Elaine C Rush1, Mauro E Valencia, Lindsay D Plank. 1. Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. elaine.rush@aut.ac.nz
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of physical activity intensity and duration is essential for understanding group activity patterns. METHODS: The present study evaluated the validity of measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) and physical activity level (PAL) using a categorized physical activity diary. In 29 young healthy men, aged 18-27 years, with body mass index range 21-43 kg m(-2), TEE using doubly-labelled water (DLW), resting metabolic rate (RMR) by indirect calorimetry, physical activity level (PAL defined as TEE/RMR) and activity pattern, timing and level from 7-day physical activity diaries were determined. RESULTS: TEE by DLW and estimated by activity diary were correlated (r = 0.61, p = 0.005). The mean underestimation of TEE by the activity diary compared with the DLW method was 2.50 +/- 0.72 MJ day(-1). Sedentary (lying, sitting and standing) time averaged 18 h day(-1) and was negatively correlated with PAL (r = -0.44, p = 0.018) whilst time spent in light intensity activity (5 h day(-1)) was positively correlated (r = 0.51, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the categorized physical activity diary measured TEE with limited accuracy but presents an inexpensive, convenient method of discriminating individual and group physical activity patterns.
BACKGROUND: The assessment of physical activity intensity and duration is essential for understanding group activity patterns. METHODS: The present study evaluated the validity of measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) and physical activity level (PAL) using a categorized physical activity diary. In 29 young healthy men, aged 18-27 years, with body mass index range 21-43 kg m(-2), TEE using doubly-labelled water (DLW), resting metabolic rate (RMR) by indirect calorimetry, physical activity level (PAL defined as TEE/RMR) and activity pattern, timing and level from 7-day physical activity diaries were determined. RESULTS: TEE by DLW and estimated by activity diary were correlated (r = 0.61, p = 0.005). The mean underestimation of TEE by the activity diary compared with the DLW method was 2.50 +/- 0.72 MJ day(-1). Sedentary (lying, sitting and standing) time averaged 18 h day(-1) and was negatively correlated with PAL (r = -0.44, p = 0.018) whilst time spent in light intensity activity (5 h day(-1)) was positively correlated (r = 0.51, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the categorized physical activity diary measured TEE with limited accuracy but presents an inexpensive, convenient method of discriminating individual and group physical activity patterns.
Authors: Philip Lambrechtse; Victoria C Ziesenitz; Andrew Atkinson; Ernst Jan Bos; Tatjana Welzel; Yael Gilgen; Nicolas Gürtler; Simone Heuscher; Adam Frederik Cohen; Johannes N van den Anker Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Winifred D Paulis; Marienke van Middelkoop; Herman Bueving; Pim A J Luijsterburg; Johannes C van der Wouden; Bart W Koes Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Simone Kohler; Gundula Behrens; Matthias Olden; Sebastian E Baumeister; Alexander Horsch; Beate Fischer; Michael F Leitzmann Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Kieran P Dowd; Robert Szeklicki; Marco Alessandro Minetto; Marie H Murphy; Angela Polito; Ezio Ghigo; Hidde van der Ploeg; Ulf Ekelund; Janusz Maciaszek; Rafal Stemplewski; Maciej Tomczak; Alan E Donnelly Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Karen E M Harmelink; A V C M Zeegers; Thijs M Tönis; Wim Hullegie; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; J Bart Staal Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 2.362