PURPOSES: To validate the energy expenditure estimated from The Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (MLTPAQ) with total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by doubly labeled water (DLW), and to present and examine the validity of an extended version of the MLTPAQ with additional questions about inactivity during leisure time (eMLTPAQ), in a sample of Swedish 15-yr-old adolescents. METHODS: Thirty-five 15-yr-old adolescents were interviewed using the eMLTPAQ. In addition to anthropometry, indirect calorimetry was measured to assess basal metabolic rate, and TEE was assessed by the DLW method over a 14-d period. RESULTS: Energy expenditure calculated from MLTPAQ correlated well with TEEDLW (r=0.49, P<0.01), and the correlation increased when including questions about inactivity (r=0.73, P<0.01). However, eMLTPAQ underestimated TEE in 34 of the 35 students, with a mean difference between the methods of 2.8 MJ.d(-1) (95% limits of agreement: -0.1 to 5.6 MJ.d(-1)), which mainly was explained by a relative high intensity in the time which remained unreported. CONCLUSION: eMLTPAQ is valid in ranking adolescents energy expenditure and in describing patterns of leisure time physical activities.
PURPOSES: To validate the energy expenditure estimated from The Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (MLTPAQ) with total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by doubly labeled water (DLW), and to present and examine the validity of an extended version of the MLTPAQ with additional questions about inactivity during leisure time (eMLTPAQ), in a sample of Swedish 15-yr-old adolescents. METHODS: Thirty-five 15-yr-old adolescents were interviewed using the eMLTPAQ. In addition to anthropometry, indirect calorimetry was measured to assess basal metabolic rate, and TEE was assessed by the DLW method over a 14-d period. RESULTS: Energy expenditure calculated from MLTPAQ correlated well with TEEDLW (r=0.49, P<0.01), and the correlation increased when including questions about inactivity (r=0.73, P<0.01). However, eMLTPAQ underestimated TEE in 34 of the 35 students, with a mean difference between the methods of 2.8 MJ.d(-1) (95% limits of agreement: -0.1 to 5.6 MJ.d(-1)), which mainly was explained by a relative high intensity in the time which remained unreported. CONCLUSION: eMLTPAQ is valid in ranking adolescents energy expenditure and in describing patterns of leisure time physical activities.
Authors: Laura E Middleton; Todd M Manini; Eleanor M Simonsick; Tamara B Harris; Deborah E Barnes; Frances Tylavsky; Jennifer S Brach; James E Everhart; Kristine Yaffe Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-07-19
Authors: Jose A Serrano-Sanchez; Sara Martí-Trujillo; Angela Lera-Navarro; Cecilia Dorado-García; Juan J González-Henríquez; Joaquín Sanchís-Moysi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Heidi Tikkanen-Dolenc; Johan Wadén; Carol Forsblom; Valma Harjutsalo; Lena M Thorn; Markku Saraheimo; Nina Elonen; Kustaa Hietala; Paula Summanen; Heikki O Tikkanen; Per-Henrik Groop Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 4.280