Exercise in the workplace: examining the receptivity of practical and time-efficient stair-climbing “exercise snacks”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the workplace, people are often sedentary for prolonged time and do not regularly engage in physical activity—two factors independently linked to premature morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to determine the receptivity of incorporating practical stair-climbing “exercise snacks” (Snacks; three isolated bouts of ascending 53–60 stairs performed sporadically throughout the day) into workplace settings compared to more traditional high-intensity interval training (HIIT; performed as three bouts of 53-60 stairs within a structured HIIT workout) and to explore if these exercise strategies could influence sedentary and physical activity behaviour. Fourteen participants (12 women; Mage = 38.9 ± 10.2 years) completed two supervised exercise trials (Snacks and HIIT) followed by 1 week participating in either form of exercise in their workplace. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), affective valence, enjoyment, and self-efficacy were measured at the supervised exercise sessions. During the follow-up period, sedentary behaviour and physical activity were measured with an accelerometer. Affective valence was more positive ( p = 0.03; η 2 p = 0.21) and there was a lower rise in RPE ( p = 0.01; η 2 p = 0.29) during Snacks than HIIT. Post-exercise enjoyment of, and self-efficacy towards, Snacks and HIIT were high and similar ( ps > 0.05). After the supervised trials, 10/14 of the participants preferred Snacks and 4/14 preferred HIIT ( p = 0.18). On days when participants chose to perform either exercise modality, the average number of sit-to-stands in a 24 h period was increased (48.3 ± 8.7 to 52.8 ± 7.8; p = 0.03; Hedge's g = 0.73) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity tended to increase (21.9 ± 18.2 to 38.1 ± 22.1 min; p = 0.06; Hedge's g = 0.60) compared to days when they chose not to exercise. Stair-climbing exercise snacks may be an attractive approach to implement in the workplace setting and has potential to positively impact sedentary behaviour and physical activity metrics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".