Literature DB >> 16015141

Predicting walking METs and energy expenditure from speed or accelerometry.

Anthony G Brooks1, Simon M Gunn, Robert T Withers, Christopher J Gore, John L Plummer.   

Abstract

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).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16015141     DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000170074.19649.0e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc        ISSN: 0195-9131            Impact factor:   5.411


  26 in total

1.  Estimating energy expenditure using accelerometers.

Authors:  Scott E Crouter; James R Churilla; David R Bassett
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2006-10-21       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Is there a sex difference in accelerometer counts during walking in older adults?

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

3.  Comparison of accelerometer cut points to estimate physical activity in US adults.

Authors:  Kathleen B Watson; Susan A Carlson; Dianna D Carroll; Janet E Fulton
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 3.337

Review 4.  Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review.

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

5.  Energy expenditure during common sitting and standing tasks: examining the 1.5 MET definition of sedentary behaviour.

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

6.  Effectiveness of three different walking prescription durations on total physical activity in normal- and overweight women.

Authors:  Yves Schutz; Dac Min Tuan Nguyen; Nuala M Byrne; Andrew P Hills
Journal:  Obes Facts       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.942

7.  Reliability and validity of the Mywellness Key physical activity monitor.

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

8.  Accelerometer Cut Points for Physical Activity Assessment of Older Adults with Parkinson's Disease.

Authors:  Håkan Nero; Martin Benka Wallén; Erika Franzén; Agneta Ståhle; Maria Hagströmer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Ground reaction force estimates from ActiGraph GT3X+ hip accelerations.

Authors:  Jennifer M Neugebauer; Kelsey H Collins; David A Hawkins
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Perceived and Objective Measures of Neighborhood Environment for Physical Activity Among Mexican Adults, 2011.

Authors:  Alejandra Jáuregui; Deborah Salvo; Héctor Lamadrid-Figueroa; Bernardo Hernández; Juan A Rivera-Dommarco; Michael Pratt
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 2.830

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.