Share this article on:

VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT OF DAILY ENERGY EXPENDITURE IN A RESPIRATION CHAMBER BY ACCELEROMETRY LOCATED ON THE WAIST VS THE WRIST OR IN COMBINATION

Kumahara, H1; Yoshioka, M2; Ishii, K1; Yoshitake, Y3; Shindo, M4; Schutz, Y5; Tanaka, H4

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: May 2002 - Volume 34 - Issue 5 - p S140
C18m Free Communication/Poster Cardiovascular Physiology

1Graduate School of Education, Hokkaido University, Japan

2Laval University Medical Center, Laval University, Canada

3National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya, Japan

4Faculty of Sports Science, Fukuoka University, Japan

5Institute of Physiology, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Back to Top | Article Outline

PURPOSE:

We have reported that the energy expenditure (EE) estimated by uniaxial accelerometry in the vertical plane (Lifecorder, Suzuken Co.; LC) located on the waist was highly correlated with EE measured in a respiration chamber (MSSE.33:s251,2001). On the other hand, slight movements of the limbs (i.e. fidgeting) also seem to play an important role in daily EE. The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity of accelerometry as a predictor of daily EE when two accelerometers are used separately, one on the wrist and the other one on the waist levels, or in combination.

Back to Top | Article Outline

METHODS:

In 55 healthy Japanese (37+/− 12 y of age, BMI = 21.7+/− 3.3 kg/m2) we measured 24-h EE in a respiration chamber. The subjects were prescribed two 30 min walking exercises on the treadmill (3.9, 5.1km/h, flat) and the sleeping duration was controlled (for 8-h). The subjects wore two LCs, one on the belt (LCbeit) and the other one on the wrist of the dominant arm (LCwrist). Linear regressions were calculated between measured EE normalized for body weight (kcal/kg*h) and LC activity levels assessed by acceleration (11 levels; 0, 0.5 and 1 to 9), and LCbeit vs LCwrist after these values were averaged over 15-min periods for a total of 16-h.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS:

There were highly significant relationships between EE and both accelerometric measures. The degree of correlation between LCbeit and EE was higher than that between LCwrist and EE: r = 0.817 p < 0.001, SEE = 0.41 vs r = 0.694 p < 0.001, SEE = 0.51, respectively. If treadmill walking periods are not considered, both correlations were found to be lower: r = 0.557 p < 0.001, SEE = 0.38 vs r = 0.476 p < 0.001, SEE = 0.40, respectively. When multiple regression analysis was used to explore the effect of the addition of LCwrist to LCbeit, the variance improved only by 0.8% including treadmill periods and 2.5% excluding treadmill periods. There were significant relationships between the activity levels measured by the 2 accelerations locations: r = 0.782 p < 0.001 with treadmill periods, r = 0.629 p < 0.001 without treadmill periods.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSION:

Adding LCwrist to LCbeit did not substantially improve the degree of prediction of daily energy expenditure. As a result, single accelerometer located on the waist level has sufficient validity for the estimation of the daily energy expenditure in confined conditions.

©2002The American College of Sports Medicine