Relationship between motor efficiency and health in sedentary desk-workers: a cross-sectional study

Purpose: Desk workers typically live in physical inactivity and sedentary conditions. They remain seated for about 10 hours daily during working activities. Consequently, sedentary occupations are often associated with increased cardiovascular risk and a higher likelihood of developing musculoskeletal diseases. Conversely, physical activity and efficiency are valuable and strictly related to principal health outcomes, especially in sedentary populations. Hence, this study investigated the relationships between physical efficiency and health outcomes in a desk workers’ sample. Methods: Sixty-seven desk workers spending daily at least five hours in sedentary behaviour during working hours were recruited to participate in this cross-sectional study. After familiarization, they underwent a submaximal battery test (Cubo Fitness Test, CFT) to assess cardiovascular, muscular, and flexibility fitness, resulting in a final index of motor efficiency. The CFT was administered twice to calculate the participants' reliability further. Accelerometers and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire measured the weekly physical activity. Participants further completed questionnaires regarding eating habits, psychological well-being, and self-efficacy. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was performed to investigate correlations between CFT and health-related variables. Results: Weak but significant correlations were found. As expected, and widely evidenced by the literature, the time spent in physical activity correlated with physical fitness (from r = 0.262 to r = 0.341 in the CFT tests) and motor efficiency (r = 0.253). In addition, desk workers who are more trained in cardiorespiratory fitness seem to be more educated about adequate eating habits (from r = 0.277 to r = 0.317), maybe due to personal interest in wellness. A possible relationship between muscular tone and self-efficacy can be detected (correlations between shoulder mobility and self-efficacy: r = 0.365; between sit and reach and self-efficacy: r = -0.279), but more data are needed to deepen the topic. Conclusions: Physical fitness and physical efficiency seem to play little role in psychological well-being, possibly because of the low amount of physical activity performed by participants (they spent 84% of the day in sedentary behavior) and the high impact of sedentary work (7.6 ± 1.8 hours/day) in generating stress during daily routine.