Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field
Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00005768-200009001-00002
复制
发表时间：
2000-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Freedson, P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hendelman, D;Miller, K;Freedson, P
目的：本研究旨在检验加速度测量法在评估现场中等强度体力活动方面的有效性，并评估各种娱乐和家庭活动的代谢成本。方法：25 名受试者以自行选择的速度完成了 4 轮地上行走，打了两洞高尔夫球，并进行了室内（窗户清洗、除尘、吸尘）和室外（割草、种植灌木）家务劳动。使用便携式代谢系统测量能量消耗，并使用 Yamax Digiwalker 计步器（仅步行）、Computer Science and Application, Inc. (CSA) 加速计和 Tritrac 加速计记录运动。检查了加速度计计数和能源成本之间的相关性。此外，根据步行数据开发了根据计数预测 MET 的单独方程，并将其应用于其他活动，以比较计数与能量成本之间的关系。结果：尽管所有活动都属于中等强度范围，但观察到的 MET 水平与体育活动纲要中报告的值不同。步行的计数与 MET 之间的关系（CSA，r = 0.77；Tritrac，r = 0.89）比所有活动的总和（CSA，r = 0.59；Tritrac，r = 0.62）更强。根据水平行走得出的方程，高尔夫和家庭活动的代谢成本被低估了 30-60%。结论：发现加速计的计数与 MET 关系取决于所执行的活动类型，这可能是由于加速计无法检测上身运动、负载运输或表面或地形变化导致的能量消耗增加。这可能会在尝试使用加速度测量来评估自由生活情况下身体活动能量消耗的点估计时引入错误。
Purpose: This study was undertaken to examine the validity of accelerometry in assessing moderate intensity physical activity in the field and to evaluate the metabolic cost of various recreational and household activities. Methods: Twenty-five subjects completed four bouts of overground walking at a range of self-selected speeds, played two holes of golf, and performed indoor (window washing, dusting, vacuuming) and outdoor (lawn mowing, planting shrubs) household tasks. Energy expenditure was measured using a portable metabolic system, and motion was recorded using a Yamax Digiwalker pedometer (walking only), a Computer Science and Application, Inc. (CSA) accelerometer, and a Tritrac accelerometer. Correlations between accelerometer counts and energy cost were examined. In addition, individual equations to predict METs from counts were developed from the walking data and applied to the other activities to compare the relationships between counts and energy cost. Results: Observed MET levels differed from values reported in the Compendium of Physical Activities, although all activities fell in the moderate intensity range. Relationships between counts and METs were stronger for walking (CSA, r = 0.77; Tritrac, r = 0.89) than for all activities combined (CSA, r = 0.59; Tritrac, r = 0.62). Metabolic costs of golf and the household activities were underestimated by 30-60% based on the equations derived from level walking. Conclusion: The count versus METs relationship for accelerometry was found to be dependent on the type of activity performed, which may be due to the inability of accelerometers to detect increased energy cost from upper body movement, load carriage, or changes in surface or terrain. This may introduce error in attempts to use accelerometry to assess point estimates of physical activity energy expenditure in free-living situations.