BACKGROUND: Actical accelerometer thresholds have been derived to enable objective measurement of time spent performing sedentary activity in children and adolescents, but not adults. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine Actical accelerometer sedentary activity thresholds for adults. METHODS: Data were available from 3187 participants aged 6 to 79 years from a preliminary partial dataset of the Canadian Health Measures Survey, who wore an Actical for 7 days. Step count data were used to evaluate the use of 50, 100, and 800 counts per min (cpm) as sedentary activity thresholds. Minutes when no steps were recorded were considered minutes of sedentary activity. RESULTS: The use of higher cpm thresholds resulted in a greater percentage of sedentary minutes being correctly classified as sedentary. The percentage of minutes that were incorrectly classified as sedentary was substantially higher when using a threshold of 800 cpm compared with 50 or 100 cpm. Results were similar for children, adolescents, and adults. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a threshold of 100 cpm is appropriate for classifying sedentary activity of adults when using the Actical. As such, wear periods with minutes registering less than 100 cpm would be classified as time spent performing sedentary activity.
BACKGROUND: Actical accelerometer thresholds have been derived to enable objective measurement of time spent performing sedentary activity in children and adolescents, but not adults. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine Actical accelerometer sedentary activity thresholds for adults. METHODS: Data were available from 3187 participants aged 6 to 79 years from a preliminary partial dataset of the Canadian Health Measures Survey, who wore an Actical for 7 days. Step count data were used to evaluate the use of 50, 100, and 800 counts per min (cpm) as sedentary activity thresholds. Minutes when no steps were recorded were considered minutes of sedentary activity. RESULTS: The use of higher cpm thresholds resulted in a greater percentage of sedentary minutes being correctly classified as sedentary. The percentage of minutes that were incorrectly classified as sedentary was substantially higher when using a threshold of 800 cpm compared with 50 or 100 cpm. Results were similar for children, adolescents, and adults. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a threshold of 100 cpm is appropriate for classifying sedentary activity of adults when using the Actical. As such, wear periods with minutes registering less than 100 cpm would be classified as time spent performing sedentary activity.
Authors: Chad D Rethorst; Ashley E Moncrieft; Marc D Gellman; Elva M Arredondo; Christina Buelna; Shelia F Castañeda; Martha L Daviglus; Unab I Khan; Krista M Perreira; Daniela Sotres-Alvarez; Mark Stoutenberg Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2017-04-19
Authors: Monica C Serra; Elizabeth Balraj; Beth L DiSanzo; Frederick M Ivey; Charlene E Hafer-Macko; Margarita S Treuth; Alice S Ryan Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 2.119
Authors: Dara H Sorkin; Karen S Rook; Belinda Campos; Becky Marquez; Jessica Solares; Dana B Mukamel; Bess Marcus; David Kilgore; Emily Dow; Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Danh V Nguyen; Kelly Biegler Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Moon Jeong Lee; Jiangxia Wang; David S Friedman; Michael V Boland; Carlos G De Moraes; Pradeep Y Ramulu Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Catrine Tudor-Locke; John M Schuna; H O Han; Elroy J Aguiar; Michael A Green; Michael A Busa; Sandra Larrivee; William D Johnson Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Lara R Dugas; Elin Chorell; Jacob Plange-Rhule; Estelle V Lambert; Guichan Cao; Richard S Cooper; Brian T Layden; Denise Scholten; Tommy Olsson; Amy Luke; Julia H Goedecke Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Elva M Arredondo; Daniela Sotres-Alvarez; Mark Stoutenberg; Sonia M Davis; Noe C Crespo; Mercedes R Carnethon; Sheila F Castañeda; Carmen R Isasi; Rebeca A Espinoza; Martha L Daviglus; Lilian G Perez; Kelly R Evenson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 5.043