Kids are not little adults: what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children?
Kids are not little adults: what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00421-015-3238-1
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Gaesser, Glenn A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Saint-Maurice, Pedro F.;Kim, Youngwon;Gaesser, Glenn A.
目的采用模拟自由生活设计，比较MET定义的儿童久坐行为分类的切点。方法随机抽取102名儿童(7-13岁，男54名，女48名)完成12项活动(从24项活动中随机选择)。活动是预先确定的，强度从久坐到剧烈不等。参与者的能量消耗使用便携式间接量热系统Oxycon Mobile进行测量。分别使用标准的3.5毫升/公斤/分钟或估计的儿童静息代谢率将每分钟测量的VO2值(即毫升/公斤/分钟)转换为成人或儿童的最大摄氧量。对久坐行为分类的“标准”(1.5个成人-METS)和“调整后的”(2.0个成人-METS)阈值的分类一致性进行了检验。或者，我们还测试了1.5个儿童MET阈值的分类准确性。结果当以2.0Met为阈值时，静坐活动的分类准确率明显提高(Se-1.5Mets=4.7%，Sp(1.5Mets)=100.0%；Se-2.0Mets=36.9%，Sp(2.0Mets)=100.0%)。在保持1.5阈值的同时，儿童MET的使用也导致了分类的改善(Se=45.1%，Sp=100.0%)。结论成人Met阈值不适用于儿童对久坐活动进行分类。当使用成人MET为2.0或儿童MET为1.5时，识别久坐活动的分类准确率得到提高。
Purpose The study compares MET-defined cutpoints used to classify sedentary behaviors in children using a simulated free-living design.MethodsA sample of 102 children (54 boys and 48 girls; 7-13 years) completed a set of 12 activities (randomly selected from a pool of 24 activities) in a random order. Activities were predetermined and ranged from sedentary to vigorous intensities. Participant's energy expenditure was measured using a portable indirect calorimetry system, Oxycon mobile. Measured minute-by-minute VO2 values (i.e., ml/kg/min) were converted to an adult- or child-MET value using the standard 3.5 ml/kg/min or the estimated child resting metabolic rate, respectively. Classification agreement was examined for both the "standard" (1.5 adult-METs) and an "adjusted" (2.0 adult-METs) MET-derived threshold for classifying sedentary behavior. Alternatively, we also tested the classification accuracy of a 1.5 child-MET threshold. Classification accuracy of sedentary activities was evaluated relative to the predetermined intensity categorization using receiver operator characteristic curves.ResultsThere were clear improvements in the classification accuracy for sedentary activities when a threshold of 2.0 adult-METs was used instead of 1.5 METs (Se-1.5 METs = 4.7 %, Sp(1.5 METs) = 100.0 %; Se-2.0 METs = 36.9 %, Sp(2.0 METs) = 100.0 %). The use of child-METs while maintaining the 1.5 threshold also resulted in improvements in classification (Se = 45.1 %, Sp = 100.0 %).ConclusionAdult-MET thresholds are not appropriate for children when classifying sedentary activities. Classification accuracy for identifying sedentary activities was improved when either an adult-MET of 2.0 or a child-MET of 1.5 was used.