). The scores on the general comfort scale indicated that some workspaces were less comfortable than sitting (ps < .05), but the vast majority of participants reported that at least one of The End of Sitting workspaces was equally or more comfortable than sitting. No differences in productivity between the test conditions were found. Further long-term studies are required to assess the behavioral adaptations, productivity and the level of comfort when using The End of Sitting as a permanent office.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据