4.6 Article

Feasibility of a portable pedal exercise machine for reducing sedentary time in the workplace

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 430-435

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2010.079574

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [1T32HL076134]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Sedentary time is independently associated with an increased risk of metabolic disease. Worksite interventions designed to decrease sedentary time may serve to improve employee health. Objective The purpose of this study is to test the feasibility and use of a pedal exercise machine for reducing workplace sedentary time. Methods Eighteen full-time employees (mean age+SD 40.2+10.7 years; 88% female) working in sedentary occupations were recruited for participation. Demographic and anthropometric data were collected at baseline and 4 weeks. Participants were provided access to a pedal exercise machine for 4 weeks at work. Use of the device was measured objectively by exercise tracking software, which monitors pedal activity and provides the user real-time feedback (eg, speed, time, distance, calories). At 4 weeks, participants completed a feasibility questionnaire. Results Participants reported sitting 83% of their working days. Participants used the pedal machines an average of 12.2+6.6 out of a possible 20 working days and pedalled an average of 23.4+20.4 min each day used. Feasibility data indicate that participants found the machines feasible for use at work. Participants also reported sedentary time at work decreased due to the machine. Discussion Findings from this study suggest that this pedal machine may be a feasible tool for reducing sedentary time while at work. These findings hold public health significance due to the growing number of sedentary jobs in the USA and the potential of the device for use in large-scale worksite health programmes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available