↓ Skip to main content

An Under-the-Table Leg-Movement Apparatus and Changes in Energy Expenditure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Under-the-Table Leg-Movement Apparatus and Changes in Energy Expenditure
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel A. Koepp, Graham Moore, James A. Levine

Abstract

Introduction: Deskwork contributes substantially to sedentariness. Here, we evaluated an under-the-table apparatus that was designed to promote leg movement (fidgeting) while seated. Our hypothesis was that the under-the-table apparatus would increase energy expenditure. Methods: We measured energy expenditure and heart rate in 26 people while they sat and worked using a standard chair, walked on a treadmill, and sat and worked using an under-the-desk apparatus that encouraged leg movement. Results: Energy expenditure increased significantly while using the under-the-table apparatus when compared to the standard office chair (standard chair, 81 ± 18 kcal/h; under-the-table apparatus, 96 ± 23 kcal/h) (P < 0.001); representing an 18 ± 16% increase. The changes in energy expenditure were not as great as walking (1 mph, 168 ± 46 kcal/h, P < 0.001; 2 mph, 205 ± 51 kcal/, P < 0.001), representing 107 ± 37% and 155 ± 48% increases over baseline, respectively. Conclusions: An under-the-table apparatus that promotes leg movement can increase energy expenditure by approximately 20%. Dynamic sitting is promoted by this apparatus and may be among a lexicon of options to help people move more while seated at work.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Sports and Recreations 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Design 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 13 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2018.
All research outputs
#733,709
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#392
of 13,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,782
of 313,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#20
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.