Dinesh John1, Brian Tyo, David R Bassett. 1. University of Tennessee, Department of Exercise, Sport, and Leisure Studies, Knoxville, TN 37996-2700, USA. djohn1@utk.edu
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Currently, researchers can use the ActiGraph 7164 or one of three different versions of the ActiGraph GT1M to objectively measure physical activity. PURPOSE: To determine whether differences exist between activity counts from the ActiGraph 7164 and the three versions of the GT1M at given walking and running speeds. METHODS: Ten male participants (23.6 +/- 2.7 yr) completed treadmill walking and running at 10 different speeds (3-min stages) while wearing the ActiGraph 7164 and the latest GT1M (GT1M-V3) or the GT1M version one (GT1M-V1) and the GT1M version two (GT1M-V2). Participants walked at 3, 5, and 7 km x h(-1) followed by running at 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 km x h(-1). The accelerometers were worn on an elastic belt around the waist over the left and right sides of the hip. Testing was performed on different days using a counterbalanced within-subjects design to account for potential differences attributable to accelerometer placement. At each speed, a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine differences between activity counts in counts per minute (cpm). Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments were used where appropriate. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between activity counts at any given walking or running speed (P < 0.05). At all running speeds, activity counts from the ActiGraph 7164 and GT1M-V2 displayed the lowest and highest values, respectively. Output from all accelerometers peaked at 14 km x h(-1) (mean range = 8974 +/- 677 to 9412 +/- 982 cpm) and then gradually declined at higher speeds. The mean difference score at peak output between the ActiGraph 7164 and GT1M-V2 was 439 +/- 565 cpm. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences between outputs from all the accelerometers, indicating that researchers can select any of the four ActiGraph accelerometers in doing research.
UNLABELLED: Currently, researchers can use the ActiGraph 7164 or one of three different versions of the ActiGraph GT1M to objectively measure physical activity. PURPOSE: To determine whether differences exist between activity counts from the ActiGraph 7164 and the three versions of the GT1M at given walking and running speeds. METHODS: Ten male participants (23.6 +/- 2.7 yr) completed treadmill walking and running at 10 different speeds (3-min stages) while wearing the ActiGraph 7164 and the latest GT1M (GT1M-V3) or the GT1M version one (GT1M-V1) and the GT1M version two (GT1M-V2). Participants walked at 3, 5, and 7 km x h(-1) followed by running at 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 km x h(-1). The accelerometers were worn on an elastic belt around the waist over the left and right sides of the hip. Testing was performed on different days using a counterbalanced within-subjects design to account for potential differences attributable to accelerometer placement. At each speed, a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine differences between activity counts in counts per minute (cpm). Post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments were used where appropriate. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between activity counts at any given walking or running speed (P < 0.05). At all running speeds, activity counts from the ActiGraph 7164 and GT1M-V2 displayed the lowest and highest values, respectively. Output from all accelerometers peaked at 14 km x h(-1) (mean range = 8974 +/- 677 to 9412 +/- 982 cpm) and then gradually declined at higher speeds. The mean difference score at peak output between the ActiGraph 7164 and GT1M-V2 was 439 +/- 565 cpm. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences between outputs from all the accelerometers, indicating that researchers can select any of the four ActiGraph accelerometers in doing research.
Authors: Søren Brage; Niels Wedderkopp; Paul W Franks; Lars Bo Andersen; Karsten Froberg Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Bumjoon Kang; Anne V Moudon; Philip M Hurvitz; Lucas Reichley; Brian E Saelens Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Elizabeth A Awick; Diane K Ehlers; Susan Aguiñaga; Ana M Daugherty; Arthur F Kramer; Edward McAuley Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: James F Sallis; Terry L Conway; Kelli L Cain; Jordan A Carlson; Lawrence D Frank; Jacqueline Kerr; Karen Glanz; James E Chapman; Brian E Saelens Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 4.018
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