Keerin Mekhora

Determining Sincerity of Effort Based on Grip Strength Test in Three Wrist Positions

Background Several grip strength tests are commonly used for detecting sincerity of effort. However, there is still no widely accepted standardized sincerity of effort test. Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether grip strength test in three wrist positions could distinguish between maximal and submaximal efforts. Methods Twenty healthy individuals (10 men and 10 women) with a mean age of 26.7 ± 3.92 years participated in this study. All participants completed two test conditions (maximal and submaximal efforts) in three wrist positions (neutral, flexion, and extension) using both hands. Each participant exerted 100% effort in the maximal effort condition and 50% effort in the submaximal effort condition. The participants performed three repetitions of the grip strength test for each session. Results The results showed that there is a significant main effect of the type of effort (p < 0.001), wrist position (p < 0.001), and hand (p = 0.028). There were also significant types of effort and wrist position interactions (p < 0.001) and effort and hand interactions (p < 0.028). The results also showed that grip strength was highest at the wrist in neutral position in both the maximal and the submaximal effort condition. Grip strength values of the three wrist positions in the maximal effort condition were noticeably greater than those in the submaximal effort condition. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that grip strength test in three wrist positions can differentiate a maximal effort from a submaximal effort. Thus, this test could potentially be used to detect sincerity of effort in clinical setting.

Break in Sedentary Behavior Reduces the Risk of Noncommunicable Diseases and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors among Workers in a Petroleum Company

Although prolonged sitting appears as a novel risk factor related to health outcomes for all ages, its association needs to be replicated in occupational conditions. This study explored the associations between sedentary behavior and four noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) as well as two cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRFs) among workers in a petroleum company, Thailand. All workers were invited to complete the online self-report questionnaire. Sedentary behavior was measured as the amount of time sitting at work, during recreation, and while commuting. Out of 3365 workers contacted, 1133 (34%) participated. Prevalence of NCDs and CMRFs was 36% and was positively associated with sedentary behavior. After adjusting for age, BMI, and exercise, the risk of NCDs and CMRFs for sedentary office work was 40% greater compared with more active field work. Those who took a break without sitting more than twice a day and commuted by walking or cycling had less risk of NCDs and CMRFs. The total duration of sedentary behavior was 10 h/day, and two-thirds of that total was workplace sitting. This was significantly associated with NCDs and CMRFs (p < 0.001). Day-and-night rotating shiftwork was negatively associated with NCDs and CMRFs (p < 0.001). Sedentary behavior should be considered a health risk among workers. Hence, to promote a healthy lifestyle and safe workplace, organizations should encourage standing activities during break and physically active commutes, and have workers avoid prolonged sitting.