TLDR: prior results confirmed. Primary benefits of standing desks relate to variability of position, rather than weight loss which mostly happens in the kitchen.
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
39 points (97.6% liked)
Fitness
4602 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I am curious why oxygen consumption is what was measured and why/how that's translated into calorie burn. I wouldn't suspect my oxygen intake rate would change much when I'm standing versus sitting. I would be using different muscle groups though, and not necessarily my lungs. Seems like an odd variable to select.
Oxygen is used to get energy from glucose/fat, so oxygen consumption is directly related to calorie burn. One nice way to think of it is that carbon atoms, the main atom in food, leaves our body by o2 (oxygen) going in and co2 (carbon monoxide) going out, not via pee/poop as many people might think, so heavier breathing during exercise to get more oxygen in is also an indication of more carbon out/calories burned.
Thanks for taking the time to explain!
I don’t think you can burn calories without oxygen intake directly proportional to the calorie loss, so it’s actually an excellent measure. Is oxygen not what allows us to catalyze the energy in the first place?
You can burn calories without oxygen (anaerobic metabolism), but it mainly occurs during really intense exercise or loss of blood flow. I think it ends up averaging out in the long run, but I'm not really finding answers at my reading level. At mild exertion levels, the o2-calorie relationship is basically 1:1.
The "true" answer would be a whole-room calorimeter, 
but thats a much more significant investment of time and resources.
Even with anaerobic metabolism, the process produces lactate and pyruvate as a byproduct that the body needs to clear that out, which generally involves oxygen consumption. So the energy expenditure might spike in that moment without a corresponding spike in oxygen in that moment, but the amount over time should increase to where the overall amount should still correlate with total calori expenditure.
That's kinda what I assumed, but again: don't read good. What's the time scale to make up the difference?
That is correct. The core chemistry of animal life requires that oxygen is used at a directly proportional rate to metabolic rate. This makes oxygen use an excellent measure of energy use.
If that's true, that makes more sense.
Would that hold true for someone who just has better musculature in their legs, and needs more calories to maintain that muscle? I suppose the average difference in oxygen consumption standing versus sitting wouldn't necessarily be impacted by muscle any more than it would be by anything else.
Fair enough!