Estimating energy expenditure from wrist and thigh accelerometry in free-living adults: a doubly labelled water study

Abstract

BackgroundMany large studies have implemented wrist or thigh accelerometry to capture physical activity, but the accuracy of these measurements to infer Activity Energy Expenditure (AEE) and consequently Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) has not been demonstrated. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of acceleration intensity at wrist and thigh sites as estimates of AEE and TEE under free-living conditions using a gold-standard criterion.MethodsMeasurements for 193 UK adults (105 men, 88 women, aged 40-66 years, BMI 20.4-36.6 kg·m-2) were collected with triaxial accelerometers worn on the dominant wrist, non-dominant wrist and thigh in free-living conditions for 9-14 days. In a subsample (50 men, 50 women) TEE was simultaneously assessed with doubly labelled water (DLW). AEE was estimated from non-dominant wrist using an established estimation model, and novel models were derived for dominant wrist and thigh in the non-DLW subsample. Agreement with both AEE and TEE from DLW was evaluated by mean bias, Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) and Pearson correlation.ResultsMean TEE and AEE derived from DLW was 11.6 (2.3) MJ·day-1 and 49.8 (16.3) kJ·day-1·kg-1. Dominant and non-dominant wrist acceleration were highly correlated in free-living (r=0.93), but less so with thigh (r=0.73 and 0.66, respectively). Estimates of AEE were 48.6 (11.8) kJ·day-1·kg-1 from dominant wrist, 48.6 (12.3) from non-dominant wrist, and 46.0 (10.1) from thigh; these agreed strongly with AEE (RMSE ~12.2 kJ·day-1·kg-1, r ~0.71) with small mean biases at the population level (~6%). Only the thigh estimate bias was statistically significantly different from the criterion. When combining these AEE estimates with estimated REE, agreement was stronger with the criterion (RMSE ~1.0 MJ·day-1, r ~0.90). Conclusions: In UK adults, acceleration measured at either wrist or thigh can be used to estimate population levels of AEE and TEE in free-living conditions with high precision.

Objectively Measured Physical Activity Reduces the Risk of Mortality among Brazilian Older Adults

“…Activity intensities (light or moderate to vigorous) were estimated from 5‐s aggregated time series (epoch). Time spent in acceleration between 50 and 99 m g defined daily time in LPA; activities with acceleration higher than 100 m g were considered as moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) . MVPA in 5‐minute bouts, defined as 5 consecutive minutes in which participants spent at least 4 minutes at more than 100 m g , was also considered.…”

Measuring physical activity with activity monitors in patients with heart failure: from literature to practice. A position paper from the Committee on Exercise Physiology and Training of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

“…Seventeen activity monitors were described in the retrieved articles on patients with HF ( Table 2 ). 28–43 Of these 17 activity monitors, eight [Actical (Minimitter, Inc., Respironics, Bend, OR, USA), ActiGraph Model GT1M Model and ActiGraph 7164 (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL, USA), ActivPAL™ (PAL Technologies Ltd., Glasgow, UK), Caltrac (Muscle Dynamics, Torrance, CA, USA), the Chiron wearable sensor platform, SenseWear Pro3 Armband (BodyMedia, Inc, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and the Temec activity monitor (Temec Instruments Kerkrade, The Netherlands)] were not available or not yet available to purchase on the market and therefore were not considered. One activity monitor, the HJA‐750C Active Style Pro (OMRON Healthcare Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan), despite being available outside Japan, only provided software and supporting information in Japanese.…”

Machine Learning Algorithms for Activity-Intensity Recognition Using Accelerometer Data

“…Thus, the amount of energy expended in the execution of the movement is the criterion used to differentiate between physical activities. The measurement of energy expenditure is widely discussed in terms of consumption of oxygen and heart rate, and accelerometer has been discussed [ 16 , 17 ]. Despite the complexity of the measurement of physical activity, accessible and inexpensive instruments are of interest to researchers and clinicians.…”