The Science of Movement at Work
An Evidence Review of FluidStance Balance Boards
Movement is Medicine.
Most of us do not need to be convinced that movement matters. The harder problem is finding enough of it in a day increasingly organized around screens, desks, meetings, and long periods in one place.
FluidStance was created around a simple idea: work does not have to be motionless.
A standing desk changes posture. A FluidStance balance board changes what happens while you stand. Its purpose is not to turn the workday into a workout or force the user to fight for balance. It is designed to introduce subtle, continuous movement beneath the feet while allowing normal desk work to continue.
Over more than a decade, that idea has been examined through biomechanics testing, metabolic testing, academic research, a peer-reviewed occupational study, and research with hundreds of FluidStance customers.
The findings come from different researchers, different protocols, and different measurements. Yet they point in the same direction:
When people work on a FluidStance balance board, they move more. That movement produces measurable physiological activity beyond sitting and, when measured, beyond static standing, without requiring them to stop working.
This paper reviews that body of evidence.
FluidStance balance boards are designed to add natural movement to standing work. The Level was the FluidStance balance board used in the research summarized in this paper. The Original, Level, and Plane Cloud share the same fundamental functional ride and movement principle. While the individual models have not each been separately studied, FluidStance applies the findings from research conducted on the Level across its balance-board family on the basis of that shared functionality.
Five bodies of research provide the foundation for what we know about the FluidStance experience.
University of Idaho: Peer-Reviewed Occupational Research
The strongest scientific evidence comes from researchers at the University of Idaho, whose randomized crossover study was published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise in 2018.
Thirty adults employed in sedentary occupations performed typing work for 30 minutes in each of three conditions: sitting, standing, and standing on the FluidStance Level. Oxygen consumption, energy expenditure, heart rate, typing productivity, fatigue, and pain were measured.
The FluidStance condition produced the highest oxygen consumption and highest energy expenditure of all three working positions.
Based on the published mean values:
The paper reports that the balance board used in the study was the Level by FluidStance and that no financial support was provided in relation to the project. 1
Mayo Clinic Arizona: 19.2% Greater Energy Expenditure
Testing conducted through Mayo Clinic Arizona found that the FluidStance Level increased energy expenditure by 19.2%, and the product passed the criteria for NEAT® Certification for standing.
Thirty office workers of varying age and body type completed conditions involving resting energy expenditure, sitting, standing, FluidStance, and walking. The surviving certification memo reports the 19.2% increase and confirms that the Level exceeded the required NEAT certification threshold of more than 10% greater energy expenditure over sitting. 2
Westmont College: More Metabolic Activity Than Static Standing
Researchers at Westmont College independently examined the metabolic effect of standing on the Level compared with normal standing.
Eighteen participants completed resting, normal-standing, and FluidStance conditions while oxygen consumption and other physiological measures were collected.
The researchers concluded that standing on the Level increased oxygen consumption by approximately 21% compared with normal standing, equivalent to approximately 14.8 additional kcal per hour under the study conditions. 3
Heeluxe Lab: Movement Within a Functional Range
Biomechanics testing conducted by Heeluxe Lab examined heart rate, typing errors, and ankle movement while using FluidStance.
Heart rate averaged 80.2 beats per minute while sitting and 92.4 beats per minute while working on FluidStance, an increase of approximately 15%.
Heeluxe measured 23.98 degrees of total ankle range of motion, consisting of 10.03 degrees of plantarflexion and 13.67 degrees of dorsiflexion.
The test also found no difference in typing errors between the FluidStance and seated conditions. 4
Real-World Customer Research: Movement People Actually Use
A 30-question mixed quantitative and qualitative customer study conducted in November 2015 included 464 FluidStance customers. 5
Among respondents:
These findings are self-reported customer experiences rather than laboratory outcomes, but they provide an important complement to the physiological research: people did not simply demonstrate movement during testing. Many incorporated it into everyday work.
The FluidStance Idea: Standing Is the Starting Point
FluidStance began with an observation.
Standing desks solve one problem extremely well: they allow someone to stop sitting.
But standing is still a posture.
Movement is a behavior.
The distinction matters to how FluidStance approaches the workday. The goal is not to maximize sitting or standing as isolated positions. The goal is to create more opportunities to move throughout the day.
That is the principle behind every FluidStance balance board.
Unlike a traditional training-oriented balance board, a FluidStance board is not designed primarily to make remaining upright difficult. Its geometry allows three-dimensional movement while keeping the experience controlled enough for normal work.
The result is a platform that responds to the user. Small shifts of the ankles, legs, hips, and body cause the board to move. The user can rock, tilt, shift, rotate, or remain relatively still. The motion is self-directed rather than prescribed.
This distinction also separates the role of FluidStance from exercise.
A FluidStance balance board is not a substitute for walking, strength training, cardiovascular exercise, sport, or other intentional physical activity. Instead, it addresses the much larger portion of the day between those activities.
It makes movement available while work is happening.
That is the central question behind the research reviewed here:
Can we introduce meaningful movement into desk work without getting in the way of the work itself?
The evidence suggests that we can.
University of Idaho
The Strongest Scientific Evidence
The most comprehensive independent research on FluidStance was conducted at the University of Idaho's Exercise Physiology Research Laboratory.
The study, led by Megan C. Nelson with Madeline P. Casanova and Chantal A. Vella, was published in the peer-reviewed journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise in 2018. 1 The University of Idaho research repository identifies the publication as a peer-reviewed journal article.
The researchers set out to answer a particularly relevant workplace question.
Would standing on a balance board increase energy expenditure compared with sitting and ordinary standing, and could workers gain that increase without sacrificing productivity?
Thirty healthy adults employed in sedentary-based jobs participated in a randomized crossover trial.
Participants were 60% female, averaged approximately 40 years of age, and represented a range of body types. Each participant completed all three working conditions:
Each condition lasted 30 minutes and consisted of typing work.
The researchers explicitly identify the balance board used in the methods section as the Level, FluidStance, Santa Barbara, California. The order of conditions was randomized and counterbalanced.
Researchers measured:
Oxygen consumption was measured using indirect calorimetry, allowing researchers to quantify metabolic activity while participants performed actual desk work.
Oxygen Consumption
Mean VO₂, mL/kg/min. Differences among all three conditions were statistically significant at p < .001.
Energy Expenditure
Mean energy expenditure, kcal/min. Statistically significant differences among all three conditions.
The distinction between VO₂ and VO₂ max is important. This was not a maximal exercise test and the researchers did not measure VO₂ max. They measured oxygen consumption during desk work.
That makes the finding especially relevant to FluidStance.
The question is not how intensely someone can exercise on a board. It is whether the body does measurably more while the person continues doing ordinary office work.
In this study, it did.
This is an important part of the FluidStance story.
Standing alone increased metabolic activity compared with sitting.
Adding movement increased it further.
Productivity
Increasing activity at work is only useful if people can still work.
The Idaho researchers therefore measured productivity rather than assuming it.
Typing accuracy was similarly close across all three conditions, as was the number of mistakes.
There were no statistically significant differences in productivity among sitting, standing, and FluidStance.
This may be the study's most important practical finding.
The FluidStance condition produced the highest oxygen consumption and energy expenditure without a measurable productivity tradeoff.
In other words:
Move more. Keep working.
Mean typing speeds, words per minute.
Pain and Fatigue
Average self-reported fatigue and pain were not significantly different across the three conditions.
There was, however, an interesting difference in how pain changed over time. During sitting and FluidStance conditions, reported pain rose between minutes 10 and 20 and then leveled off. During static standing, pain continued to increase through the 30-minute condition.
This finding should not be interpreted as evidence that FluidStance treats pain. The study was not designed to establish a therapeutic effect.
It does provide additional context, however, for the broader conclusion that the increased metabolic demand of the FluidStance condition did not come with a measured increase in average discomfort compared with sitting or standing during the trial.
Why This Study Matters
The University of Idaho research is the scientific cornerstone of the FluidStance evidence base because it combines several characteristics that matter:
And the researchers reported that there was no financial support in relation to the project.
Most importantly, the study addresses the fundamental purpose for which FluidStance was created.
The Level did not simply make standing less static.
It produced measurable additional metabolic activity while people continued working.
Mayo Clinic Arizona
19.2% Greater Energy Expenditure
If the University of Idaho study provides the deepest scientific examination of FluidStance, testing through Mayo Clinic Arizona provides another important and independently derived metabolic result.
In March 2017, James A. Levine, MD, PhD, informed FluidStance that the Level had passed NEAT® Certification criteria for standing.
NEAT stands for Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis and describes energy expended through activities that are not sleeping, eating, or structured sports-like exercise.
The concept is particularly relevant to FluidStance because the product is designed for exactly this part of life: movement that occurs while doing something else.
The Mayo Protocol
According to the certification memo, 30 office workers of varying age and body type completed a protocol involving:
Energy expenditure and heart rate were measured.
The certification memo states:
Energy expenditure increased by 19.2%.
The memo further states that the Level passed NEAT Certification criteria for standing by increasing energy expenditure over sitting by more than the required 10% threshold. 2
What We Can and Cannot Say From the Mayo Data
The Mayo research is one reason FluidStance has historically communicated the 19.2% increase in energy expenditure.
That claim remains appropriate when it is attributed specifically:
Mayo Clinic testing found 19.2% greater energy expenditure on the FluidStance Level compared with sitting.
The surviving certification memo confirms that standing was included as a separate test condition. It does not, however, report a numerical FluidStance-versus-standing result.
For that reason, this paper does not infer one.
This distinction is intentional.
Where a study reports sitting and standing comparisons, we present both. Where the source does not provide the necessary data, we do not manufacture the comparison.
Why Mayo Matters
The Mayo result is valuable on its own.
It is also important when viewed alongside the later University of Idaho research.
Using a separate population and separate protocol, Mayo found a 19.2% increase in energy expenditure over sitting.
The University of Idaho later found approximately 16.5% greater energy expenditure over sitting based on its published mean values.
Those percentages are not identical, nor should we expect them to be.
They were produced by different researchers, with different participants, protocols, measurement conditions, and analytical methods.
What matters is the consistency of the direction of the finding:
FluidStance increased energy expenditure compared with sitting in both research settings.
Westmont College
Independent Validation Beyond Static Standing
A study at Westmont College asked another useful question:
What happens when FluidStance is compared not with sitting, but with ordinary standing?
The research was conducted by Jessica Erickson, Kayla Darnbrough, Robert Mendez, and faculty advisor Dr. Gregg Afman.
Eighteen participants, including 10 women and 8 men, participated in the study. 3
Study Design
Participants completed three 20-minute conditions:
The standing and FluidStance conditions were randomized.
Participants were instructed to move for their own comfort, and expired gas analysis was used to assess metabolic activity.
Oxygen consumption, ventilation, heart rate, and metabolic rate were measured. 3
Findings
Westmont reported significantly greater oxygen consumption on the Level compared with normal standing.
The investigators' stated conclusion was:
Standing on the Level increased oxygen consumption by approximately 21% compared with normal standing. They translated that metabolic difference to approximately 14.8 additional kcal per hour under the conditions of the study. 3
The researchers also reported increased ventilation and heart rate during the FluidStance condition.
Why Westmont Matters
Westmont is not the most scientifically significant study in the FluidStance evidence base.
Its value is different.
It provides additional third-party confirmation, using a different research team and methodology, that adding movement to standing changes metabolic demand.
It is particularly useful because its primary comparison was the one that matters to many standing-desk users:
FluidStance versus simply standing still.
In the Idaho study, FluidStance produced higher oxygen consumption and energy expenditure than ordinary standing.
In the Westmont study, researchers again reported greater metabolic activity on the Level compared with ordinary standing.
That consistency strengthens the overall evidence.
Heeluxe Lab
Understanding the Ride
The metabolic studies tell us that something physiological changes when people work on FluidStance.
The Heeluxe Lab work helps explain the movement itself.
In December 2014, Heeluxe conducted biomechanics testing of a FluidStance production model. Heeluxe describes itself as a private science center specializing in footwear research and biomechanics testing. 4
The archived research brief focused on three questions:
Heart Rate
Average heart rate was:
The difference was statistically significant at p < .001. That represents approximately a 15% increase in heart rate during the FluidStance condition. 4
Heart rate is not the same measurement as oxygen consumption or energy expenditure, so the Heeluxe percentage should not be compared directly with the metabolic percentages reported by Mayo, Idaho, or Westmont.
It is another physiological signal produced under a different testing protocol.
Typing Errors
Heeluxe reported an average of:
The laboratory concluded that there was no difference in errors made while typing between the two conditions. 4
Years later, the University of Idaho study would reach a similar practical conclusion using broader productivity measures.
Ankle Range of Motion
Heeluxe measured:
during FluidStance use. 4
Contemporaneous FluidStance research materials compared this measured total range with published ankle movement during walking, supporting the design intent that the FluidStance ride should create meaningful motion while remaining within a familiar functional range.
This is an important distinction in how FluidStance thinks about balance-board design.
The goal is not maximum instability.
The goal is usable movement.
A workday balance board should move enough to engage the body without demanding so much attention that the board becomes the task.
The Heeluxe data and later Idaho productivity findings support that design principle from two different perspectives.
Real-World Research
What Happens After the Lab?
Laboratory measurements answer whether movement occurs and whether it changes physiology.
They do not answer another critical question:
Will people actually use it?
In November 2015, FluidStance conducted customer research using a 30-question mixed quantitative and qualitative survey. The study included 464 respondents and was supplemented with customer interviews. 5
Because these were existing FluidStance customers reporting on their own experiences, the results should not be interpreted in the same way as controlled laboratory findings.
They are self-reported.
They are also useful because they show how FluidStance fit into everyday working behavior outside a lab.
FluidStance Was Primarily a Work Product
Among respondents:
reported using the Level most often at work.
Among workplace users, the overwhelming majority reported using it at their own desk.
This reinforces an important point about the product.
FluidStance may look like a balance board, but its primary use was not recreational balance training.
It was being integrated into normal desk work.
Frequent Use
of survey participants reported using the Level a few times a day.
Among customers reporting daily use, the earlier FluidStance analysis found substantial amounts of time being spent on the board, with many respondents using it for multiple hours during the day.
Use also proved durable for many customers.
Customers who increased their use commonly cited building stamina and feeling better moving than simply sitting or standing.
Standing More
The most consequential behavioral result may be this:
66% of respondents said the Level increased the amount of time they stood at work.
That result matters because a standing desk can only create benefit if someone chooses to use it in the standing position.
Customer research suggested that FluidStance made standing more appealing for many users by adding movement and variety to the experience.
Category One's qualitative analysis reached a similar conclusion, noting that customers particularly valued FluidStance for helping them stand more and for breaking up the discomfort and monotony of static standing with movement.
Comfort and Happiness
The strongest experiential findings were not abstract performance claims.
They were immediate, human ones.
76% agreed that they felt more comfortable when using the Level.
83% agreed that they were happier when using the Level.
Customer interviews help explain why.
Participants repeatedly described movement itself as enjoyable. They talked about rocking, shifting, moving during monotonous work, and getting a physical change of pace without leaving the task at hand.
This is difficult to measure in metabolic units, but it is important to product adoption.
The most physiologically effective product in the world cannot change a workday if it sits unused beside the desk.
Movement has to be something people want to do.
Satisfaction
Overall product satisfaction was high:
for a combined:
95% customer satisfaction.
The research also documented dissatisfaction, declining use, and discomfort among some customers. Reported reasons included foot, knee, or back discomfort, incompatibility with some desk setups, and the novelty wearing off.
Those findings matter.
FluidStance is not the right working position for every person at every moment.
Movement is inherently variable, and the evidence supports using FluidStance as part of a changing workday rather than treating any single posture as something to maintain continuously.
Different Studies. Different Numbers. A Consistent Signal.
Looking across the research, one immediately notices that the percentages are not identical.
They should not be.
These studies were conducted by different researchers using different populations, protocols, durations, control conditions, and measurement systems.
They also measured different physiological outcomes.
These values should not be averaged into a single FluidStance percentage.
Doing so would create a number that no individual study measured.
Instead, each should remain attached to its own source and protocol.
The stronger conclusion comes from the pattern across the research:
Every controlled physiological study in the FluidStance evidence set found greater activity on the Level than its relevant comparison condition.
And where both sitting and ordinary standing were included and reported, FluidStance generated greater metabolic activity than both.
That is the story.
Not one percentage.
A repeated effect.
Standing Is Better Than Sitting. Movement Goes Further.
The University of Idaho research gives us an especially useful way to think about the workday.
Sitting produced the lowest oxygen consumption and energy expenditure.
Standing increased both.
FluidStance increased them further.
This does not mean that someone should stand on a FluidStance balance board all day.
It means that posture and movement are not the same thing.
Moving from sitting to standing changes posture and modestly changes metabolic demand.
Adding movement while standing creates another step.
FluidStance exists to make that step practical.
The same idea appears across the other research.
The customer research then showed that many people actually incorporated this movement into their working lives.
Together, the evidence supports a simple principle:
The goal is not to stand more for the sake of standing.
The goal is to move more.
One Functional Ride Across the FluidStance Balance-Board Family
The research summarized in this paper was conducted using the FluidStance Level.
Today, FluidStance offers three primary balance-board models:
The products differ in construction, materials, feel, and product expression, but they share the same fundamental functional purpose and ride: controlled, multidirectional movement designed for use while working at a standing desk.
FluidStance therefore considers research conducted on the Level relevant to the functional experience of its balance-board family.
This should not be interpreted to mean that every model was individually used in each study.
They were not.
The Level was the research platform.
The broader application of the findings to The Original and Plane Cloud reflects FluidStance's position that the three products share the functional movement characteristics being investigated.
This approach is consistent with FluidStance's historical documentation, which distinguished models by materials and manufacturing while describing them as functionally equivalent.
What the Research Supports
Taken together, the evidence supports several conclusions about FluidStance balance boards.
FluidStance increases movement-related physiological activity compared with sitting.
This is demonstrated through energy-expenditure findings from Mayo Clinic Arizona and the University of Idaho, oxygen-consumption findings from the University of Idaho, and heart-rate findings from Heeluxe.
FluidStance can increase metabolic activity beyond static standing.
Both University of Idaho and Westmont research measured higher metabolic activity on the Level compared with ordinary standing.
The additional movement can occur while desk work continues.
University of Idaho found no significant differences in typing productivity among sitting, standing, and FluidStance conditions.
Heeluxe likewise found no difference in typing errors between seated and FluidStance conditions.
FluidStance produces measurable ankle movement.
Heeluxe measured 23.98 degrees of total ankle range of motion during use, supporting the design objective of creating meaningful but controlled movement.
Many users integrate FluidStance into everyday work.
Customer research found frequent use, high satisfaction, and self-reported increases in standing time.
What the Research Does Not Establish
Scientific credibility requires being equally clear about what has not been demonstrated.
Some customers reported perceived improvements in posture, strength, focus, productivity, comfort, and pain.
Those findings are valuable as customer experiences, but they should not be presented as equivalent to objectively measured laboratory or peer-reviewed outcomes.
The strongest FluidStance story does not require overreaching.
The measured findings are compelling on their own.
The research reviewed here does not establish that FluidStance:
Research Limitations and Interpretation
No single study answers every question.
These limitations do not invalidate the findings.
They define them.
And within those boundaries, a remarkably consistent picture emerges from multiple lines of evidence.
The University of Idaho trial was acute rather than longitudinal. Participants completed 30-minute working conditions rather than using the Level for months or years.
The Mayo certification memo confirms the study conditions and the 19.2% energy-expenditure result but does not provide the complete dataset or a quantified Level-versus-standing comparison.
The archived Westmont material is a research poster rather than a full peer-reviewed manuscript. This paper therefore relies on the investigators' stated 21% conclusion rather than attempting to reconcile every numerical field in the archived poster.
The surviving Heeluxe research brief preserves the primary results but not a complete research manuscript or full methodological record.
The Category One customer research is observational and self-reported. Respondents were existing FluidStance customers, not randomly selected members of the general population.
Finally, the published research was performed using the Level. The Original and Plane Cloud share the functional ride, but neither was separately tested in the studies summarized here.
Movement is Medicine.
FluidStance began with a belief that seems simple:
The human body is made to move.
The modern workday often asks it not to.
A FluidStance balance board does not solve inactivity by turning work into exercise.
It takes a different approach.
It puts movement underneath something people are already doing.
No single study tells the whole story.
Together, they tell a much more compelling one.
Movement can be part of work rather than something we wait until after work to do.
That is the idea FluidStance was built around.
And more than a decade of research supports it.
The research organizations represented in this paper used different protocols and reported different outcomes. Percentage findings are therefore attributed to the individual study from which they originate and are not pooled or averaged.
Where percentage differences from the University of Idaho study are presented, they are calculated from the mean values reported in the peer-reviewed publication and rounded to one decimal place or the nearest whole percentage for consumer readability.
The University of Idaho study states that no financial support was provided in relation to the project. The Mayo Clinic NEAT certification was a paid certification engagement. Funding or relationship details for other research are described only where documented in the surviving source materials.
"Movement is Medicine" expresses FluidStance's brand belief in incorporating movement throughout daily life. It is not intended as a claim that FluidStance products diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent a medical condition.
Nelson MC, Casanova MP, Vella CA. The Effectiveness of Standing on a Balance Board for Increasing Energy Expenditure. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2018;50(8):1710-1717. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001595.
Levine JA. NEAT® Certification Memorandum to FluidStance. Mayo Clinic in Arizona. March 10, 2017.
Erickson J, Darnbrough K, Mendez R, Afman G. The Effect of the Level® on Oxygen Consumption While Standing. Westmont College, Department of Kinesiology. Research poster, 2017.
Heeluxe Lab. FluidStance Production Model Test: Research Results Brief. December 2014.
Category One / FluidStance. FluidStance Customer Survey + Customer Interviews. Survey fielded November 16-22, 2015. 464 respondents.
Biswas A, Oh PI, Faulkner GE, 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;162:123-132.
Levine JA, Lanningham-Foster LM, McCrady SK, et al. Interindividual variation in posture allocation: possible role in human obesity. Science. 2005;307(5709):584-586.
Blanke DJ, Hageman PA. Comparison of gait of young men and elderly men. Physical Therapy. 1989;69:144-148.