Aktive Büroumwelt – Welche akuten Effekte haben bewegungsstimulierende Büromodule auf das Herz-Kreislauf-System und wie werden sie subjektiv eingeschätzt?
Authors:   Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Wallmann-Sperlich Birgit , Zehnter Frank ,   Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Kunz Philipp ,   Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Düking Peter ,   Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Kleemann Jenö ,   Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Sperlich Billy ,   Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
Published: February 2022

Active office environment – what are the cardiorespiratory responses and perception of office modules stimulating physical activity? Objectives: Due to the health risk factor of prolonged and uninterrupted sitting, efforts are being made to stimulate more incidental physical activity in the workplace by applying new types of office modules. The present study aimed to examine the acute cardiorespiratory responses of office modules (sitting, standing, and movement modules) as well as their subjective assessment of their implications and suitability while working in the office environment. Method: In a laboratory study, selected cardiovascular parameters of 10 participants (28 ± 7 years, n = 6 female, body mass index 26.2 ± 4.0 kg/m2) were assessed after 30-minute measurement of resting metabolic rate with continuous breath-by-breath analysis while using five different office modules for six minutes (counterchair, active stool, standing stool, standing on a mat, standing on a balance board) and performing three movement modules (stairs, ball play, rings) twice. Before each change of position (to sitting and to standing) heart rate, oxygen uptake, and energy expenditure were measured for 20 minutes while sitting or standing in a standardized position. Each office module was assessed and evaluated by a questionnaire during or after use. Results: Oxygen uptake (p < .05), heart rate (p < .001), and energy expenditure (p < .05) were higher in normalized standing than normalized sitting and accounted for 6.4 kcal/hour more while standing. Oxygen consumption was lower for normalized sitting than for sitting on the height-adjustable counterchair (p < .05) as well as for sitting on the standing stool (p < .01). Standing on the balance board showed greater oxygen consumption (p<.05) than normalized standing. The movement modules such as rings (285 %), ball play (392 %) as well as stairs (499 %) showed significantly greater oxygen uptake compared to the normalized sitting. The subjective overall ratings by school grades ranged from 1.9 ± 0.6 (stairs) to 3.9 ± 1.3 (standing stool). Conclusion: There are differences in oxygen uptake between the different sitting and standing options, although the practical relevance in intervention studies warrants further investigation. The movement options stimulate the cardiovascular system and support the recommendation to implement regular change between sitting, standing, and moving in everyday office work. Keywords: sedentary lifestyle – office work – height-adjustable desks – physical activity – health