Work from home has increased greatly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and concerns have been raised that this would change physical behaviours. In the present study, 11 Brazilian office workers (five women, six men; mean [SD] age 39.3 [9.6] years) wore two triaxial accelerometers fixed on the upper back and right thigh continuously for five days, including a weekend, before COVID-19 (September 2019), and again while working at home during COVID-19 (July 2020). We determined time used in five behaviours: sedentary, standing, light physical activity (LPA), moderate-to-vigorous activity (MVPA), and time-in-bed. Data on these behaviours were processed using Compositional Data Analysis, and behaviours observed pre-COVID19 and during-COVID19 were compared using repeated-measures MANOVA. On workdays during-COVID19, participants spent 667 min sedentary, 176 standing, 74 LPA, 51 MVPA and 472 time-in-bed; corresponding numbers pre-COVID were 689, 180, 81, 72 and 418 min. Tests confirmed that less time was spent in bed pre-COVID19 (log-ratio −0.12 [95% CI −0.19; −0.08]) and more time in MVPA (log-ratio 0.35, [95% CI 0.08; 0.70]). Behaviours during the weekend changed only marginally. While small, this study is the first to report objectively measured physical behaviours during workdays as well as weekends in the same subjects before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Sit–stand desks have been suggested as an initiative to increase posture variation among office workers. However, there is limited evidence of what would be preferable combinations of time sitting and standing. The aim of this study was to determine and compare perceived pleasantness, acceptability, pain, and fatigue for 5 time patterns of sitting and standing at a sit–stand desk.Methods: Thirty postgraduate students were equally divided into a normal-weight (mean body mass index 22.8 kg/m²) and an overweight/obese (mean body mass index 28.1 kg/m²) group. They performed 3 hours of computer work at a sit–stand desk on 5 different days, each day with a different time pattern (A: 60-min sit/0-min stand; B: 50/10; C: 40/20; D: 30/30; E: 20/40). Pleasantness, acceptability, pain, and fatigue ratings were obtained at the beginning and at the end of the 3-hour period.Results: High ratings of pleasantness were observed for time patterns B, C, and D in both groups. All participants rated acceptability to be good for time patterns A to D. A minor increase in perceived fatigue and pain was observed in time pattern E.Conclusion: For new sit–stand desk users, regardless of body mass index, 10 to 30 minutes of standing per hour appears to be an amenable time pattern.

The aim of this study was to characterise the cardiac autonomic modulation of different office tasks performed by office workers with access to a sit-stand table. Heart rate variability (HRV) of 24 office workers was measured for two hours during three days in the last week of sit-stand table use. HRV indexes and the percentage of heart rate reserve (%HRR) were calculated during computer and non-computer work tasks while sitting or standing, non-computer tasks away from the work desk, and informal work breaks. All cardiac autonomic responses demonstrated a statistically significant interaction effect between the tasks (all p < 0.05) except for the logarithmically-transformed high frequency power (ln HF ms²; p = 0.14). Tasks performed while standing and away from the desk had higher sympathetic modulation; in addition, the observed higher %HRR demonstrated that these tasks were more physically demanding in comparison to other tasks. Practitioner Summary: Prior reports indicated benefits based on alternated body postures using sit-stand table. Nevertheless, the cardiac autonomic responses of different tasks performed by office workers are unknown. This cross-sectional study showed that different tasks stimulate the cardiac autonomic nervous system in different ways, which could bring positive effects to the cardiovascular system.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the physical behaviours of office workers worldwide, but studies comparing physical behaviours between countries with similar restrictions policies are rare. This study aimed to document and compare the 24-hour time-use compositions of physical behaviours among Brazilian and Swedish office workers on working and non-working days during the pandemic.Methods: Physical behaviours were monitored over 7 days using thigh-worn accelerometers in 73 Brazilian and 202 Swedish workers. Daily time-use compositions were exhaustively described in terms of sedentary behaviour (SED) in short (< 30 min) and long (≥30 min) bouts, light physical activity (LPA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and time-in-bed. We examined differences between countries using MANOVA on data processed according to compositional data analysis. As Swedish workers had the possibility to do hybrid work, we conducted a set of sensitivity analyses including only data from days when Swedish workers worked from home.Results: During working days, Brazilian office workers spent more time SED in short (294 min) and long (478 min) bouts and less time in LPA (156 min) and MVPA (50 min) than Swedish workers (274, 367, 256 and 85 min, respectively). Time spent in bed was similar in both groups. Similar differences between Brazilians and Swedes were observed on non-working days, while workers were, in general, less sedentary, more active and spent more time-in-bed than during working days. The MANOVA showed that Brazilians and Swedes differed significantly in behaviours during working (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.36) and non-working days (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.20). Brazilian workers spent significantly more time in SED relative to being active, less time in short relative to long bouts in SED, and more time in LPA relative to MVPA, both during workdays and non-workdays. Sensitivity analyses only on data from days when participants worked from home showed similar results.Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic Brazilian office workers were more sedentary and less active than Swedish workers, both during working and non-working days. Whether this relates to the perception or interpretation of restrictions being different or to differences present even before the pandemic is not clear, and we encourage further research to resolve this important issue.