TY - JOUR
T1 - Validity of physical activity monitors in adults participating in free-living activities
AU - Berntsen, S
AU - Hageberg, R
AU - Aandstad, A
AU - Mowinckel, P
AU - Anderssen, S A
AU - Carlsen, K-H
AU - Andersen, Lars Bo
PY - 2010/7/1
Y1 - 2010/7/1
N2 - Background For a given subject, time in moderate to very vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) varies substantially among physical activity monitors. Objective In the present study, the primary objective, whether time in MVPA recorded with SenseWear Pro(2) Armband (Armband; BodyMedia, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA), ActiGraph (7164, LLC, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, USA), ikcal (Teltronic AG, Biberist, Switzerland) and ActiReg (PreMed AS, Oslo, Norway) is different compared with indirect calorimetry, was determined. The secondary objective, whether these activity monitors estimate energy expenditure differently compared with indirect calorimetry, was also determined. Material and methods The activity monitors and a portable oxygen analyser were worn by 14 men and 6 women for 120 min doing a variety of activities of different intensities. Resting metabolic rate was measured with indirect calorimetry. The cutoff points defining moderate, vigorous and very vigorous intensity were three, six and nine times resting metabolic rate. Results Time in MVPA was overestimated by 2.9% and 2.5% by Armband and ActiGraph, respectively, and was underestimated by 11.6% and 98.7% by ikcal and ActiReg, respectively. ActiReg (p = 0.004) and ActiGraph (p = 0.007) underestimated energy expenditure in MVPA, and all monitors underestimated total energy expenditure (by 5% to 21%). Conclusions Recorded time in MVPA and energy expenditure varies substantially among physical activity monitors. Thus, when comparing physical activity level among studies, it is essential to know the type of physical activity monitor being used.
AB - Background For a given subject, time in moderate to very vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) varies substantially among physical activity monitors. Objective In the present study, the primary objective, whether time in MVPA recorded with SenseWear Pro(2) Armband (Armband; BodyMedia, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA), ActiGraph (7164, LLC, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, USA), ikcal (Teltronic AG, Biberist, Switzerland) and ActiReg (PreMed AS, Oslo, Norway) is different compared with indirect calorimetry, was determined. The secondary objective, whether these activity monitors estimate energy expenditure differently compared with indirect calorimetry, was also determined. Material and methods The activity monitors and a portable oxygen analyser were worn by 14 men and 6 women for 120 min doing a variety of activities of different intensities. Resting metabolic rate was measured with indirect calorimetry. The cutoff points defining moderate, vigorous and very vigorous intensity were three, six and nine times resting metabolic rate. Results Time in MVPA was overestimated by 2.9% and 2.5% by Armband and ActiGraph, respectively, and was underestimated by 11.6% and 98.7% by ikcal and ActiReg, respectively. ActiReg (p = 0.004) and ActiGraph (p = 0.007) underestimated energy expenditure in MVPA, and all monitors underestimated total energy expenditure (by 5% to 21%). Conclusions Recorded time in MVPA and energy expenditure varies substantially among physical activity monitors. Thus, when comparing physical activity level among studies, it is essential to know the type of physical activity monitor being used.
U2 - 10.1136/bjsm.2008.048868
DO - 10.1136/bjsm.2008.048868
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 18628358
SN - 0306-3674
VL - 44
SP - 657
EP - 664
JO - British Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine
ER -