Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field.

By D. Hendelman, K. Miller, C. Baggett, E. Debold, Patty S. Freedson. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2000

837 citations recorded by the source corpus.

PURPOSE This study was undertaken to examine the validity of accelerometry in assessing moderate intensity physical activity in the field and to evaluate the metabolic cost of various recreational and household activities. METHODS Twenty-five subjects completed four bouts of overground walking at a range of self-selected speeds, played two holes of golf, and performed indoor (window washing, dusting, vacuuming) and outdoor (lawn mowing, planting shrubs) household tasks. Energy expenditure was measured using a portable metabolic system, and motion was recorded using a Yamax Digiwalker pedometer (walking only), a Computer Science and Application, Inc. (CSA) accelerometer, and a Tritrac accelerometer. Correlations between accelerometer counts and energy cost were examined. In addition, individual equations to predict METs from counts were developed from the walking data and applied to the other activities to compare the relationships between counts and energy cost. RESULTS Observed MET levels differed from values reported in the Compendium of Physical Activities, although all activities fell in the moderate intensity range. Relationships between counts and METs were stronger for walking (CSA, r = 0.77; Tritrac, r = 0.89) than for all activities combined (CSA, r = 0.59; Tritrac, r = 0.62). Metabolic costs of golf and the household activities were underestimated by 30-60% based on the equations derived from level walking. CONCLUSION The count versus METs relationship for accelerometry was found to be dependent on the type of activity performed, which may be due to the inability of accelerometers to detect increased energy cost from upper body movement, load carriage, or changes in surface or terrain. This may introduce error in attempts to use accelerometry to assess point estimates of physical activity energy expenditure in free-living situations.

Subfields: Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Physiology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cd0b1fa26ac233ec8690cf70b75fa86637e6acad

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

In Physiology

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Citations in the corpus

How Many Steps/Day Are Enough? (2004, background): “[12-14]Aggregated evidence of convergent validity (relative to other measures of physical activity)[15]and construct validity (relative to measures of health outcome) provides”
Accelerometry: providing an integrated, practical method for long-term, ambulatory monitoring of human movement (2004, neutral): “On the other hand, Hendelman et al (2000) reported correlations of only 0.59–0.62 for subjects completing a range of indoor and outdoor activities including playing golf, vacuuming and lawn mowing.”
Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. (2000, background): “Doctoral dissertations and other research studies have also focused on measuring the MET intensities of household, lawn and garden, cultural, and custodial activities (8,9,27,28).”
A novel method for using accelerometer data to predict energy expenditure. (2006, methodology): “The current regression equations for estimating EE based on the counts per minute from the Actigraph accelerometer were developed either during walking and running (6–8, 11, 13, 18) or during moderate-intensity lifestyle activities (8, 17).”
The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future. (2005, background): “It has been reported that several currently available PA monitors are not as sensitive to activities that are of less than moderate intensities (20,47), and plateau in vigorous intensities (4,27).”
Reliability and validity of the combined heart rate and movement sensor Actiheart (2005, background): “…climbing, cycling, stepping, and during load-bearing activities, (Montoye et al, 1983; Sekioka et al, 1998; Jakicic et al, 1999; Nichols et al, 1999; Bassett et al, 2000; Hendelman et al, 2000; Brage et al, 2003b, c; Ekelund et al, 2003; Strath et al, 2003; King et al, 2004; Treuth et al, 2004).”