Nichols J F, Morgan C G, Chabot L E, Sallis J F, Calfas K J
Department of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences, San Diego State University, USA.
Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000 Mar;71(1):36-43. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2000.10608878.
Our purpose was to compare the validity of the Computer Science and Applications, (CSA) Inc., accelerometer in laboratory and field settings and establish CSA count ranges for light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity. Validity was determined in 60 adults during treadmill exercise, using oxygen consumption (VO2) as the criterion measure, while 30 adults walked and jogged outdoors on a 400-m track. The relationship between CSA counts and VO2 was linear (R2 = .89 SEE = 3.72 ml.kg-1.min-1), as was the relationship between velocity and counts in the field (R2 = .89, SEE = 0.89 mi.hr-1). However, significant differences were found (p < .05) between laboratory and field measures of CSA counts for light and vigorous intensity. We conclude that the CSA can be used to quantify walking and jogging outdoors on level ground; however, laboratory equations may not be appropriate for use in field settings, particularly for light and vigorous activity.
我们的目的是比较CSA公司加速度计在实验室和现场环境中的有效性，并确定轻度、中度和剧烈身体活动的CSA计数范围。在60名成年人进行跑步机运动期间，以耗氧量（VO2）作为标准测量指标来确定有效性，同时30名成年人在400米跑道上进行户外行走和慢跑。CSA计数与VO2之间的关系呈线性（R2 = 0.89，标准误 = 3.72毫升·千克-1·分钟-1），现场速度与计数之间的关系也是如此（R2 = 0.89，标准误 = 0.89英里·小时-1）。然而，在轻度和剧烈强度的CSA计数的实验室测量和现场测量之间发现了显著差异（p < 0.05）。我们得出结论，CSA可用于量化在平坦地面上的户外行走和慢跑；然而，实验室方程可能不适用于现场环境，特别是对于轻度和剧烈活动。
