Youngwon Kim1, Scott E Crouter2, Jung-Min Lee3, Phillip M Dixon4, Glenn A Gaesser5, Gregory J Welk6. 1. Department of Kinesiology, Iowa State University, USA. Electronic address: myungshingo@gmail.com. 2. Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Studies, University of Tennessee, USA. 3. School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of Nebraska, USA. 4. Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, USA. 5. School of Nutrition & Health Promotion, Arizona State University, USA. 6. Department of Kinesiology, Iowa State University, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of Actigraph 2-regression models (2RM) and 1-regression models (1RM) for estimation of EE in children. DESIGN: The study used a cross-sectional design with criterion estimates from a metabolic cart. METHODS: A total of 59 children (7-13yrs) performed 12 activities (randomly selected from a set of 24 activities) for 5min each, while being concurrently measured with an Actigraph GT3X and indirect calorimetry. METRMR (MET considering one's resting metabolic rate) for the GT3X was estimated applying 2RM with vector magnitude (VM2RM) and vertical axis (VA2RM), and four standard 1RMs. The validity of the 2RMs and 1RMs was evaluated using 95% equivalence testing and mean absolute percent error (MAPE). RESULTS: For the group-level comparison, equivalence testing revealed that the 90% confidence intervals for all 2RMs and 1RMs were outside of the equivalence zone (range: 3.63, 4.43) for indirect calorimetry. When comparing the individual activities, VM2RM produced smaller MAPEs (range: 14.5-45.3%) than VA2RM (range, 15.5-58.1%) and 1RMs (range, 14.5-75.1%) for most of the light and moderate activities. CONCLUSIONS: None of the 2RMs and 1RMs were equivalent to indirect calorimetry. The 2RMs showed smaller individual-level errors than the 1RMs.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of Actigraph 2-regression models (2RM) and 1-regression models (1RM) for estimation of EE in children. DESIGN: The study used a cross-sectional design with criterion estimates from a metabolic cart. METHODS: A total of 59 children (7-13yrs) performed 12 activities (randomly selected from a set of 24 activities) for 5min each, while being concurrently measured with an Actigraph GT3X and indirect calorimetry. METRMR (MET considering one's resting metabolic rate) for the GT3X was estimated applying 2RM with vector magnitude (VM2RM) and vertical axis (VA2RM), and four standard 1RMs. The validity of the 2RMs and 1RMs was evaluated using 95% equivalence testing and mean absolute percent error (MAPE). RESULTS: For the group-level comparison, equivalence testing revealed that the 90% confidence intervals for all 2RMs and 1RMs were outside of the equivalence zone (range: 3.63, 4.43) for indirect calorimetry. When comparing the individual activities, VM2RM produced smaller MAPEs (range: 14.5-45.3%) than VA2RM (range, 15.5-58.1%) and 1RMs (range, 14.5-75.1%) for most of the light and moderate activities. CONCLUSIONS: None of the 2RMs and 1RMs were equivalent to indirect calorimetry. The 2RMs showed smaller individual-level errors than the 1RMs.
Authors: Margarita S Treuth; Kathryn Schmitz; Diane J Catellier; Robert G McMurray; David M Murray; M Joao Almeida; Scott Going; James E Norman; Russell Pate Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Megan P Rothney; Robert J Brychta; Natalie N Meade; Kong Y Chen; Maciej S Buchowski Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: S Firouzbakhsh; R K Mathis; W L Dorchester; R S Oseas; P K Groncy; K E Grant; J Z Finklestein Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 1993-02 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Calum Mattocks; Sam Leary; Andy Ness; Kevin Deere; Joanne Saunders; Kate Tilling; Joanne Kirkby; Steven N Blair; Chris Riddoch Journal: Int J Pediatr Obes Date: 2007
Authors: Erin E Kuffel; Scott E Crouter; Jere D Haas; Edward A Frongillo; David R Bassett Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Philip M Dixon; Pedro F Saint-Maurice; Youngwon Kim; Paul Hibbing; Yang Bai; Gregory J Welk Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Amanda N Szabo-Reed; Richard A Washburn; J Leon Greene; Lauren T Ptomey; Anna Gorczyca; Robert H Lee; Todd D Little; Jaehoon Lee; Jeff Honas; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Youngwon Kim; Paul Hibbing; Pedro F Saint-Maurice; Laura D Ellingson; Erin Hennessy; Dana L Wolff-Hughes; Frank M Perna; Gregory J Welk Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sunku Kwon; Neng Wan; Ryan D Burns; Timothy A Brusseau; Youngwon Kim; Santosh Kumar; Emre Ertin; David W Wetter; Cho Y Lam; Ming Wen; Wonwoo Byun Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 3.576