A comparison of energy expenditure estimates from the Actiheart and Actical physical activity monitors during low intensity activities, walking, and jogging

Abstract

Combining accelerometry with heart rate monitoring has been suggested to improve energy estimates, however, it remains unclear whether the single, currently existing commercially available device combining these data streams (Actiheart) provides improved energy estimates compared to simpler and less expensive accelerometry-only devices. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of the heart rate (HR), accelerometry (ACC), and combined ACC/HR estimates of the Actiheart to the ACC estimates of the Actical during low and moderate intensity activities. Twenty-seven participants (mean age 26.3 ± 7.3) wore an Actical, Actiheart and indirect calorimeter (K4b(2)) while performing card playing, sweeping, lifting weights, walking and jogging activities. All estimates tended to underestimate energy, sometimes by substantial amounts. Viewed across all activities studied, there was no significant difference in the ability of the waist-mounted Actical and torso-mounted Actiheart (ACC, HR, ACC/HR) estimates to predict energy expenditure. However, the Actiheart provided significantly better estimates than the Actical for the activities in which acceleration of the pelvis is not closely related to energy expenditure (card playing, sweeping, lifting weights) and the Actical provided significantly better estimates for level walking and level jogging. Similar to a previous study, the ACC component of the Actiheart was found to be the weakest predictor of energy suggesting it may be responsible for the failure of the combined ACC/HR estimate to equal or better the estimates derived solely from a waist mounted ACC device.

Comparison of steps and energy expenditure assessment in adults of Fitbit Tracker and Ultra to the Actical and indirect calorimetry

“…Various acceierometers have been developed and studied in the past decade for intra-and inter-device reliability and validity [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Previously, our lab conducted similar analyses comparing the Actical® and Actiheart® devices to indirect calorimetry [25].…”

Validation and reliability of two activity monitors for energy expenditure assessment

“…6,7 The ACT provided valid resting energy expenditure (REE) estimation compared to indirect calorimetry for normal to overweight adults, 8 but discrepancies were observed for EE during short PA periods. 7,9 In a mechanical set-up, the ACT presented a good intra-instrument reliability (coefficient of variation (CV) = 0.5%). 10 Despite its wide use, the ability of ACT to evaluate with accuracy the daily TEE has not been established.…”

Accuracy of a combined heart rate and motion sensor for assessing energy expenditure in free-living adults during a double-blind crossover caffeine trial using doubly labeled water as the reference method

“…It is expected that accelerometers underestimate EE as the linearity between counts and aerobic intensity cannot always be assumed at moderate to high velocities 36 . Previous studies observed that the accelerometer component of the combined monitor presents a poor performance compared to other hip worn equipment, particularly at higher intensities during level walking and level jogging 37 . Therefore, the accuracy of accelerometer models from combined sensing may be limited due to the position of the monitor on the sternum 38 .…”