Strength Training for Desk Workers: Key Trends and Insights
What Is Sedentary Work?
Sedentary work refers to occupational activity characterised by prolonged sitting at low energy expenditure (<1.5 METs). The World Health Organization defines sedentary behaviour as any waking activity performed in a sitting, reclining, or lying posture that falls under this threshold.
Why Does Sedentary Behaviour Matter?
A JAMA Network Open study of 481,688 participants found that people who mostly sit at work have a 16% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 34% higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality compared to those who do not sit at work.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Health Risks: The Research
3. Physical Consequences
4. Workplace Interventions: What Works
5. Strength Training as Intervention
7. Minimum Effective Dose: How Much Is Enough?
8. Practical Applications
9. Cognitive and Productivity Outcomes
10. Conclusion
11. References
Introduction
The modern workplace has undergone fundamental transformation. Where previous generations engaged in physical labour, today’s workforce is predominantly desk-based. This shift has created a significant public health challenge. The World Health Organization estimates that between 4 and 5 million deaths per year could be averted if the global population was more active [1].
Physical inactivity is identified as a leading contributor to global mortality, with global estimates indicating that 27.5% of adults do not meet WHO physical activity recommendations.
This whitepaper examines the health implications of sedentary work and the role of strength training in mitigating associated risks. The analysis draws on research published in JAMA Network Open, The Lancet Public Health, The Lancet, Circulation, the European Journal of Epidemiology, the Annals of Internal Medicine, the British Journal of Sports Medicine, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, and other peer-reviewed sources, alongside WHO guidelines.
Health Risks: The Research
The health consequences of prolonged sitting have been quantified through several large-scale studies published in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. The consistency of findings across research teams, populations, and methodologies strengthens the evidence base.
The JAMA Network Open Study (2024)
This cohort study, published in JAMA Network Open, tracked 481,688 participants for a mean follow-up of 12.85 years [2]. This represents one of the largest investigations of occupational sitting and mortality.
The findings:
– People who mostly sit at work: 16% higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11–1.20)
– 34% higher cardiovascular disease mortality (HR 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22–1.46)
– These associations persisted after adjustment for leisure-time physical activity
– 15–30 minutes of additional daily physical activity may attenuate the increased mortality risk
That third finding is the important one: exercise outside work hours did not erase the risk. Reducing sitting time and increasing physical activity function as two separate levers, not one substitute for the other.
The European Journal of Epidemiology Meta-Analysis (2018)
This systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis, published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, analysed 34 studies with 1,331,468 participants [3]. The large sample size and dose-response methodology provide robust estimates of risk.
Key findings:
– For total sedentary behaviour exceeding 8 hours/day: 4% increased mortality risk per additional hour (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.03–1.05)
– For sedentary behaviour exceeding 6 hours/day: 4% increased CVD mortality risk per additional hour (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.03–1.04)
– 8% of all mortality in the English population attributable to sedentary behaviour
– 29% of type 2 diabetes in the English population attributable to sedentary behaviour
– The relationship was non-linear, with risk increasing more steeply above 6–8 hours per day
The dose-response relationship has implications for intervention design. Risk increases are modest below 6–8 hours of daily sitting but accelerate beyond this threshold.
The Preventive Medicine Meta-Analysis (2024)
A meta-analysis published in Preventive Medicine examined cardiovascular outcomes across 19 studies with 1,473,354 individuals and 60,526 CVD events [4]. This is among the largest meta-analyses specifically examining sedentary behaviour and cardiovascular disease.
Findings:
– 30% increased CVD (cardiovascular disease) risk for high vs low sedentary behaviour (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.22–1.37)
– Every hour spent sedentary: 5% increased CVD risk (RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02–1.07)
– More than 10% of all CVD could be attributed to high sedentariness
– Substituting one hour of sitting with light-intensity activity reduced CVD risk by approximately 20% (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73–0.97)
That substitution figure sets a low bar for the practical recommendations later in this paper: the activity replacing the sitting does not need to be vigorous to produce a measurable effect.
American Heart Association Science Advisory (2016)
The American Heart Association published a science advisory in Circulation reviewing the evidence on sedentary behaviour and cardiovascular health [5].
Conclusions:
– Sedentary behaviour is an emerging cardiovascular risk factor
– Evidence supports independent associations with cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes
– The relationship exists regardless of physical activity levels
– Meta-analysis of interventions found a mean reduction of 91 minutes per day in sedentary time with targeted interventions
The Annals of Internal Medicine Meta-Analysis (2015)
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine examined sedentary time and health outcomes [6].
Findings:
– Sedentary time was independently associated with deleterious health outcomes regardless of physical activity
– Prolonged sedentary time was associated with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease incidence, cardiovascular disease mortality, and type 2 diabetes incidence
– The associations were attenuated but remained significant in those who were physically active
Synthesis: The Mortality Evidence
Physical Consequences
Beyond mortality and disease risk, sedentary work produces physical effects that are relevant to day-to-day function and quality of life.
Musculoskeletal effects:
Prevalence data illustrates how common these problems are among desk-based employees. A survey of 1,185 office workers across 54 workplaces found an annual prevalence of work-attributed musculoskeletal symptoms of 63%, with the head/neck (42%), low back (34%), and shoulders (16%) most commonly affected [20]. A more recent study reported an even higher overall prevalence of 80.81%, again led by the neck (58.6%), lower back (52.5%), and shoulders (37.4%), though on a smaller sample [21].
– Lower back pain: Prolonged sitting causes hip flexor shortening, increasing stress on the lumbar spine
– Neck and shoulder pain: Fixed postures create chronic muscular tension
– Progressive muscle weakness: Reduced use leads to weakening of legs, glutes, and core musculature
– Reduced glucose tolerance
– Decreased insulin sensitivity
– Changes in lipid metabolism
The European Journal of Epidemiology meta-analysis found that 29% of type 2 diabetes in the English population was attributable to sedentary behaviour [3], highlighting the metabolic consequences.
Circulatory effects:
– Reduced blood flow during prolonged sitting
– Increased risk of venous thromboembolism
When the large leg and core muscles are inactive for extended periods, metabolic signalling changes in ways that increase disease risk independent of overall fitness levels.
Workplace Interventions: What Works
The Lancet Public Health Umbrella Review (2025)
An umbrella review published in The Lancet Public Health examined 36 systematic reviews covering 214 unique primary studies on workplace interventions for sedentary behaviour and physical activity [7]. This represents one of the most comprehensive synthesis of workplace intervention evidence to date.
Sit-stand workstations:
– Reduce sitting time by up to 75 minutes per day when used alone
– Reductions increase by up to 33% when combined with psychosocial strategies (prompts, goal-setting)
– Some studies report reduced musculoskeletal discomfort
Self-monitoring combined with behavioural strategies:
– Yielded the largest increases in step count
– Average gains of approximately 1,056 steps per day
Critical finding:
No specific strategy consistently increased moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.
Environmental modifications can reduce sitting time, but they do not address the progressive physical deterioration (muscle weakness, metabolic changes, fitness decline) that accumulates in desk-bound workers.
Standing is an improvement over sitting. But standing still is not exercise. Standing does not build strength, does not constitute moderate-to-vigorous activity, and does not reverse the muscle weakness that develops from years of sedentary work.
Environmental fixes and behavioural nudges can change where and how people sit. They cannot substitute for the one thing this evidence shows workplace interventions consistently fail to deliver: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. That specific gap is what the rest of this paper addresses.
Strength Training as Intervention
Structured exercise, and strength training in particular, is moderate-to-vigorous activity by definition. It is also the most direct answer to the gap identified above, precisely because it does not depend on a workplace policy or a desk configuration to work.
WHO Recommendations
The World Health Organization’s 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour recommend that adults train all major muscle groups on 2 or more days per week [1].
The WHO rates this a strong recommendation, built on moderate certainty evidence — meaning it is meant to apply broadly, not just to specific subgroups. The same strong-recommendation status applies to a second, related point: adults should limit sedentary time, and replacing it with physical activity of any intensity provides a health benefit.
Why Strength Training Specifically
Addresses muscle weakness directly: Prolonged sitting leads to progressive weakening of legs, glutes, and core. Strength training reverses this deterioration in a way that standing desks and activity prompts cannot.
Supports posture: Strong back, core, and gluteal muscles help maintain proper spinal alignment, counteracting the postural effects of desk work that contribute to neck, shoulder, and low back pain.
Improves metabolic health: Muscle tissue is metabolically active. The European Journal of Epidemiology meta-analysis found that 29% of type 2 diabetes was attributable to sedentary behaviour [3]. Increased muscle mass supports glucose regulation and insulin sensitivity, directly relevant given this finding.
Provides cardiovascular benefit: The Preventive Medicine meta-analysis found that substituting sedentary time with physical activity reduces cardiovascular risk by approximately 20% per hour substituted [4]. Strength training qualifies as moderate-to-vigorous activity and thus contributes to this risk reduction.
Constitutes moderate-to-vigorous activity: Unlike standing or light walking, strength training is moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, the category that The Lancet Public Health review found workplace interventions consistently failed to increase [7].
The Gap Strength Training Fills
Workplace interventions such as standing desks can reduce sitting time but do not:
– Build or maintain muscle mass
– Improve strength
– Reverse progressive physical deterioration
– Constitute moderate-to-vigorous physical activity
– Address the metabolic consequences of sedentary behaviour as effectively as structured exercise
Strength training addresses each of these gaps directly.
Randomised Controlled Trial Evidence
Beyond the population-level cohort data above, randomised and controlled workplace trials provide direct evidence that strength-focused exercise produces measurable gains in desk-based populations specifically.
A 1-year workplace exercise trial in 387 office workers found significantly greater increases in muscle strength (including abdominal flexion and back extension) in the training group compared to controls; in the subgroup with high adherence (≥70% of sessions), neck pain also improved significantly more than in controls [14].
A 10-week cluster randomised trial in 200 female healthcare workers found that workplace-based exercise, delivered as 5×10-minute sessions per week, produced greater improvements in pain intensity, back extensor strength, and analgesic use than the same exercise performed at home [15].
A more recent randomised controlled trial in 70 office workers, using a 6-month daily supervised programme combining flexibility, strength, and balance work, reported pain intensity reductions of 43–63% across nine body regions and an 84.6% reduction in work absenteeism, alongside gains in back strength (27.1%), leg strength (25.1%), and cervical strength (20.3–20.8%) [16].
Systematic reviews support the consistency of this pattern. A 2022 review in BMJ Open, pooling 7 RCTs and 967 office workers, concluded that workplace exercise interventions reduce musculoskeletal pain, though six of the seven included trials carried a high risk of bias [17].
A 2021 review of 29 trials (8 rated high quality) found that neck-strengthening exercise combined with tailored workstation modification produced the sharpest reduction in neck pain scores, though the certainty of evidence was rated low [18].
A broader 2020 review of 54 high- or medium-quality studies across physically demanding occupations found strong evidence that workplace strength training reduces musculoskeletal disorders, with no evidence of harm [19].
A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis focused specifically on resistance exercise training in sedentary office workers found consistent improvements in musculoskeletal outcomes (notably neck extensor strength) across 17 studies and 2,607 office workers, though it also found that cardiometabolic and psychological risk markers remained largely unchanged, indicating that resistance training’s benefits in this population are strongest for musculoskeletal rather than metabolic outcomes [8].
The practical takeaway is that workplace resistance and strength exercise consistently improves musculoskeletal pain and strength outcomes across trial settings, though most of this evidence base is still rated low-to-moderate certainty, owing to small samples and risk of bias, a limitation worth stating plainly rather than overselling the strength of these findings.
WHO Guidelines
The 2020 WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour provide specific recommendations based on systematic review of the evidence [1]:
For Adults (18–64 years)
Aerobic activity:
– At least 150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity per week
– Or 75–150 minutes of vigorous-intensity per week
– Or an equivalent combination
Muscle-strengthening:
– Resistance training, involving all major muscle groups on 2 or more days per week
Sedentary behaviour:
– Adults should limit the amount of time spent being sedentary
– Replacing sedentary time with physical activity of any intensity provides health benefits
Evidence Classification
The WHO classifies these as strong recommendations based on moderate certainty evidence. This classification indicates:
– The desirable effects clearly outweigh undesirable effects
– The recommendation applies to most people in most circumstances
– The evidence, while not definitive, is sufficient to support broad application
Implications for Desk Workers
Desk workers who engage only in aerobic exercise are not meeting the complete WHO guidelines. The muscle-strengthening component is separate and specifically recommended.
The evidence suggests all three components matter independently, and none substitutes for the others: reducing sedentary time lowers the baseline exposure, aerobic activity offsets the cardiovascular and mortality risk, and resistance training rebuilds the strength and muscle mass that sitting erodes.
Minimum Effective Dose: How Much Is Enough?
Beyond the WHO’s general 2-day/week floor, more recent dose-response research quantifies how much resistance training is actually needed, and where additional volume stops producing additional benefits for reducing mortality risk.
The largest and most recent evidence comes from a 2026 analysis of 147,374 adults across three US cohorts followed for up to 30 years, which found that 90–119 minutes of resistance training per week was associated with 13% lower all-cause mortality, 19% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 27% lower neurological disease mortality compared to no resistance training, with no additional benefit observed above roughly 120 minutes per week [9].
A 2022 meta-analysis of cohort studies found a similar non-linear pattern: the maximum mortality risk reduction (10–20%) occurred at just 30–60 minutes of muscle-strengthening activity per week, with all-cause mortality risk lowest around 40 minutes per week and cardiovascular mortality risk lowest around 60 minutes per week [10].
A separate systematic review and meta-analysis confirmed the general pattern, finding that any resistance training (versus none) was associated with roughly 15% lower all-cause mortality, 19% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 14% lower cancer mortality [11].
Taken together, this evidence points to a genuinely modest minimum dose for reducing mortality risk specifically: benefit begins accruing from as little as 30 minutes of resistance training per week, and the mortality-risk curve flattens out somewhere around 90–120 minutes per week, with no further mortality benefit measured past that point.
That ceiling applies to this one outcome, longevity risk, not to strength, muscle mass, bone density, or athletic performance, none of which these cohort studies measured, and which have their own separate (and still-rising) dose-response relationships elsewhere in the literature.
A distinct but related body of evidence addresses aerobic activity specifically in the context of sitting. A harmonised meta-analysis of more than 1 million adults found that approximately 60–75 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per day effectively eliminated the elevated mortality risk associated with 8 or more hours of daily sitting [12].
Similarly, meeting standard aerobic activity guidelines, approximately 150 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous activity, was found to attenuate or effectively eliminate the association between sitting time and mortality, with the largest relative benefit seen in the least active individuals [13].
This distinction matters for accurate recommendations. The strongest direct evidence for offsetting sitting-specific mortality risk comes from aerobic activity studies, not resistance training studies in isolation.
Resistance training has its own independent, non-linear dose-response relationship with mortality, and functions as a complement to, not a replacement for, aerobic activity.
The two appear to work through different, additive pathways: aerobic activity primarily affects cardiovascular and metabolic capacity, while resistance training primarily affects muscle mass, insulin sensitivity, and functional capacity, all of which are separately degraded by prolonged sitting.
Practical Applications: Meeting The Evidence-Based Threshold
Based on the research:
– Resistance training’s own dose-response curve shows meaningful benefit from as little as 30 minutes per week, plateauing around 90–120 minutes per week [9][10][11]
– Substituting 1 hour of sitting with light activity reduces CVD risk by approximately 20% [4]
– Muscle-strengthening activities (resistance training) 2+ days per week is specifically recommended by WHO [1]
– Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity is the category workplace interventions fail to address [7], and where strength training contributes
Strength Training Recommendations
Based on WHO guidelines and the identified gaps:
– Minimum 2 sessions per week
– Target all major muscle groups: legs, glutes, core, back, shoulders, chest
– Compound movements are efficient: squats, deadlifts, rows, presses, carries
– Progressive overload over time: gradually increase load or volume
– Consistency is more important than intensity: sustainable programming produces long-term results
For desk workers specifically, emphasis on:
– Hip and glute strength (counteracts hip flexor tightening from prolonged sitting)
– Posterior chain development (counteracts forward-hunched posture)
– Core stability (supports spinal health)
Breaking Up Sitting
Building on the substitution evidence already discussed:
– Movement breaks every 30–60 minutes
– Walking meetings where feasible
– Standing desk use for portions of the day
These approaches complement but do not replace structured strength training.
Combined Approach
The Lancet Public Health review suggests the most effective strategy combines multiple interventions [7]:
– Environmental modifications (sit-stand desks)
– Behavioural strategies (self-monitoring, movement reminders)
– Structured exercise programmes (particularly strength training)
No single intervention is sufficient on its own, each one closes a gap the others leave open.
Regional Context: New Zealand and Australia
Occupational health authorities in both New Zealand and Australia recognise desk-based sedentary work as a distinct risk category, though most local guidance addresses practical prevention rather than providing new epidemiological data.
WorkSafe New Zealand identifies office workers who sit at desks and work on computers as being at risk of discomfort, pain, and injury, and recommends regular breaks, micro-pauses, stretching, and task variation as standard risk controls [24].
In Australia, the Getting Australia Active III workplace summary similarly recommends a multi-level approach, combining active travel, workplace fitness programmes, and structural changes, and notes that workplace physical activity promotion has good-quality evidence of positive health effects, even though the reach and scale of implementation remain limiting factors in practice [25].
The practical implication for New Zealand and Australian workplaces is consistent with the wider evidence base above: environmental and policy-level guidance supports movement and activity promotion, but neither replaces the specific, dosed intervention that structured strength training provides.
Cognitive and Productivity Outcomes
Evidence on whether workplace exercise improves cognitive performance and productivity is more limited and mixed than the evidence on musculoskeletal and cardiovascular outcomes, and the specific exercise protocol appears to matter.
A 12-week workplace exercise programme consisting of low-intensity stretching (10–15 minutes per session) found no significant improvement in cognitive performance measures, including reaction time and inhibitory control, compared to controls, a result the authors attributed to the low intensity and short duration of the programme rather than a genuine absence of effect from exercise generally [22].
This is a useful caution against assuming any workplace movement produces cognitive benefit; the intensity and structure of the intervention appears to matter.
Evidence on broader active-break interventions is more encouraging, though it centres on subjective wellbeing rather than objective cognitive testing. A study of remote office workers found that a structured active-break programme increased the proportion of workers taking regular active breaks, reduced the proportion spending more than 10 hours per day sedentary from 31% to 14%, and reduced the proportion of workers reporting no regular exercise from 43% to 26%, alongside reductions in post-lunch sleepiness, perceived stress, and pain or discomfort [23].
The overall picture is that active breaks and structured movement can improve self-reported wellbeing, sedentary time, and pain, outcomes with plausible downstream effects on workplace performance, but the direct evidence that strength training specifically improves objective cognitive performance remains thin and should not be overstated.
Conclusion
The evidence on sedentary work and health outcomes is substantial and consistent. Studies published in JAMA Network Open, The Lancet, the European Journal of Epidemiology, Preventive Medicine, Circulation, the Annals of Internal Medicine, the British Journal of Sports Medicine, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (collectively examining millions of participants, some followed for up to 30 years) establish several key findings:
The risk is quantified and significant. People who mostly sit at work have 16% higher all-cause mortality and 34% higher cardiovascular disease mortality [2]. Each additional hour of sitting beyond 6–8 hours/day increases risk by approximately 4% [3]. More than 10% of cardiovascular disease and 29% of type 2 diabetes may be attributable to sedentary behaviour [3][4]. Musculoskeletal symptoms affect 63–81% of office workers, most commonly in the neck and lower back [20][21].
Exercise alone may not fully offset risk. The JAMA study found that increased mortality risk persisted after adjustment for leisure-time physical activity [2]. Both increasing activity and reducing prolonged sitting appear to matter independently.
Workplace interventions have specific limitations. The Lancet Public Health umbrella review (synthesising 214 studies) found that standing desks and activity prompts can reduce sitting time by up to 75 minutes per day, but no strategy consistently increased moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [7].
Strength training addresses a critical gap, and its benefits extend beyond pain relief. The WHO specifically recommends muscle-strengthening activities on 2 or more days per week [1]. Randomised trials directly in office workers confirm strength training reduces musculoskeletal pain and improves strength, though this evidence is still low-to-moderate certainty [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Where those same trials show limited change in traditional cardiometabolic markers [8], population-level dose-response data and grip-strength cohort research confirm that muscular strength independently predicts reduced mortality risk through pathways beyond simple biomarker shifts [9][10][11][26]. The two strands of evidence are complementary, not contradictory: strength training relieves pain in the short term and reduces long-term disease risk, and neither claim depends on the other being true.
The effective dose is modest and has a ceiling, for mortality risk specifically. Dose-response research shows meaningful mortality risk reduction from as little as 30 minutes of resistance training per week, plateauing at roughly 90–120 minutes per week with no further mortality benefit beyond that [9][10][11]. That ceiling doesn’t apply to strength, muscle mass, or performance, which weren’t measured in this evidence and keep responding to higher volumes.
Cognition and productivity benefits are plausible but not yet proven for strength training specifically. Broader active-break interventions show measurable gains in reduced sedentary time and self-reported wellbeing [23], but the evidence that strength training itself improves objective cognitive performance remains thin [22] and should not be oversold.
The solution is achievable. Two strength training sessions per week targeting all major muscle groups, combined with movement breaks throughout the day, can substantially address the risks associated with sedentary work. The WHO guidelines provide clear, evidence-based targets.
For someone in a sedentary occupation, two sessions a week is a small ask against what’s actually at stake: mortality risk, musculoskeletal pain, and the physical capacity to keep doing the job for decades.
About the Author
Joshua Kim is an Auckland-based personal trainer with a decade of competitive experience across Taekwondo, BJJ (no-gi), and Muay Thai, and ten years of consistent strength training. He co-founded and instructed a Taekwondo club for six years (2015–2021), working with over 20 students across beginner to intermediate levels. In March 2025, he sustained a moderate traumatic brain injury following a head impact in Auckland, including a closed skull fracture confirmed on CT. The recovery process outlined in this white paper reflects both the published clinical evidence and direct experience navigating a structured concussion rehabilitation protocol over several months. Professionally, Joshua works as a Senior Account Manager at a digital marketing agency, where he applies systems thinking and data analysis in a commercial context.
References
1.
World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.
2. Gao W, et al. Occupational Sitting Time, Leisure Physical Activity, and All-Cause and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality.
JAMA Network Open. 2024;7(1):e2350680.
3. Patterson R, et al. Sedentary behaviour and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and incident type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis.
European Journal of Epidemiology. 2018;33(9):811–829.
4. Orlandoni S, et al. Association of sedentary time with risk of cardiovascular diseases and cardiovascular mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Preventive Medicine. 2024;178:107803.
6. Biswas A, et al. Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Annals of Internal Medicine. 2015;162(2):123–132.
7. Dupont L, et al. Effects of workplace interventions on sedentary behaviour and physical activity: an umbrella review with meta-analyses and narrative synthesis.
The Lancet Public Health. 2025;10(4):e260–e271.
8. Chandrasekaran B, Bairapareddy KC, Rao CR. Resistance Exercise Training on Musculoskeletal, Metabolic and Psychological Health in Sedentary Office Workers – Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2025;36(1):23–42.
9. Zhang Y, Lee DH, Rezende LFM, Ma Y, Giovannucci E. Long-term resistance training with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: assessing dose-response and joint associations with aerobic physical activity.
British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026.
10. Momma H, Kawakami R, Honda T, Sawada SS. Muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;56(13):755–763.
11. Shailendra P, Baldock KL, Li LSK, Bennie JA, Boyle T. Resistance Training and Mortality Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2022;63(2):277–285.
12. Ekelund U, et al. Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women.
The Lancet. 2016;388(10051):1302–1310.
14. Dalager T, Justesen JB, Sjøgaard G. Intelligent Physical Exercise Training in a Workplace Setting Improves Muscle Strength and Musculoskeletal Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
BioMed Research International. 2017;2017:7914134.
15. Jakobsen MD, Sundstrup E, Brandt M, Jay K, Aagaard P, Andersen LL. Effect of workplace- versus home-based physical exercise on musculoskeletal pain among healthcare workers: a cluster randomized controlled trial.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. 2015;41(2):153–163.
16. Karatrantou K, Gerodimos V. A Comprehensive Workplace Exercise Intervention to Reduce Musculoskeletal Pain and Improve Functional Capacity in Office Workers: A Randomized Controlled Study.
Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(9):915.
17. Tersa-Miralles C, et al. Effectiveness of workplace exercise interventions in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders in office workers: a systematic review.
BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e054288.
18. Frutiger M, Borotkanics R. Systematic review and meta-analysis suggest strength training and workplace modifications may reduce neck pain in office workers.
Pain Practice. 2021;21(1):100–131.
19. Sundstrup E, Seeberg KGV, Bengtsen E, Andersen LL. A Systematic Review of Workplace Interventions to Rehabilitate Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Employees with Physical Demanding Work.
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2020;30(4):588–612.
20. Janwantanakul P, Pensri P, Jiamjarasrangsri V, Sinsongsook T. Prevalence of self-reported musculoskeletal symptoms among office workers.
Occupational Medicine (London). 2008;58(6):436–438.
21. Mohammadian M, Mollahoseini S, Naghibzadeh-Tahami A. Musculoskeletal disorders among office workers: prevalence, ergonomic risk factors, and their interrelationships.
Scientific Reports. 2025;15:45425.
23. Batista-Ferreira L, Sandy DD, Silva PCMC, Medeiros-Lima DJM, Rodrigues BM. Impact of active breaks on sedentary behavior and perception of productivity in office workers.
Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho. 2024;22(2):e20231213.
26. Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, et al; Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study Investigators. Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.
The Lancet. 2015;386(9990):266–273.
