Acute Impact of the Use of a Standing Desk on Appetite Sensations and Energy Intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedentariness has been shown to increase energy intake and is associated with increased obesity prevalence. Active workstations are used to implement physical activity interventions in workplaces, but it is unclear if they can lead to reductions in body weight. This study aims to observe the acute impact of a standing desk on energy intake and appetite sensations. METHODS: Participants came to the laboratory, where they were randomly assigned to a seated or a standing desk. They completed a work session (∼75 min) during which they performed cognitive tasks and reported their levels of stress. Following this, they had a 15-minute break during which buffet-type snacks were served. Subjects were asked to rate their appetite sensations on visual analog scales. RESULTS: Thirty-six normal-weight men and women aged 24.3 (4.3) years participated in this study. Energy intake from snacks was similar (P = .472) between participants who sat (427.8 [286.9] kcal) and the ones who stood (461.2 [272.8] kcal) during the work session. There was no difference in satiety quotients around the snack and no significant interaction time × condition for appetite sensations. CONCLUSION: The use of a standing desk for 75 minutes did not increase food consumption following a meal.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".