Yuki Nishida1, Shigeho Tanaka2, Satoshi Nakae1,3, Yosuke Yamada1,4, Katsutaro Morino5, Keiko Kondo6, Kaori Nishida7, Akiko Ohi7, Mika Kurihara7, Masaya Sasaki7, Satoshi Ugi5, Hiroshi Maegawa5, Naoyuki Ebine8, Satoshi Sasaki9, Fuminori Katsukawa10. 1. Department of Nutrition and Metabolism, National Institute of Health and Nutrition, National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, Tokyo, Japan. 2. Department of Nutrition and Metabolism, National Institute of Health and Nutrition, National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, Tokyo, Japan, tanakas@nibiohn.go.jp. 3. Division of Bioengineering, Graduate School of Engineering Science, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Japan. 4. Section of Healthy Longevity Research, National Institute of Health and Nutrition, National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Medicine, Shiga University of Medical Science, Shiga, Japan. 6. Department of Public Health, Shiga University of Medical Science, Shiga, Japan. 7. Division of Clinical Nutrition, Shiga University of Medical Science, Shiga, Japan. 8. Faculty of Health and Sports Science, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan. 9. Department of Social and Preventive Epidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 10. Institute for Integrated Sports Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of total energy expenditure (TEE) and physical activity level (PAL) is important for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the validity of accelerometers (ACC) and physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) for estimating TEE and PAL remains unknown in elderly populations with T2DM. We evaluated the accuracy of TEE and PAL results estimated by an ACC (TEEACC and PALACC) and a PAQ (TEEPAQ and PALPAQ) in elderly patients with T2DM. METHODS: Fifty-one elderly patients with T2DM (aged 61-79 years) participated in this study. TEEACC was calculated with PALACC using a triaxial ACC (Active style Pro HJA-750c) over 2 weeks and predicted basal metabolic rate (BMR) by Ganpule's equation. TEEPAQ was estimated using predicted BMR and the PALPAQ from the -Japan Public Health Center Study-Long questionnaire. We compared the results to TEEDLW measured with the doubly labeled water (DLW) method and PALDLW calculated with BMR using indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: TEEDLW was 2,165 ± 365 kcal/day, and TEEACC was 2,014 ± 339 kcal/day; TEEACC was strongly correlated with TEEDLW (r = 0.87, p < 0.01) but significantly underestimated (-150 ± 183 kcal/day, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in TEEPAQ and TEEDLW (-49 ± 284 kcal/day), while the range of difference seemed to be larger than TEEACC. PALDLW, PALACC, and PALPAQ were calculated to be 1.71 ± 0.17, 1.69 ± 0.16, and 1.78 ± 0.24, respectively. -PALACC was strongly correlated with PALDLW (r = 0.71, p < 0.01), and there was no significant difference between the 2 values. PALPAQ was moderately correlated with PALDLW (r = 0.43, p < 0.01) but significantly overestimated. Predicted BMR was significantly lower than the BMR -measured by indirect calorimetry (1,193 ± 186 vs. 1,262 ± 155 kcal/day, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The present ACC and questionnaire showed acceptable correlation of TEE and PAL compared with DLW method in elderly patients with T2DM. Systematic errors in estimating TEE may be improved by the better equation for predicting BMR.
INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of total energy expenditure (TEE) and physical activity level (PAL) is important for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the validity of accelerometers (ACC) and physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) for estimating TEE and PAL remains unknown in elderly populations with T2DM. We evaluated the accuracy of TEE and PAL results estimated by an ACC (TEEACC and PALACC) and a PAQ (TEEPAQ and PALPAQ) in elderly patients with T2DM. METHODS: Fifty-one elderly patients with T2DM (aged 61-79 years) participated in this study. TEEACC was calculated with PALACC using a triaxial ACC (Active style Pro HJA-750c) over 2 weeks and predicted basal metabolic rate (BMR) by Ganpule's equation. TEEPAQ was estimated using predicted BMR and the PALPAQ from the -Japan Public Health Center Study-Long questionnaire. We compared the results to TEEDLW measured with the doubly labeled water (DLW) method and PALDLW calculated with BMR using indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: TEEDLW was 2,165 ± 365 kcal/day, and TEEACC was 2,014 ± 339 kcal/day; TEEACC was strongly correlated with TEEDLW (r = 0.87, p < 0.01) but significantly underestimated (-150 ± 183 kcal/day, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in TEEPAQ and TEEDLW (-49 ± 284 kcal/day), while the range of difference seemed to be larger than TEEACC. PALDLW, PALACC, and PALPAQ were calculated to be 1.71 ± 0.17, 1.69 ± 0.16, and 1.78 ± 0.24, respectively. -PALACC was strongly correlated with PALDLW (r = 0.71, p < 0.01), and there was no significant difference between the 2 values. PALPAQ was moderately correlated with PALDLW (r = 0.43, p < 0.01) but significantly overestimated. Predicted BMR was significantly lower than the BMR -measured by indirect calorimetry (1,193 ± 186 vs. 1,262 ± 155 kcal/day, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The present ACC and questionnaire showed acceptable correlation of TEE and PAL compared with DLW method in elderly patients with T2DM. Systematic errors in estimating TEE may be improved by the better equation for predicting BMR.