Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement of five commercially available accelerometers in estimating energy expenditure while performing an acute bout of high-intensity functional training (HIFT). Methods: Participants (n = 47; average age: 28.5 ± 11.6 years) consisted of recreationally active, healthy adults. Each participant completed a session of HIFT: a 15-minute workout consisting of 12 repetitions each of air-squats, sit-ups, push-ups, lunges, pull-ups, steps-ups, and high-knees; performed circuit-style by completing as many rounds as possible. During this session, each participant wore the Cosmed K4b2 portable metabolic analyzer (PMA) and five different accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X, Nike Fuelband, Fitbit One, Fitbit Charge HR, and Jawbone UP Move). Results: Four of the five activity trackers reported lower (p < .05) total EE values compared to the PMA during the acute bout of HIFT. The waist-mounted device (ActiGraph, 182.55 ± 37.93 kcal) was not significantly different from, and most closely estimated caloric expenditure compared to the PMA (144.99 ± 37.13 kcal) (p = .056). A repeated-measures ANOVA showed that all activity trackers were significantly different from the reference measure (PMA) (p < .05). Systematic relative agreement between the activity trackers was calculated, exhibiting a significant ICC = 0.426 (F [46,230] = 5.446 [p < .05]). Conclusion: The wrist- and hip-mounted activity trackers did not accurately assess energy expenditure during HIFT exercise. With the exception of the ActiGraph GT3X, the remaining four activity trackers showed inaccurate estimates of the amount of kilocalories expended during the HIFT exercise bout compared to the PMA.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement of five commercially available accelerometers in estimating energy expenditure while performing an acute bout of high-intensity functional training (HIFT). Methods:Participants (n = 47; average age: 28.5 ± 11.6 years) consisted of recreationally active, healthy adults. Each participant completed a session of HIFT: a 15-minute workout consisting of 12 repetitions each of air-squats, sit-ups, push-ups, lunges, pull-ups, steps-ups, and high-knees; performed circuit-style by completing as many rounds as possible. During this session, each participant wore the Cosmed K4b2 portable metabolic analyzer (PMA) and five different accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X, Nike Fuelband, Fitbit One, Fitbit Charge HR, and Jawbone UP Move). Results: Four of the five activity trackers reported lower (p < .05) total EE values compared to the PMA during the acute bout of HIFT. The waist-mounted device (ActiGraph, 182.55 ± 37.93 kcal) was not significantly different from, and most closely estimated caloric expenditure compared to the PMA (144.99 ± 37.13 kcal) (p = .056). A repeated-measures ANOVA showed that all activity trackers were significantly different from the reference measure (PMA) (p < .05). Systematic relative agreement between the activity trackers was calculated, exhibiting a significant ICC = 0.426 (F [46,230] = 5.446 [p < .05]). Conclusion: The wrist- and hip-mounted activity trackers did not accurately assess energy expenditure during HIFT exercise. With the exception of the ActiGraph GT3X, the remaining four activity trackers showed inaccurate estimates of the amount of kilocalories expended during the HIFT exercise bout compared to the PMA.
Entities:
Keywords:
Body weight resistance training; activity trackers; estimating energy expenditure; physical activity
Authors: Guillaume Chevance; Natalie M Golaszewski; Elizabeth Tipton; Eric B Hekler; Matthew Buman; Gregory J Welk; Kevin Patrick; Job G Godino Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.947
Authors: Daniel Fuller; Emily Colwell; Jonathan Low; Kassia Orychock; Melissa Ann Tobin; Bo Simango; Richard Buote; Desiree Van Heerden; Hui Luan; Kimberley Cullen; Logan Slade; Nathan G A Taylor Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 4.773