An integrated program of exercise and heart health-related lectures and discussions had a beneficial effect on health knowledge, health behaviors, and onset of risk factors for coronary artery disease among urban girls.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare physical activity measured using GT1M ActiGraph and GT3X ActiGraph accelerometers in free living conditions.FindingsTwenty-five adults wore GT1M and GT3X Actigraph accelerometers simultaneously during a typical weekday of activity. Data were uploaded from the monitor to a computer at the end of test (one day). Previously established thresholds were used for defining time spent at each level of physical activity, physical activity was assessed at varying intensities comparing data from the two accelerometers by ANOVA and Bland and Altman statistical analysis. The concordance correlation coefficient between accelerometers at each intensity level was 0.99. There were no significant differences between accelerometers at any of the activity levels. Differences between data obtained in minutes with the GT1M accelerometer and the GT3X monitor were to 0.56, 0.36, 0.52 and 0.44% for sedentary, light, moderate and vigorous, respectively. The Bland and Altman method showed good agreement between data obtained for the two accelerometers.ConclusionsFindings suggest that the two accelerometers provided similar results and therefore the GT3X may be used in clinical and epidemiological studies without additional calibration or validation studies.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in physical activity assessment between a wrist-worn accelerometer at the dominant or non-dominant arm. The secondary purpose was to assess the concurrent validity of measures of physical activity from the wrist-worn accelerometer and the waist-worn accelerometer. Forty adults wore three accelerometers simultaneously, one on the waist and one each on the non-dominant wrist and dominant wrist, respectively, for 24 consecutive hours of free-living conditions. Data were uploaded from the monitor to a computer following a 1-day test period. There were no significant differences in physical activity when comparing the dominant versus the non-dominant wrist, regardless of axis (P>0·05). Mean daily accelerometer output data from both wrists were strongly correlated with average counts per minute from the ActiGraph worn around the waist (r = 0·88, P<0·001). Findings suggest that the choice to wear the accelerometer on the non-dominant or dominant wrist has no impact on results. Data from this study contribute to the knowledge of how to best assess physical activity habits.

No abstract

No abstract