Energy Expenditure of a Single Sit-to-Stand Movement with Slow Versus Normal Speed Using the Different Frequency Accumulation Method

Abstract

Background and objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the energy expenditures (EE) of a single sit-to-stand (STS) movements with slow and normal speeds using a multi-stage exercise test. Materials and Methods: Twelve young males, aged 21–27 years (age, 23.0 ± 1.7 years; height, 171.2 ± 6.1 cm; weight, 64.3 ± 5.6 kg), performed repeated 3-s stand-up and 3-s sit-down (slow) or 1-s stand-up and 1-s sit-down (normal) movement on two different days with random order. All the participants completed multi-stage tests at different STS frequencies per minute. The slope and intercept of the linear regression relationship between the EE (kcal/min) and the STS frequency were obtained, and the slope of the regression was quantified as the EE of an STS. Results: The metabolic equivalents (METs) of the STS-slow was 4.5 METs for the frequency of 10 times/min (in total 1 min), and the net EE was 5.00 ± 1.2 kcal/min. The net EE of the STS-slow was 0.37 ± 0.12 kcal, which was significantly greater than that during the STS-normal (0.26 ± 0.06 kcal). The difference between the EEs of the STS-slow and STS-normal was significantly greater in taller and heavier subjects. Conclusions: We concluded that the intensity of STS-slow movement is moderate, and the EE during an STS-slow (0.37 ± 0.12 kcal) is higher than that during an STS-normal (0.26 ± 0.06 kcal). Our study results will help exercise and/or health professionals prescribe physical activity programs using STS movement for healthy young population groups.

Comparison of Active and Sedentary Bout Lengths in Normal and Overweight Adults using eMouverecherche

“…When the speed was slow (3 s), the energy cost increased by 40%. Moreover, when the body weight increased, the intensity of sit-to-stand transitions increased as well [26]. These findings may help us to understand why OW or obese people are reluctant to stand up.…”

Physical functioning in COVID-19 patients at pre-discharge: A case series

“…The 6MWT is already validated for young people and it is the most commonest for assessing the functional capacity in clinical setting but, it has troublesome logistical requirements such as 30 meter corridor and it is time consuming and occasionally it may be difficult to test the individuals with severely limited mobility with the 6MWT but STS test requires minimal equipment and it's easy to perform [16]. The STS test is a measure of mobility related function and physical performance [17]. A slow STS activity requires 4.5 METs for frequency of 10 times/min similarly walking 5.6 km/hr utilizes 4.5 METs therefore STS activity can be performed instead of walking but further studies should be conducted regarding same [18,19].…”

Harnessing digital health to objectively assess cancer-related fatigue: The impact of fatigue on mobility performance

“…Our data show that patients with CRF have nearly 38.1% fewer sit-to-stand transitions than patients without CRF. A potential explanation why people with CRF have fewer sit to stand transitions is the need for energy conservation, because patients require more energy expenditure to move from sit-to-standing posture [62]. Studies have shown that cancer survivors do more passive leisure pursuits [63].…”