Energy cost of physica activities in Children:: Validation of sensewear armband
Energy cost of physica activities in Children:: Validation of sensewear armband
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0b013e31814fb439
复制
发表时间：
2007-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hulthen, Lena
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Arvidsson, Daniel;Slinde, Frode;Hulthen, Lena
目的：检验 SenseWear Pro(2) 臂带在评估儿童体育活动能量成本方面的有效性，并为全面了解儿童体育活动提供能量成本值。方法：使用 SenseWear Pro(2) 臂带对 20 名 11-13 岁健康儿童进行了躺下休息、坐着玩手机游戏、在踏板上上下行走、骑固定自行车、在蹦床上跳跃、打篮球以及在跑步机上以 2、3、4、5、6、7、8 和 10 公里中心点速度行走/跑步时的能量消耗评估h(-1)。在这些活动中，还根据 Oxycon Mobile 便携式代谢系统测量的 VO2 和 VCO2 来评估能量成本，并用作标准方法。结果：SenseWear Pro(2) Armband 和 Oxycon Mobile 的能量消耗差异为：休息时为 -0.7 (0.5) (P < 0.001)，玩手机游戏时为 -2.0 (0.9) (P < 0.001)，踩踏步板时为 -6.6 (2.3) (P < 0.001)，踩踏板时为 -12.0 (3.7) (P < 0.001)。骑自行车时为 -2.7 (11.9) (P = 0.34)，在蹦床上跳跃时为 -2.7 (11.9) (P = 0.34)，打篮球时为 -14.8 (6.4) kJ 中心点 min(-1) (P < 0.001)。 SenseWear Pro(2) Armband 和 Oxycon Mobile 提高跑步机速度的能源成本差异为 1.3 (3.1) (P = 0.048)、0.1 (2.9) (P = 0.82)、-1.2 (2.6) (P = 0.049)、-1.6 (3.2) (P = 0.044)、-3.1 (3.7) (P = 0.0013)、-4.9 (3.7) (P < 0.001)、-5.3 (3.7) (P < 0.001) 和 -11.1 (3.5) kJ 中心点 min(-1) (P < 0.001)。结论：SenseWear Pro(2) 臂带低估了本研究中大多数活动的能量消耗，并且随着体力活动强度的增加，这种低估程度也随之增加。提出了通过间接量热法测量的儿童体育活动的能量成本（MET 值）表，作为创建儿童体育活动纲要的开始。
Purpose: To examine the validity of SenseWear Pro(2) Armband in assessing energy cost of physical activities in children, and to contribute with values of energy costs in an over-view of physical activities in children. Methods: Energy cost was assessed by SenseWear Pro(2) Armband in 20 healthy children, 11-13 yr, while lying down resting, sitting playing games on mobile phone, stepping up and down on a step board, bicycling on a stationary bike, jumping on a trampoline, playing basketball, and walking/running on a treadmill at the speeds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 km center dot h(-1). During these activities, energy cost was also assessed from VO2 and VCO2 measured by Oxycon Mobile portable metabolic system, which was used as criterion method. Results: The difference in energy cost between SenseWear Pro(2) Armband and Oxycon Mobile was -0.7 (0.5) (P < 0.001) for resting, -2.0 (0.9) (P < 0.001) for playing games on mobile phone, -6.6 (2.3) (P < 0.001) for stepping on the step board, -12.0 (3.7) (P < 0.001) for bicycling, -2.7 (11.9) (P = 0.34) for jumping on the trampoline, and -14.8 (6.4) kJ center dot min(-1) (P < 0.001) for playing basketball. The difference in energy cost between SenseWear Pro(2) Armband and Oxycon Mobile for increasing treadmill speed was 1.3 (3.1) (P = 0.048), 0.1 (2.9) (P = 0.82), -1.2 (2.6) (P = 0.049), -1.6 (3.2) (P = 0.044), -3.1 (3.7) (P = 0.0013), -4.9 (3.7) (P < 0.001), -5.3 (3.7) (P < 0.001), and -11.1 (3.5) kJ center dot min(-1) (P < 0.001). Conclusions: SenseWear Pro(2) Armband underestimated energy cost of most activities in this study, an underestimation that increased with increased physical activity intensity. A table of energy costs (MET values) of physical activities in children measured by indirect calorimetry is presented as an initiation of the creation of a compendium of physical activities in children.