PURPOSE: This study tested the validity of four motion sensors for measuring energy expenditure (EE) during moderate intensity physical activities in field and laboratory settings. We also evaluated the accuracy of the EE values for selected moderate activities listed in the 1993 Compendium of Physical Activities. METHODS: A total of 81 participants (age 19-74 yr) completed selected tasks from six general categories: yardwork, housework, occupation, family care, conditioning, and recreation. Twelve individuals performed each of the 28 activities examined. During each activity, EE was measured using a portable metabolic measurement system. Participants also wore three accelerometers (Computer Science and Applications [CSA], Inc. model 7164; Caltrac; and Kenz Select 2) and the Yamax SW-701 electronic pedometer. For the CSA device, three previously developed regression equations were used to convert accelerometer scores to EE. RESULTS: The mean error scores (indirect calorimetry minus device) across all activities were: CSA1, 0.97 MET; CSA2, 0.47 MET, CSA3, 0.05 MET; Caltrac, 0.83 MET; Kenz, 0.96 MET; and Yamax, 1.12 MET. The correlation coefficients between indirect calorimetry and motion sensors ranged from r = 0.33 to r = 0.62. The energy cost for power mowing and sweeping/mopping was higher than that listed in the 1993 Compendium (P < 0.05), and the cost for several household and recreational activities was lower (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Motion sensors tended to overpredict EE during walking. However, they underpredicted the energy cost of many other activities because of an inability to detect arm movements and external work. These findings illustrate some of the limitations of using motion sensors to predict EE in field settings.
PURPOSE: This study tested the validity of four motion sensors for measuring energy expenditure (EE) during moderate intensity physical activities in field and laboratory settings. We also evaluated the accuracy of the EE values for selected moderate activities listed in the 1993 Compendium of Physical Activities. METHODS: A total of 81 participants (age 19-74 yr) completed selected tasks from six general categories: yardwork, housework, occupation, family care, conditioning, and recreation. Twelve individuals performed each of the 28 activities examined. During each activity, EE was measured using a portable metabolic measurement system. Participants also wore three accelerometers (Computer Science and Applications [CSA], Inc. model 7164; Caltrac; and Kenz Select 2) and the Yamax SW-701 electronic pedometer. For the CSA device, three previously developed regression equations were used to convert accelerometer scores to EE. RESULTS: The mean error scores (indirect calorimetry minus device) across all activities were: CSA1, 0.97 MET; CSA2, 0.47 MET, CSA3, 0.05 MET; Caltrac, 0.83 MET; Kenz, 0.96 MET; and Yamax, 1.12 MET. The correlation coefficients between indirect calorimetry and motion sensors ranged from r = 0.33 to r = 0.62. The energy cost for power mowing and sweeping/mopping was higher than that listed in the 1993 Compendium (P < 0.05), and the cost for several household and recreational activities was lower (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Motion sensors tended to overpredict EE during walking. However, they underpredicted the energy cost of many other activities because of an inability to detect arm movements and external work. These findings illustrate some of the limitations of using motion sensors to predict EE in field settings.
Authors: Anthony G Brooks; Robert T Withers; Christopher J Gore; Andrew J Vogler; John Plummer; John Cormack Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2003-12-18 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Kong Y Chen; Sari A Acra; Karen Majchrzak; Candice L Donahue; Lemont Baker; Linda Clemens; Ming Sun; Maciej S Buchowski Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2003 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Simon M Gunn; Grant E van der Ploeg; Robert T Withers; Christopher J Gore; Neville Owen; Adrian E Bauman; John Cormack Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2003-09-04 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Mai J M Chinapaw; Lidwine B Mokkink; Mireille N M van Poppel; Willem van Mechelen; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Robert G McMurray; Kimberly B Ring; Margarita S Treuth; Gregory J Welk; Russell R Pate; Kathryn H Schmitz; Julie L Pickrel; Vivian Gonzalez; M Jaoa C A Almedia; Deborah Rohm Young; James F Sallis Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.411