Accelerometer thresholds: Accounting for body mass reduces discrepancies between measures of physical activity for individuals with overweight and obesity

Raiber, Lilian; Christensen, Rebecca; Jamnik, Veronica; Kuk, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1139/apnm-2016-0303

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An absolute threshold of 2020 CPM is typically used to differentiate MVPA, however, this approach may bias PA assessment in certain populations. Previously, we demonstrate that discrepancies between objective and subjective measures of PA is reduced for individuals with overweight and obesity after accounting for differences body weight (Raiber et al, 2017). Using a single absolute CPM threshold value to denote moderate or vigorous PA intensities also does not account for the individual differences in cardiorespiratory fitness or maximal oxygen consumption (VO 2 max) on the perceived or relative intensity (%VO 2 max) of PA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Do moderate- to vigorous-intensity accelerometer count thresholds correspond to relative moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity?

Raiber

Christensen

Randhawa

et al. 2019

Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to predict % maximal oxygen consumption at absolute accelerometer thresholds and to estimate and compare durations of objective physical activity (PA) among body mass index (BMI) categories using thresholds that account for cardiorespiratory fitness. Eight hundred twenty-eight adults (53.5% male; age, 33.9 ± 0.3 years) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003–2004 were analyzed. Metabolic equivalent values at absolute thresholds were converted to percentage of maximal oxygen consumption, and accelerometer counts corresponding to 40% or 60% maximal oxygen consumption were determined using 4 energy expenditure prediction equations. Absolute thresholds underestimated PA intensity for all adults; however, because of lower fitness, individuals with overweight and obesity work at significantly higher percentage of maximal oxygen consumption at the absolute thresholds and require significantly lower accelerometer counts to reach relative moderate and vigorous PA intensities compared with those with normal weight (P < 0.05). However, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) durations were shorter when using relative thresholds compared with absolute thresholds (in all BMI groups, P < 0.05), and they were shorter among individuals with obesity compared with those with normal weight when using relative thresholds (P < 0.05). Regardless of the thresholds used, a greater proportion of individuals with normal weight met the PA guideline of 150 min·week–1 of MVPA compared with individuals with obesity (absolute: 21.3% vs 6.7%; Yngve: 4.0% vs 0.2%; Swartz: 10.7% vs 3.9%; Hendelman: 4.7% vs 0.2%; Freedson: 6.4% vs 0.5%; P < 0.05). Current absolute thresholds of accelerometry-derived PA may overestimate MVPA for all BMI categories when compared with relative thresholds that account for cardiorespiratory fitness. Given the large variability in our results, more work is needed to better understand how to use accelerometers for evaluating PA at the population level.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Do moderate- to vigorous-intensity accelerometer count thresholds correspond to relative moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity?

Raiber

Christensen

Randhawa

et al. 2019

Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, an unresolved issue is, how do these d- values relate to real-world physical activity? To address this issue, we drew upon large-scale epidemiological studies that used accelerometry to index physical activity (Adams et al, 2013; Bohannon, 2007; Carroll et al, 2014; CDC, 2013; Clarke et al, 2019; Colley et al, 2012; Evenson et al, 2012; Loprinzi et al, 2014; Raiber et al, 2017; Troiano et al, 2008, Tudor-Locke et al, 2009, 2010). We used data from these studies to transform effect sizes into three key indices (Rhodes et al, 2017): number of steps per day, minutes of moderate/vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day, and the percentage of the sample meeting the physical activity guidelines specified by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking the effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity: A metasynthesis.

Wright¹,

Rhodes²,

Ruggiero³

et al. 2021

Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The effectiveness of physical activity interventions is typically evaluated using null hypothesis significance testing or conventional interpretations of effect size (i.e., “small,” “medium,” or “large”). As these criteria have recently attracted criticism, we conducted a quantitative integration of meta-analyses (a metasynthesis) in order to provide precise, numerical estimates of intervention effectiveness. The research aimed to specify the percentile distribution of effect sizes in meta-analyses of physical activity trials, and their corresponding values for different types of activity (i.e., steps per day, minutes of moderate/vigorous physical activity [MVPA], meeting World Health Organization (WHO) physical activity guidelines). Method: Computerized searches identified 104 meta-analyses incorporating findings from 2,762 trials that met the inclusion criteria for the metasynthesis. Results: The median effect size across all meta-analyses was d+ = .21, equivalent to an increase of 1,320 steps per day, 15.6 additional minutes of daily MVPA, and a 4.3% increase in the proportion of participants meeting WHO guidelines. Separate percentile distributions were computed for different samples (e.g., children, older adults, cancer survivors), measures of physical activity (i.e., objective vs. self-report), settings (e.g., schools, workplace), and follow-up periods (3+, 6+, and 12+ months). Conclusions: Conventional interpretations of effect size gravely misrepresent the effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity. The percentile values for effect sizes, steps per days, minutes of MVPA, and percentage meeting guidelines reported here can be used to benchmark the effectiveness of future trials and should enable more informed judgments about trade-offs between effectiveness and considerations such as reach, burden, and cost.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, care should be taken when monitoring MVPA in overweight and obese populations using accelerometers validated in non-obese adults. Since moderate (< 3–5.99 METs) and vigorous (> 6 METs) physical activity is based on MET cut-points derived from VO 2 where 1MET = 3.5 mL/kg/min − 1 , MVPA will be altered in overweight or obese populations since obesity is associated with reduced cardiorespiratory fitness [ 63 ] and diminished metabolic capacity [ 64 ]. Unsurprisingly, laboratory and free-living experiments suggest that accelerometers detect vigorous activity more accurately than lighter activity [ 65 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using open source accelerometer analysis to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviour in overweight and obese adults

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPhysical activity and sedentary behaviour are difficult to assess in overweight and obese adults. However, the use of open-source, raw accelerometer data analysis could overcome this. This study compared raw accelerometer and questionnaire-assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), walking and sedentary behaviour in normal, overweight and obese adults, and determined the effect of using different methods to categorise overweight and obesity, namely body mass index (BMI), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR).MethodsOne hundred twenty adults, aged 24–60 years, wore a raw, tri-axial accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X+), for 3 days and completed a physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ-S). We used open-source accelerometer analyses to estimate MVPA, walking and sedentary behaviour from a single raw accelerometer signal. Accelerometer and questionnaire-assessed measures were compared in normal, overweight and obese adults categorised using BMI, BIA and WHR.ResultsRelationships between accelerometer and questionnaire-assessed MVPA (Rs = 0.30 to 0.48) and walking (Rs = 0.43 to 0.58) were stronger in normal and overweight groups whilst sedentary behaviour were modest (Rs = 0.22 to 0.38) in normal, overweight and obese groups. The use of WHR resulted in stronger agreement between the questionnaire and accelerometer than BMI and BIA. Finally, accelerometer data showed stronger associations with BMI, BIA and WHR (Rs = 0.40 to 0.77) than questionnaire data (Rs = 0.24 to 0.37).ConclusionsOpen-source, raw accelerometer data analysis can be used to estimate MVPA, walking and sedentary behaviour from a single acceleration signal in normal, overweight and obese adults. Our data supports the use of WHR to categorise overweight and obese adults. This evidence helps researchers obtain more accurate measures of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in overweight and obese populations.

show abstract

Accelerometer thresholds: Accounting for body mass reduces discrepancies between measures of physical activity for individuals with overweight and obesity

Cited by 5 publications

References 36 publications

Do moderate- to vigorous-intensity accelerometer count thresholds correspond to relative moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity?

Do moderate- to vigorous-intensity accelerometer count thresholds correspond to relative moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity?

Benchmarking the effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity: A metasynthesis.

Using open source accelerometer analysis to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviour in overweight and obese adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About