P D Swan1, W C Byrnes, E M Haymes. 1. Department of Exercise Science and Physical Education, Arizona State University, Tempe 85287-0701, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of the Caltrac accelerometer for estimating energy expenditure (EE) during three exercise modes. METHODS: A subset of 31 women (mean (SEM) age 22.6 (5) years) as selected from a training study comparing various physiological parameters during race walking, running, and stepping. Subjects each performed mode specific graded exercise tests to peak VO2. Regression equations for VO2 v heart rate (HR) were generated from each individual's test data. EE (kcal and kJ) was estimated for each VO2 value based on the respiratory exchange ratio, and kcal v HR regression equations were generated to predict EE from each subject's HR data (EE-HR). HR in the field was monitored by telemetry, and two Caltrac monitors, one set for EE and one to give counts, were attached to a belt over opposite hips. RESULTS: EE-HR was not significantly different across exercise modes. Caltrac overestimated EE (P < 0.01) in runners (14%) and walkers (19%) but underestimated EE in steppers by about 10% (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: The Caltrac is a reliable instrument but it did not accurately distinguish EE in running, race walking, or stepping in a group of young women.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of the Caltrac accelerometer for estimating energy expenditure (EE) during three exercise modes. METHODS: A subset of 31 women (mean (SEM) age 22.6 (5) years) as selected from a training study comparing various physiological parameters during race walking, running, and stepping. Subjects each performed mode specific graded exercise tests to peak VO2. Regression equations for VO2 v heart rate (HR) were generated from each individual's test data. EE (kcal and kJ) was estimated for each VO2 value based on the respiratory exchange ratio, and kcal v HR regression equations were generated to predict EE from each subject's HR data (EE-HR). HR in the field was monitored by telemetry, and two Caltrac monitors, one set for EE and one to give counts, were attached to a belt over opposite hips. RESULTS:EE-HR was not significantly different across exercise modes. Caltrac overestimated EE (P < 0.01) in runners (14%) and walkers (19%) but underestimated EE in steppers by about 10% (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: The Caltrac is a reliable instrument but it did not accurately distinguish EE in running, race walking, or stepping in a group of young women.
Authors: Parveen K Garg; Lu Tian; Michael H Criqui; Kiang Liu; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Jin Tan; Mary M McDermott Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-07-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Parveen K Garg; Kiang Liu; Lu Tian; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci; Michael H Criqui; Jin Tan; Mary M McDermott Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kathryn L Dannecker; Nadezhda A Sazonova; Edward L Melanson; Edward S Sazonov; Raymond C Browning Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Kieran P Dowd; Robert Szeklicki; Marco Alessandro Minetto; Marie H Murphy; Angela Polito; Ezio Ghigo; Hidde van der Ploeg; Ulf Ekelund; Janusz Maciaszek; Rafal Stemplewski; Maciej Tomczak; Alan E Donnelly Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 6.457