Literature DB >> 24251746

An evaluation of energy expenditure estimation by three activity monitors.

Jennifer Ryan1, John Gormley.   

Abstract

A comparative evaluation of the ability of activity monitors to predict energy expenditure (EE) is necessary to aid in the investigation of the effect of EE on health. The purpose of this study was to validate and compare the RT3, the SWA and the IDEEA at measuring EE in adults and children. Twenty-six adults and 22 children completed a resting metabolic rate (RMR) test and performed four treadmill activities at 3 km.h(-1), 6 km.h(-1), 6 km.h(-1) at a 10% incline, 9 km.h(-1). EE was assessed throughout the protocol by the RT3, the SWA and the IDEEA. Indirect calorimetry (IC) was used as a criterion measure of EE against which each monitor was compared. Mean bias was assessed by subtracting EE from IC from EE from each monitor for each activity. Limit of agreement plots were used to assess the agreement between each monitor and IC. Limits of agreement for resting EE were narrowest for the RT3 for adults and children. Although the IDEEA displayed the smallest mean bias between measures at 3 km.h(-1), 6 km.h(-1) and 9 km.h(-1) in adults and children, the SWA agreed closest with IC at 6 km.h(-1), 6 km.h(-1) at a 10% incline and 9 km.h(-1). Limits of agreement were closest for the SWA at 9 km.h(-1) in adults representing 42% of the overall mean EE. Although the RT3 provided the best estimate of resting EE in adults and children, the SWA provided the most accurate estimate of EE across a range of physical activity intensities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24251746     DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2013.776639

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Sport Sci        ISSN: 1536-7290            Impact factor:   4.050


  8 in total

1.  Validation of the Phillips et al. GENEActiv accelerometer wrist cut-points in children aged 5-8 years old.

Authors:  Michael J Duncan; Susie Wilson; Jason Tallis; Emma Eyre
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 3.183

2.  Self-Directed Weight Loss Strategies: Energy Expenditure Due to Physical Activity Is Not Increased to Achieve Intended Weight Loss.

Authors:  Ulf Elbelt; Tatjana Schuetz; Nina Knoll; Silke Burkert
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 5.717

3.  Energy expenditure during sexual activity in young healthy couples.

Authors:  Julie Frappier; Isabelle Toupin; Joseph J Levy; Mylene Aubertin-Leheudre; Antony D Karelis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Step detection and activity recognition accuracy of seven physical activity monitors.

Authors:  Fabio A Storm; Ben W Heller; Claudia Mazzà
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  High Intensity Exercise: Can It Protect You from A Fast Food Diet?

Authors:  Christian Duval; Marc-Antoine Rouillier; Rémi Rabasa-Lhoret; Antony D Karelis
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2017-08-26       Impact factor: 5.717

6.  A comparison of three accelerometry-based devices for estimating energy expenditure in adults and children with cerebral palsy.

Authors:  Jennifer M Ryan; Michael Walsh; John Gormley
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 4.262

7.  Calibration and Cross-Validation of Accelerometery for Estimating Movement Skills in Children Aged 8-12 Years.

Authors:  Michael J Duncan; Alexandra Dobell; Mark Noon; Cain C T Clark; Clare M P Roscoe; Mark A Faghy; David Stodden; Ryan Sacko; Emma L J Eyre
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  Agreement between the Apple Series 1, LifeTrak Core C200, and Fitbit Charge HR with Indirect Calorimetry for Assessing Treadmill Energy Expenditure.

Authors:  Peng Zhang; Ryan Donald Burns; You Fu; Steven Godin; Wonwoo Byun
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 3.390

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.