Heterogeneity of muscle activity during sedentary behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Replacing sitting by standing has been hypothesized to reduce the health risks of sitting, based on the assumption that muscles are passive during sitting and active during standing. Interventions have been more effective in overweight (OW) than in normal weight (NW) individuals, but subjects’ muscle activities have not been quantified. This study compared quadriceps and hamstring muscle electromyographic (EMG) activity between 57 NW (body mass index (BMI) 22.5 ± 1.5 kg/m 2 , female n = 36) and 27 OW (BMI 28.4 ± 2.9 kg/m 2 , female n = 8) subjects during non-fatiguing standing (15 s, EMG standing ) and sitting (30 min). EMG amplitude was normalized to EMG measured during maximal isometric knee extension and flexion (% EMG MVC ), and sitting muscle inactivity and bursts were determined using 4 thresholds (60% or 90% EMG standing and 1% or 2% EMG MVC ). Comparisons were adjusted for sex, age, knee extension strength, and the individual threshold. Standing EMG amplitude was 36% higher in OW (1.9% ± 1.5% EMG MVC ) than in NW (1.4% ± 1.4% EMG MVC , P < 0.05) subjects. During sitting, muscles were inactive 89.8% ± 12.7% of the measurement time with 12.7 ± 14.2 bursts/min across all thresholds. On average, 6% more activity was recorded in NW than in OW individuals for 3 of the 4 thresholds (P < 0.05 for 60% or 90% EMG standing and 1% EMG MVC ). In conclusion, the OW group had higher muscle activity amplitude during standing but more muscle inactivity during sitting for 3/4 of the thresholds tested. Interventions should test whether the observed heterogeneity in muscle activity affects the potential to gain cardiometabolic benefits from replacing sitting with standing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".