BACKGROUND: Increasing daily energy expenditure (EE) plays an important role in the prevention or treatment of several lifestyle-related diseases; however, its measurement remains problematic. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate a portable armband device for measuring daily and physical activity EE compared with doubly labeled water (DLW) in free-living individuals. DESIGN: Daily EE and physical activity EE were measured in 45 subjects over a 10-d period simultaneously with 2 techniques: a portable armband and DLW. Resting metabolic rate was measured by indirect calorimetry, and the thermic effect of a meal was estimated (10% of daily EE). Physical activity EE was obtained by subtracting the values for resting metabolic rate and thermic effect of a meal measured with DLW from those measured with the armband. Body composition was measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Concordance between measures was evaluated by intraclass correlation, SEE, regression analysis, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Mean estimated daily EE measured with the armband was 117 kcal/d lower (2375 +/- 366 kcal/d) than that measured with DLW (2492 +/- 444 kcal/d; P < 0.01). Despite this group difference, individual comparisons between the armband and DLW were close, as evidenced by an intraclass correlation of 0.81 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The portable armband shows reasonable concordance with DLW for measuring daily EE in free-living adults. The armband may therefore be useful to estimate daily EE.
BACKGROUND: Increasing daily energy expenditure (EE) plays an important role in the prevention or treatment of several lifestyle-related diseases; however, its measurement remains problematic. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate a portable armband device for measuring daily and physical activity EE compared with doubly labeled water (DLW) in free-living individuals. DESIGN: Daily EE and physical activity EE were measured in 45 subjects over a 10-d period simultaneously with 2 techniques: a portable armband and DLW. Resting metabolic rate was measured by indirect calorimetry, and the thermic effect of a meal was estimated (10% of daily EE). Physical activity EE was obtained by subtracting the values for resting metabolic rate and thermic effect of a meal measured with DLW from those measured with the armband. Body composition was measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Concordance between measures was evaluated by intraclass correlation, SEE, regression analysis, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Mean estimated daily EE measured with the armband was 117 kcal/d lower (2375 +/- 366 kcal/d) than that measured with DLW (2492 +/- 444 kcal/d; P < 0.01). Despite this group difference, individual comparisons between the armband and DLW were close, as evidenced by an intraclass correlation of 0.81 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The portable armband shows reasonable concordance with DLW for measuring daily EE in free-living adults. The armband may therefore be useful to estimate daily EE.
Authors: Michael D Wirth; Jason R Jaggers; Wesley D Dudgeon; James R Hébert; Shawn D Youngstedt; Steven N Blair; Gregory A Hand Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2015-06
Authors: P J Benito; C Neiva; P S González-Quijano; R Cupeiro; E Morencos; A B Peinado Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Robin P Shook; Gregory A Hand; Clemens Drenowatz; James R Hebert; Amanda E Paluch; John E Blundell; James O Hill; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Timothy S Church; Steven N Blair Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: R P Shook; G A Hand; A E Paluch; X Wang; R Moran; J R Hébert; J M Jakicic; S N Blair Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Kate Lyden; Tracy Swibas; Victoria Catenacci; Ruixin Guo; Neil Szuminsky; Edward L Melanson Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 5.411