PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the comparative and criterion validity of the three activity monitors in relation to a portable metabolic analyzer (Oxycon Mobile (OM)) in adults. METHODS: A total of 52 adults age 18-40 yr each performed a series of 15 activities for 5 min each, with 1-min resting intervals between different activities. Participants completed the trials while wearing the three activity monitors and while being measured with the OM. Estimates of energy expenditure (EE) were obtained from the ActiGraph (one based on the vertical axis and the other from vector magnitude) as well as from the activPAL (AP) and the Core Armband (CA). The EE estimates were converted into MET(RMR) values by standardizing EE values with each person's resting metabolic rate and then temporarily matched to facilitate minute-by-minute comparisons. Equivalence testing and mean absolute percent errors (MAPE) were used to evaluate the agreement. RESULTS: MET(RMR) values from the CA were significantly equivalent to those from the OM for the overall group comparison (90% confidence interval (CI), 3.65 and 3.85 MET(RMR)) and vigorous intensity (90% CI, 8.27 and 10.10 MET(RMR)). The CA had the smallest MAPE for moderate (20.7%) and vigorous (14.5%) intensity, but the AP had smaller MAPE for sedentary activities (27.4%) and light (24.7%) intensity activities. CONCLUSIONS: The CA showed good agreement relative to the OM for the overall group comparison and for moderate and vigorous activities. The AP, in contrast, was the most accurate for sedentary and light activities. The combined use of the CA and AP may yield more accurate estimates of EE than using a single monitor.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the comparative and criterion validity of the three activity monitors in relation to a portable metabolic analyzer (Oxycon Mobile (OM)) in adults. METHODS: A total of 52 adults age 18-40 yr each performed a series of 15 activities for 5 min each, with 1-min resting intervals between different activities. Participants completed the trials while wearing the three activity monitors and while being measured with the OM. Estimates of energy expenditure (EE) were obtained from the ActiGraph (one based on the vertical axis and the other from vector magnitude) as well as from the activPAL (AP) and the Core Armband (CA). The EE estimates were converted into MET(RMR) values by standardizing EE values with each person's resting metabolic rate and then temporarily matched to facilitate minute-by-minute comparisons. Equivalence testing and mean absolute percent errors (MAPE) were used to evaluate the agreement. RESULTS: MET(RMR) values from the CA were significantly equivalent to those from the OM for the overall group comparison (90% confidence interval (CI), 3.65 and 3.85 MET(RMR)) and vigorous intensity (90% CI, 8.27 and 10.10 MET(RMR)). The CA had the smallest MAPE for moderate (20.7%) and vigorous (14.5%) intensity, but the AP had smaller MAPE for sedentary activities (27.4%) and light (24.7%) intensity activities. CONCLUSIONS: The CA showed good agreement relative to the OM for the overall group comparison and for moderate and vigorous activities. The AP, in contrast, was the most accurate for sedentary and light activities. The combined use of the CA and AP may yield more accurate estimates of EE than using a single monitor.
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: Felipe Lobelo; Heval M Kelli; Sheri Chernetsky Tejedor; Michael Pratt; Michael V McConnell; Seth S Martin; Gregory J Welk Journal: Prog Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 8.194
Authors: Pauliina Husu; Jaana Suni; Henri Vähä-Ypyä; Harri Sievänen; Kari Tokola; Heli Valkeinen; Tomi Mäki-Opas; Tommi Vasankari Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anna Myers; Catherine Gibbons; Edward Butler; Michelle Dalton; Nicola Buckland; John Blundell; Graham Finlayson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Ciara M O'Brien; Joan L Duda; George D Kitas; Jet J C S Veldhuijzen van Zanten; George S Metsios; Sally A M Fenton Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Bernard M F M Duvivier; Nicolaas C Schaper; Matthijs K C Hesselink; Linh van Kan; Nathalie Stienen; Bjorn Winkens; Annemarie Koster; Hans H C M Savelberg Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 10.122