PURPOSE: a) Compare the predictive potential of speed and CSA(hip) (Computer Science Applications accelerometer positioned on the hip) for level terrain walking METs (1 MET = VO2 of 3.5 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) and energy expenditure (kcal.min(-1)); b) cross-validate previously published CSA(hip)- and speed-based MET and energy expenditure prediction equations; c) measure self-paced walking speed, exercise intensity (METs) and energy expenditure in the middle aged population. METHODS: Seventy-two 35- to 45-yr-old volunteers walked around a level, paved quadrangle at what they perceived to be a moderate pace. Oxygen consumption was measured using the criterion Douglas bag technique. Speed, CSA(hip), heart rate, and Borg rating of perceived exertion were also monitored. RESULTS: Speed explained 10% more variance of walking METs than CSA(hip). Speed and mass explained 8% more variance of walking energy expenditure (kcal.min) than CSA(hip) and mass. The best previously published regression equations predict our walking METs and energy expenditures within 95% prediction limits of +/- 0.7 METs and +/- 1.0 kcal.min(-1), respectively. Women paced themselves at a significantly higher mean speed (5.5 km.h(-1)) and intensity (4.1 METs) than their male counterparts (5.2 km.h(-1) and 3.8 METs). Both genders expended approximately 0.75 kcal.kg(-1) for every kilometer of level terrain walked. CONCLUSION: Speed-based MET and energy expenditure predictions during level terrain walking were more accurate than those utilizing CSA(hip).
PURPOSE: a) Compare the predictive potential of speed and CSA(hip) (Computer Science Applications accelerometer positioned on the hip) for level terrain walking METs (1 MET = VO2 of 3.5 mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) and energy expenditure (kcal.min(-1)); b) cross-validate previously published CSA(hip)- and speed-based MET and energy expenditure prediction equations; c) measure self-paced walking speed, exercise intensity (METs) and energy expenditure in the middle aged population. METHODS: Seventy-two 35- to 45-yr-old volunteers walked around a level, paved quadrangle at what they perceived to be a moderate pace. Oxygen consumption was measured using the criterion Douglas bag technique. Speed, CSA(hip), heart rate, and Borg rating of perceived exertion were also monitored. RESULTS: Speed explained 10% more variance of walking METs than CSA(hip). Speed and mass explained 8% more variance of walking energy expenditure (kcal.min) than CSA(hip) and mass. The best previously published regression equations predict our walking METs and energy expenditures within 95% prediction limits of +/- 0.7 METs and +/- 1.0 kcal.min(-1), respectively. Women paced themselves at a significantly higher mean speed (5.5 km.h(-1)) and intensity (4.1 METs) than their male counterparts (5.2 km.h(-1) and 3.8 METs). Both genders expended approximately 0.75 kcal.kg(-1) for every kilometer of level terrain walked. CONCLUSION: Speed-based MET and energy expenditure predictions during level terrain walking were more accurate than those utilizing CSA(hip).
Authors: Dane R Van Domelen; Paolo Caserotti; Robert J Brychta; Tamara B Harris; Kushang V Patel; Kong Y Chen; Nanna Ýr Arnardóttir; Gudny Eirikdottir; Lenore J Launer; Vilmundur Gudnason; Thórarinn Sveinsson; Erlingur Jóhannsson; Annemarie Koster Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2013-02-08
Authors: Hans Van Remoortel; Santiago Giavedoni; Yogini Raste; Chris Burtin; Zafeiris Louvaris; Elena Gimeno-Santos; Daniel Langer; Alastair Glendenning; Nicholas S Hopkinson; Ioannis Vogiatzis; Barry T Peterson; Frederick Wilson; Bridget Mann; Roberto Rabinovich; Milo A Puhan; Thierry Troosters Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Maedeh Mansoubi; Natalie Pearson; Stacy A Clemes; Stuart Jh Biddle; Danielle H Bodicoat; Keith Tolfrey; Charlotte L Edwardson; Thomas Yates Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: John C Sieverdes; Eric E Wickel; Gregory A Hand; Marco Bergamin; Robert R Moran; Steven N Blair Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 4.790