Description and validation of the ActiReg®: a novel instrument to measure physical activity and energy expenditure

Hustvedt, Bo-Egil; Christophersen, Asbjørg S.; Johnsen, Lene R.; Tomten, Heidi; McNeill, Geraldine; Haggarty, Paul; Lövö, Arne

doi:10.1079/bjn20041272

Cited by 61 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experiments with ActiReg w and DLW have shown that in individuals with PAL . 2.0, measurement of heart rate should be included to improve the calculation of EE 24 . However, only a few people in the Danish population have a PAL .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of misreporters of dietary intake and physical activity

Rasmussen¹,

Matthiessen²,

Biltoft-Jensen³

et al. 2007

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To characterise misreporters of energy intake (EI) and energy expenditure (EE). Design: Cross-sectional study, using a validated position and motion instrument, ActiReg w , as the reference method to study misreporters of EI and of EE. EI was measured using a dietary record and EE using a physical activity questionnaire (PAQ). Misreporters were defined as subjects outside the 95% confidence limits of agreement between EI or EE reported/EE measured. Setting: Free-living Danish volunteers. Subjects: One hundred and thirty-eight volunteers aged between 20 and 59 years. Results: Body mass index, smoking, 'try to eat healthily' and worries about weight were related to degree of under-reported EI. The percentage energy from added sugar was lowest (P , 0.001) and the percentage energy from protein (P , 0.001) highest in under-reporters compared with acceptable reporters. Subjects who reported being very physically active at work or in leisure time reported a higher EE than measured EE compared with less physically active subjects (P , 0.05). Likewise, subjects who regard themselves as fit or very fit reported a higher EE than subjects who regard themselves as moderately fit (P , 0.05). Possible over-reporters reported less time as very light activity (P ¼ 0.007), more time as moderate activity (P ¼ 0.01) and more time as vigorous activity (P ¼ 0.02) than acceptable reporters. Conclusions: Under-reporting of EI should always be taken into consideration; however, only a few characteristics of under-reporters are consistent among studies. Misreporting of EI was more prevalent than misreporting of EE. The level of physical activity more than the time spent involved in various activities was misreported. Keywords Dietary records Energy intake Energy expenditure Physical activity MisreportingUnder-reporting of energy intake (EI) is a common problem in dietary studies. Characteristics of underreporters have been investigated in a number of studies using various methods, but the results have not been consistent. The most common finding is a relationship between increased under-reporting and increased body mass index (BMI). This relationship is found in most 1 -4 but not all 5,6 studies. However, a relationship with body fat is not always found; in a study in women, a relationship between percentage body fat and under-reporting was not found, although a relationship with BMI was found 2 , whereas in another study the opposite relationships were found 6 . Under-reporting has been found to increase with increasing age 1,3,7 and to be more frequent in women than in men 5 -7 . However, in Denmark, this trend has not been identified recently 8 . Other characteristics of underreporters are less frequently identified. Smokers have been found to under-report EI less frequently than non-smokers 1,7,9 , although this finding has not been consistent 10 . Furthermore, educational level has been associated with under-reporting, but both a high and a low educational level has been related to under-reporting, and many stud...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of misreporters of dietary intake and physical activity

Rasmussen¹,

Matthiessen²,

Biltoft-Jensen³

et al. 2007

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wires from the accelerometer are attached to arm and leg. It is a reliable instrument to assess energy expenditure, but mounting of the instrument should be done by the same experienced person, which makes it less suitable in large scale studies (Arvidsson D et al, 2006;Hustvedt BE et al, 2004).…”

Section: Other Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Position statement: Testing physical condition in a population – how good are the methods?

Jørgensen

Andersen

Fröberg

et al. 2009

European Journal of Sport Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This file was dowloaded from the institutional repository Brage NIH -brage.bibsys.no/nih Jørgensen T., Andersen, L. B., Froberg, K., Maeder, U., von Huth Smith, L., Aadahl, M. (2009 AbstractA poor physical condition -expressed as physical inactivity and poor physical fitness -is associated with development of chronic diseases and premature death. The aim of this position statement is to evaluate the currently available methods for measuring physical activity and physical fitness in the general population.Physical activity is determined by duration, frequency and intensity and derives from many different domains making it difficult to assess over longer time periods and no feasible general criterion measure exist. Both objective and subjective methods are available. Of the objective methods accelerometry seems to be the most attractive technology, and is well enough developed for general use in large populations. The advantage of the method is that it is not dependent on memory of the individual, but the disadvantage is that it grossly underestimates energy expenditure, due to the lack of registration of certain activities. This may be solved to a certain extent by combining it with heart rate measurement, but it still does not measure activity in different domains.Of the subjective methods self-report questionnaires are feasible and easy to administer. Many questionnaires have been developed, but we are in need of 1) consensus on which measures to use for validation and 2) further development of internationally standardised questionnaires to be used in different settings and to different scientific questions. Many questionnaires correlate well with biological markers and development of chronic diseases, but subjective measurement will always face a certain degree of misclassification. Furthermore, unstructured physical activity like e.g.housework and gardening may be subject to recall bias. So far no measurement seem superior to the other, and the choice of instrument will depend on the research question asked. Future research should combine information from both objective and subjective methods.Physical fitness comprises several components with cardiorespiratory endurance and muscle strength and endurance as the most important. Direct measurement of oxygen consumption is the criterion measure for cardiorespiratory endurance. As regards muscle strengths and endurance only test-retest reliability is available. The hand held dynamometers greatly facilitate field testing for maximal isometric muscle strength assessment, whereas force plate measurements can be used for the lower extremities. For endurance simple tests like push-ups and sit-ups seems reliable.

show abstract

“…The ActiReg is using combined recordings of body position and motion to measure physical activity (Hustvedt et al 2004) and consists of two pairs of position and motion sensors connected by cables to a storage unit fixed to a waist belt.…”

Section: Total Energy Expenditure -Measuredmentioning

confidence: 99%