Validity of a Multi-Sensor Armband for Estimating Energy Expenditure during Eighteen Different Activities.

Journal of obesity & weight loss therapy Pub Date : 2012-01-01 Epub Date: 2012-08-29 DOI:10.4172/2165-7904.1000146
Paige Dudley, David R Bassett, Dinesh John, Scott E Crouter
{"title":"Validity of a Multi-Sensor Armband for Estimating Energy Expenditure during Eighteen Different Activities.","authors":"Paige Dudley,&nbsp;David R Bassett,&nbsp;Dinesh John,&nbsp;Scott E Crouter","doi":"10.4172/2165-7904.1000146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine the validity of an armband physical activity monitor in estimating energy expenditure (EE) over a wide range of physical activities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>68 participants (mean age=39.5 ± 13.0 yrs) performed one of three routines consisting of six activities (approximately 10 min each) while wearing the armband and the Cosmed K4b<sup>2</sup> portable metabolic unit. Routine 1 (n=25) involved indoor home-based activities, routine 2 (n=22) involved miscellaneous activities, and routine 3 (n=21) involved outdoor aerobic activities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean differences between the EE values in METs (criterion minus estimated) are as follows. Routine 1: watching TV (-0.1), reading (-0.1), laundry (0.1), ironing (-1.3), light cleaning (-0.4), and aerobics (0.4). Routine 2: driving (-0.6), Frisbee golf (-0.9), grass trimming (-0.5), gardening (-1.5), moving dirt with a wheelbarrow (-0.1), loading and unloading boxes (0.1); Routine 3: sidewalk walking (-1.0), track walking (-0.8), walking with a bag (-0.6), tennis (1.6), track running (2.2), and road running (2.1). The armband significantly overestimated EE during several light-to-moderate intensity activities such as driving (by 74%), ironing (by 70%), gardening (by 55%), light cleaning (by 15%), Frisbee golf (by 24%), and sidewalk walking (by 26%) (P<0.05). The arm band significantly underestimated high intensity activities including tennis (by 20%), and track or road running (by 20%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the armband provided mean EE estimates within 16% of the criterion for nine of the 18 activities, predictions for several activities were significantly different from the criterion. The armband prediction algorithms could be refined to increase the accuracy of EE estimations.</p>","PeriodicalId":89692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of obesity & weight loss therapy","volume":"2 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2165-7904.1000146","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of obesity & weight loss therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7904.1000146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the validity of an armband physical activity monitor in estimating energy expenditure (EE) over a wide range of physical activities.

Methods: 68 participants (mean age=39.5 ± 13.0 yrs) performed one of three routines consisting of six activities (approximately 10 min each) while wearing the armband and the Cosmed K4b2 portable metabolic unit. Routine 1 (n=25) involved indoor home-based activities, routine 2 (n=22) involved miscellaneous activities, and routine 3 (n=21) involved outdoor aerobic activities.

Results: Mean differences between the EE values in METs (criterion minus estimated) are as follows. Routine 1: watching TV (-0.1), reading (-0.1), laundry (0.1), ironing (-1.3), light cleaning (-0.4), and aerobics (0.4). Routine 2: driving (-0.6), Frisbee golf (-0.9), grass trimming (-0.5), gardening (-1.5), moving dirt with a wheelbarrow (-0.1), loading and unloading boxes (0.1); Routine 3: sidewalk walking (-1.0), track walking (-0.8), walking with a bag (-0.6), tennis (1.6), track running (2.2), and road running (2.1). The armband significantly overestimated EE during several light-to-moderate intensity activities such as driving (by 74%), ironing (by 70%), gardening (by 55%), light cleaning (by 15%), Frisbee golf (by 24%), and sidewalk walking (by 26%) (P<0.05). The arm band significantly underestimated high intensity activities including tennis (by 20%), and track or road running (by 20%).

Conclusion: Although the armband provided mean EE estimates within 16% of the criterion for nine of the 18 activities, predictions for several activities were significantly different from the criterion. The armband prediction algorithms could be refined to increase the accuracy of EE estimations.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

多传感器臂带在18种不同活动中估计能量消耗的有效性。
目的:检验臂带体力活动监测仪在评估大范围体力活动的能量消耗(EE)方面的有效性。方法:68名参与者(平均年龄=39.5±13.0岁)在佩戴臂带和Cosmed K4b2便携式代谢装置的情况下,进行了三种常规中的一种,包括六种活动(每次约10分钟)。例程1 (n=25)涉及室内居家活动,例程2 (n=22)涉及杂项活动,例程3 (n=21)涉及室外有氧活动。结果:METs中EE值的平均差异(减去估计标准)如下。例行程序1:看电视(-0.1)、阅读(-0.1)、洗衣(0.1)、熨烫(-1.3)、轻度清洁(-0.4)、有氧运动(0.4)。套路2:开车(-0.6)、飞盘高尔夫(-0.9)、修剪草坪(-0.5)、园艺(-1.5)、手推车移土(-0.1)、装卸箱子(0.1);套路3:人行道步行(-1.0)、跑道步行(-0.8)、带包步行(-0.6)、网球(1.6)、跑道跑步(2.2)、公路跑步(2.1)。在一些轻到中等强度的活动中,如开车(74%),熨烫(70%),园艺(55%),轻度清洁(15%),飞盘高尔夫(24%)和人行道行走(26%),袖标显著高估了EE(结论:尽管袖标提供的平均EE估计在18项活动中的9项标准的16%以内,但一些活动的预测与标准显着不同。可以对臂带预测算法进行改进,以提高EE估计的精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信