Are hybrid sit-stand postures a good compromise between sitting and standing?

Potential alternatives for conventional sitting and standing postures are hybrid sit-stand postures (i.e. perching). The purposes of this study were (i) to identify where lumbopelvic and pelvic angles deviate from sitting and standing and (ii) to use these breakpoints to define three distinct postural phases: sitting, perching, and standing, in order to examine differences in muscle activations and ground reaction forces between phases. Twenty-four participants completed 19 1-min static trials, from sitting (90°) to standing (180°), sequentially in 5°trunk-thigh angle increments. The perching phase was determined to be 145-175° for males and 160-175° for females. For both sexes, knee extensor activity was lower in standing compared to perching or sitting (p < .01). Anterior-posterior forces were the highest in perching (p < .001), requiring ∼15% of body-weight. Chair designs aimed at reducing the lower limb demands within 115-170° trunk-thigh angle may improve the feasibility of sustaining the perched posture. Practitioner summary: Individuals who develop low back pain in sitting or standing may benefit from hybrid sit-stand postures (perching), yet kinematic and kinetic changes associated with these postures have not been investigated. Perching can improve lumbar posture at a cost of increased lower limb demands, suggesting potential avenues for chair design improvement. Abbreviations: A/P: anterior-posterior; M/L: medial-lateral; LBP: low back pain; EMG: electromyography; TES: thoracic erector spinae; LES: lumbar erector spinae; VMO: vastus medialis obliquus; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction; ASIS: anterior superior iliac spine; PSIS: posterior superior iliac spine; BW: body weight; RMSE: root mean square error; SD: standard deviation; ROM: range of motion.