The use of individual cut points from treadmill walking to assess free-living moderate to vigorous physical activity in obese subjects by accelerometry: is it useful?

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Jostein Steene-Johannessen¹  Eivind Aadland² 

[1] Sogn og Fjordane University College, Faculty of Teacher Education and Sports, Box 133, Sogndal, 6851, Norway;Sogn og Fjordane University College, Faculty of Health Studies, Box 523, Førde, 6803, Norway

关键词: Individual calibration;    Actigraph;    Accelerometer;    Exercise;   

Others  :  1126519
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-172

 received in 2012-05-09, accepted in 2012-11-06,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Variation in counts between subjects at a given speed or work rate are the most important source of error in physical activity (PA) measurements with accelerometers. The aim of this study was to explore how the use of individual accelerometer cut points (ICPs) affected the analysis of PA field data.

Methods

We performed a treadmill calibration protocol to determine cut points for moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) (≥3 metabolic equivalents) and assessed free-living PA in 44 severely obese subjects using the Actigraph GT1M accelerometer. We obtained cut points in 42 subjects (11 men, mean (standard deviation) of body mass index (BMI) 39.8 (5.7), age 43.2 (9.2) years), of whom 35 had valid measurement of free-living PA (minutes of MVPA/day). Linear regression was used to analyze associations with the ICPs and time in MVPA/day. MVPA/day was also compared with values derived using a group cut point (GCP).

Results

Resting oxygen consumption (partial r = 0.74, p < .001), work economy (partial r = −0.76, p < .001) and BMI (partial r = 0.52, p = .001) explained 68.4% of the variation in the ICPs (F = 26.7, p < .001). The ICPs explained 79.1% of the variation in the minutes spent in MVPA/day. Moderate to vigorous PA/day derived from the ICPs vs. the GCP varied substantially (R² = 14%, p = .023, coefficient of variation = 45.1%).

Conclusions

The results indicate that the use of ICPs had a strong influence on the PA level. Two thirds of the variation in the ICPs could be explained, however, a certain degree of measurement error will be present. Thus, we are not able to conclude with respect to the most appropriate procedure for analyzing time in MVPA.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Aadland and Steene-Johannessen; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Tudor-Locke C, Brashear MM, Johnson WD, Katzmarzyk PT: Accelerometer profiles of physical activity and inactivity in normal weight, overweight, and obese US men and women. IJBNPA 2010, 7(60):1-11.
• [2]US Department of Health and Human Services: Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report 2008. Part A: Executive Summary. Nutr Rev 2009, 67:114-120.
• [3]Butte NF, Ekelund U, Westerterp KR: Assessing physical activity using wearable monitors: measures of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012, 44(1S):S5-12.
• [4]Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, Powell KE, Blair SN, Franklin BA, Macera CA, Heath GW, Thompson PD, Bauman A: Physical activity and public health: Updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007, 39:1423-1434.
• [5]Welk GJ: Principles of design and analyses for the calibration of accelerometry-based activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005, 37:S501-511.
• [6]Hustvedt BE, Svendsen M, Lovo A, Ellegard L, Hallen J, Tonstad S: Validation of ActiReg (R) to measure physical activity and energy expenditure against doubly labelled water in obese persons. Br J Nutr 2008, 100:219-226.
• [7]Brage S, Brage N, Franks PW, Ekelund U, Wareham NJ: Reliability and validity of the combined heart rate and movement sensor Actiheart. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005, 59:561-570.
• [8]Greenfield MLVH, Kuhn JE, Wojtys EM: A statistics primer: validity and reliability. Am J Sports Med 1998, 26:483-485.
• [9]Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR: Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005, 37:S531-S543.
• [10]Metcalf BS, Curnow JSH, Evans C, Voss LD, Wilkin TJ: Technical reliability of the CSA activity monitor: the EarlyBird Study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002, 34:1533-1537.
• [11]Welk GJ, Schaben JA, Morrow JR Jr: Reliability of accelerometry-based activity monitors: a generalizability study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004, 36:1637-1645.
• [12]Moeller NC, Korsholm L, Kristensen PL, Andersen LB, Wedderkopp N, Froberg K: Unit-specific calibration of Actigraph accelerometers in a mechanical setup - Is it worth the effort? The effect on random output variation caused by technical inter-instrument variability in the laboratory and in the field. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8:19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Brage S, Brage N, Wedderkopp N, Froberg K: Reliability and validity of the computer science and applications accelerometer in a mechanical setting. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2003, 7:101-119.
• [14]Barnett A, Cerin E: Individual calibration for estimating free-living walking speed using the MTI monitor. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006, 38:761-767.
• [15]Ward DS, Evenson KR, Vaughn A, Rodgers AB, Troiano RP: Accelerometer use in physical activity: best practices and research recommendations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005, 37:S582-S588.
• [16]Strath SJ, Pfeiffer KA, Whitt-Glover MC: Accelerometer use with children, older adults, and adults with functional limitations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012, 44:S77-S85.
• [17]Browning RC, Baker EA, Herron JA, Kram R: Effects of obesity and sex on the energetic cost and preferred speed of walking. J Appl Physiol (Bethesda, Md: 1985) 2006, 100:390-398.
• [18]Mian OS, Thom JM, Ardigo LP, Narici MV, Minetti AE: Metabolic cost, mechanical work, and efficiency during walking in young and older men. Acta Physiol 2006, 186:127-139.
• [19]Peterson DS, Martin PE: Effects of age and walking speed on coactivation and cost of walking in healthy adults. Gait Posture 2010, 31:355-359.
• [20]Feito Y, Bassett DR, Tyo B, Thompson DL: Effects of body mass index and tilt angle on output of two wearable activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011, 43:861-866.
• [21]Miller NE, Strath SJ, Swartz AM, Cashin SE: Estimating absolute and relative physical activity intensity across age via accelerometry in adults. J Aging Phys Act 2010, 18:158-170.
• [22]John D, Frreedson P: Actigraph and Actical physical activity monitors: a peek under the hood. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012, 44(1S):S86-S89.
• [23]Gagge AP, Burton AC, Bazett HC: A practical system of units for the description of the heat exchange of man with his environment. Science 1941, 94:428-430.
• [24]Medbø JI, Mamen A, Resaland GK: New examination of the performance of the MetaMax I metabolic analyser with the Douglas-bag technique. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2012, 72(2):158-168.
• [25]Sirard JR, Forsyth A, Oakes JM, Schmitz KH: Accelerometer test-retest reliability by data processing algorithms: results from the twin cities walking study. JPAH 2011, 8:668-674.
• [26]Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1:307-310.
• [27]Hopkins WG: Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. / Mesures de fiabilite en medecine du sport et science du sport. Sports Med 2000, 30:1-15.
• [28]Welk GJ, Blair SN, Wood K, Jones S, Thompson RW: A comparative evaluation of three accelerometry-based physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000, 32:S489-S497.
• [29]Physical activity guidelines advisory committee: Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report 2008. Part D: Background. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.
• [30]Warren JM, Ekelund U, Besson H, Mezzani A, Geladas N, Vanhees L, Experts P: Assessment of physical activity - a review of methodologies with reference to epidemiological research: a report of the exercise physiology section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2010, 17:127-139.
• [31]Westerterp KR: Assessment of physical activity: a critical appraisal. Eur J Appl Physiol 2009, 105:823-828.
• [32]Plasqui G, Westerterp KR: Physical activity assessment with accelerometers: an evaluation against doubly labeled water. Obesity 2007, 15:2371-2379.
• [33]The International Physical Activity Questionare. [http://www.ipaq.ki.se webcite] (assessed 2011.08.22).
• [34]SpA P, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Gorber SC, Tremblay M: A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. IJBNPA 2008, 5:56-56.
• [35]Hulens M, Vansant G, Claessens AL, Lysens R, Muls E: Predictors of 6-minute walk test results in lean, obese and morbidly obese women. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2003, 13:98-105.
• [36]Yngve A, Nilsson A, Sjostrom M, Ekelund U: Effect of monitor placement and of activity setting on the MTI accelerometer output. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003, 35:320-326.
• [37]Nichols JF, Morgan CG, Chabot LE, Sallis JF, Calfas KJ: Assessment of physical activity with the Computer Science and Applications, Inc., accelerometer: Laboratory versus field validation. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000, 71(1):36-43.
• [38]Byrne NM, Hills AP, Hunter GR, Weinsier RL, Schutz Y: Metabolic equivalent: one size does not fit all. J Appl Physiol 2005, 99(3):1112-1119.