Jenna Desendorf1, David R Bassett2, Hollie A Raynor3, Dawn P Coe4. 1. Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States. Electronic address: jenna.desendorf@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States. Electronic address: dbassett@utk.edu. 3. Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States. Electronic address: hraynor@utk.edu. 4. Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States. Electronic address: dcoe@utk.edu.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Body-borne sensors may be useful in assessing eating behaviors and have the potential to overcome some of the limitations of self-report instruments. The Bite Counter is a new commercial device, worn on the wrist that purports to track the number of bites taken per day. It contains a tri-axial accelerometer that detects an upward, arcing motion from the table to the mouth, known as a wrist roll. PURPOSE: To examine the validity of the Bite Counter device for measuring bites in individuals while consuming various foods and beverages. METHODS: 15 adults (23-58 years old) wore the device on the wrist of their dominant hand. They were presented with a meal consisting of foods/beverages, each consumed with different utensils: meat (knife and fork), side items (fork), soup (spoon), pizza (hands), can of soda (hands), and a smoothie (straw). Each food or drink was consumed by itself, in consecutive order. A researcher observed them through a one-way mirror and counted the number of bites taken. RESULTS: The percentage of actual bites taken varied as follows: Meat (127%), side items (82.6%), soup (60.2%), pizza (87.3%), soda (81.7%), and smoothie (57.7%). The overall mean was 81.2% of bites taken. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the Bite Counter holds promise for being able to count the number of hand-to-mouth movements. In general, it underestimated hand-to-mouth movements, but some types of hand movements caused overestimation of bites. Future studies should be undertaken to improve the sensitivity and specificity of the Bite Counter device.
UNLABELLED: Body-borne sensors may be useful in assessing eating behaviors and have the potential to overcome some of the limitations of self-report instruments. The Bite Counter is a new commercial device, worn on the wrist that purports to track the number of bites taken per day. It contains a tri-axial accelerometer that detects an upward, arcing motion from the table to the mouth, known as a wrist roll. PURPOSE: To examine the validity of the Bite Counter device for measuring bites in individuals while consuming various foods and beverages. METHODS: 15 adults (23-58 years old) wore the device on the wrist of their dominant hand. They were presented with a meal consisting of foods/beverages, each consumed with different utensils: meat (knife and fork), side items (fork), soup (spoon), pizza (hands), can of soda (hands), and a smoothie (straw). Each food or drink was consumed by itself, in consecutive order. A researcher observed them through a one-way mirror and counted the number of bites taken. RESULTS: The percentage of actual bites taken varied as follows: Meat (127%), side items (82.6%), soup (60.2%), pizza (87.3%), soda (81.7%), and smoothie (57.7%). The overall mean was 81.2% of bites taken. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the Bite Counter holds promise for being able to count the number of hand-to-mouth movements. In general, it underestimated hand-to-mouth movements, but some types of hand movements caused overestimation of bites. Future studies should be undertaken to improve the sensitivity and specificity of the Bite Counter device.
Authors: Kathryn E Smith; Tyler B Mason; Adrienne Juarascio; Lauren M Schaefer; Ross D Crosby; Scott G Engel; Stephen A Wonderlich Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: D Spruijt-Metz; C K F Wen; G O'Reilly; M Li; S Lee; B A Emken; U Mitra; M Annavaram; G Ragusa; S Narayanan Journal: Curr Obes Rep Date: 2015-12
Authors: Stephanie P Goldstein; J Graham Thomas; Sivamainthan Vithiananthan; George A Blackburn; Daniel B Jones; Jennifer Webster; Richard Jones; E Whitney Evans; Jody Dushay; Jon Moon; Dale S Bond Journal: BMC Obes Date: 2018-11-05
Authors: Susan M Schembre; Yue Liao; Sydney G O'Connor; Melanie D Hingle; Shu-En Shen; Katarina G Hamoy; Jimi Huh; Genevieve F Dunton; Rick Weiss; Cynthia A Thomson; Carol J Boushey Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Stephanie P Goldstein; J Graham Thomas; Gary D Foster; Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy; Meghan L Butryn; James D Herbert; Gerald J Martin; Evan M Forman Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 2.681