Energy expended and knee joint load accumulated when walking, running, or standing for the same amount of time.

Evidence suggests prolonged bouts of sitting are unhealthy, and some public health messages have recently recommended replacing sitting with more standing. However, the relative benefits of replacing sitting with standing compared to locomotion are not known. Specifically, the biomechanical consequences of standing compared to other sitting-alternatives like walking and running are not well known and are usually not considered in studies on sitting. We compared the total knee joint load accumulated (TKJLA) and the total energy expended (TEE) when performing either walking, running, or standing for a common exercise bout duration (30 min). Walking and running both (unsurprisingly) had much more TEE than standing (+300% and +1100%, respectively). TKJLA was similar between walking and standing and 74% greater in running. The results suggest that standing is a poor replacement for walking and running if one wishes to increases energy expenditure, and may be particularly questionable for use in individuals at-risk for knee osteoarthritis due to its surprisingly high TKJLA (just as high as walking, 56% of the load in running) and the type of loading (continuous compression) it places on cartilage. However, standing has health benefits as an "inactivity interrupter" that extend beyond its direct energy expenditure. We suggest that future studies on standing as an inactivity intervention consider the potential biomechanical consequences of standing more often throughout the day, particularly in the case of prolonged bouts of standing.