Active desks burned more energy but slowed typing and mouse work.
HelpedThe short version
Across seven studies, walking or cycling at a desk used more energy than sitting.

- 7
- studies pooled
- 147
- office workers and graduate students
- Recorded
- behaviour was recorded
The review
Who took part
Sixteen studies, all but two in the US, tested 9 to 66 adults each. The adults were office workers, employees and graduate students, with average ages from about 21 to 51.
What they did
Adults worked at a desk over a slow treadmill or a pedal bike. The other group sat at a regular desk, and the sessions lasted from a few minutes to a year.
What happened
Energy use went up a lot across seven studies of 147 people. Typing and mouse work were slower in the pooled numbers, and the studies varied a lot. The review's claim that real work would barely change was not tested directly.
What the review found
- Helped
Across seven studies, walking or cycling at a desk used more energy than sitting.
Pooled analysis of 7 studies with 147 people · vs sitting at a regular desk · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ results look too good to be true; the studies disagreed a lot; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- Mixed
Across the typing studies, people typed more slowly at active desks than when sitting.
Pooled analysis of 5 studies · vs sitting at a regular desk · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ mixes trials with other kinds of study
- Mixed
In the mouse studies, people clicked more slowly at active desks than when sitting.
Pooled analysis of 0 studies · vs sitting at a regular desk · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ results look too good to be true; mixes trials with other kinds of study
How solid is this?
- Behaviour was recorded
- Results look too good to be true
- Summary claims more than the results show
- Mixes trials with other kinds of study
- The review didn't check the studies' quality or look for missing studies
Source
Effect of Active Workstation on Energy Expenditure and Job Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2016)
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.2014-0565 (opens in a new tab)

