Literature DB >> 31524826

Individualized Relative-Intensity Physical Activity Accelerometer Cut Points.

Juned Siddique1, David Aaby1, Samantha E Montag1, Stephen Sidney2, Barbara Sternfeld2, Whitney A Welch1, Mercedes R Carnethon1, Kiang Liu1, Lynette L Craft3, Kelley Pettee Gabriel4, Bethany Barone Gibbs5, Jared P Reis6, Patty Freedson7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Physical activity (PA) intensity is expressed as either absolute or relative intensity. Absolute intensity refers to the energy required to perform an activity. Relative intensity refers to a level of effort that takes into account how hard an individual is working relative to their maximum capacity. We sought to develop methods for obtaining individualized relative-intensity accelerometer cut points using data from a maximal graded exercise treadmill test (GXT) so that each individual has their own cut point.
METHODS: A total of 2363 men and women 38 to 50 yr old from the CARDIA fitness study wore ActiGraph 7164 accelerometers during a maximal GXT and for seven consecutive days in 2005-2006. Using mixed-effects regression models, we regressed accelerometer counts on heart rate as a percentage of maximum (%HRmax) and on RPE. Based on these two models, we obtained a moderate-intensity (%HRmax = 64% or RPE = 12) count cut point that is specific to each participant. We applied these subject-specific cut points to the available CARDIA accelerometer data.
RESULTS: Using RPE, the mean moderate-intensity accelerometer cut point was 4004 (SD = 1120) counts per minute. On average, cut points were higher for men (4189 counts per minute) versus women (3865 counts per minute) and were higher for Whites (4088 counts per minute) versus African Americans (3896 counts per minute). Cut points were correlated with body mass index (rho = -0.11) and GXT duration (rho = 0.33). Mean daily minutes of absolute- and relative-intensity moderate to vigorous PA were 34.1 (SD = 31.1) min·d and 9.1 (SD = 18.2) min·d, respectively. RPE cut points were higher than those based on %HRmax. This is likely due to some participants ending the GXT before achieving their HRmax.
CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer-based relative-intensity PA may be a useful measure of intensity relative to maximal capacity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31524826      PMCID: PMC6962549          DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002153

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc        ISSN: 0195-9131


  27 in total

1.  Genomic scan for maximal oxygen uptake and its response to training in the HERITAGE Family Study.

Authors:  C Bouchard; T Rankinen; Y C Chagnon; T Rice; L Pérusse; J Gagnon; I Borecki; P An; A S Leon; J S Skinner; J H Wilmore; M Province; D C Rao
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2000-02

2.  Objective light-intensity physical activity associations with rated health in older adults.

Authors:  Matthew P Buman; Eric B Hekler; William L Haskell; Leslie Pruitt; Terry L Conway; Kelli L Cain; James F Sallis; Brian E Saelens; Lawrence D Frank; Abby C King
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Errors in MET estimates of physical activities using 3.5 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) as the baseline oxygen consumption.

Authors:  Sarah Kozey; Kate Lyden; John Staudenmayer; Patty Freedson
Journal:  J Phys Act Health       Date:  2010-07

4.  2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values.

Authors:  Barbara E Ainsworth; William L Haskell; Stephen D Herrmann; Nathanael Meckes; David R Bassett; Catrine Tudor-Locke; Jennifer L Greer; Jesse Vezina; Melicia C Whitt-Glover; Arthur S Leon
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 5.411

5.  Physical activity, all-cause mortality, and longevity of college alumni.

Authors:  R S Paffenbarger; R T Hyde; A L Wing; C C Hsieh
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1986-03-06       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Objectively measured light-intensity physical activity is independently associated with 2-h plasma glucose.

Authors:  Genevieve N Healy; David W Dunstan; Jo Salmon; Ester Cerin; Jonathan E Shaw; Paul Z Zimmet; Neville Owen
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 19.112

7.  Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer.

Authors:  Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  Comparison of accelerometer cut points to estimate physical activity in US adults.

Authors:  Kathleen B Watson; Susan A Carlson; Dianna D Carroll; Janet E Fulton
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 3.337

9.  Estimating relative intensity using individualized accelerometer cutpoints: the importance of fitness level.

Authors:  Cemal Ozemek; Heather L Cochran; Scott J Strath; Wonwoo Byun; Leonard A Kaminsky
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Association of 20-year changes in cardiorespiratory fitness with incident type 2 diabetes: the coronary artery risk development in young adults (CARDIA) fitness study.

Authors:  Mercedes R Carnethon; Barbara Sternfeld; Pamela J Schreiner; David R Jacobs; Cora E Lewis; Kiang Liu; Stephen Sidney
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 17.152

View more
  8 in total

1.  Quantifying physical activity across the midlife: Does consideration of perceived exertion matter?

Authors:  Kelly R Ylitalo; Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez; Minsuk Oh; Barbara Sternfeld; James Stamey; Kelley Pettee Gabriel
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-06-10

2.  Daily and hourly patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior of older adults: Atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study.

Authors:  Erin E Dooley; Lisa A Pompeii; Priya Palta; Pablo Martinez-Amezcua; Bjoern Hornikel; Kelly R Evenson; Jennifer A Schrack; Kelley Pettee Gabriel
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-06-09

Review 3.  Assessment of Physical Activity in Adults Using Wrist Accelerometers.

Authors:  Fangyu Liu; Amal A Wanigatunga; Jennifer A Schrack
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 4.280

4.  A theory-based model of cumulative activity.

Authors:  Kole Phillips; Kevin Stanley; Daniel Fuller
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-17       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  How adherence to the updated physical activity guidelines should be assessed with accelerometer?

Authors:  Henri Vähä-Ypyä; Harri Sievänen; Pauliina Husu; Kari Tokola; Ari Mänttäri; Olli J Heinonen; Jarmo Heiskanen; Kaisu M Kaikkonen; Kai Savonen; Sami Kokko; Tommi Vasankari
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 4.424

6.  Absolute Accelerometer-Based Intensity Prescription Compared to Physiological Variables in Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women.

Authors:  Philipp Birnbaumer; Pavel Dietz; Estelle Dorothy Watson; Gudani Mukoma; Alexander Müller; Matteo Christian Sattler; Johannes Jaunig; Mireille Nicoline Maria van Poppel; Peter Hofmann
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Intensity Paradox-Low-Fit People Are Physically Most Active in Terms of Their Fitness.

Authors:  Henri Vähä-Ypyä; Harri Sievänen; Pauliina Husu; Kari Tokola; Tommi Vasankari
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  Relative-Intensity Physical Activity and Its Association With Cardiometabolic Disease.

Authors:  Juned Siddique; Whitney A Welch; David Aaby; Barbara Sternfeld; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Mercedes R Carnethon; Jamal S Rana; Stephen Sidney
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 5.501

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.