Rodriguez G, Béghin L, Michaud L, Moreno L A, Turck D, Gottrand F
Unité de Gastroentérologie, Hépatologie et Nutrition, Clinique de Pédiatrie, Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, and Faculté de Médecine, Lille, France.
Br J Nutr. 2002 Jun;87(6):623-31. doi: 10.1079/BJNBJN2002571.
Determining total energy expenditure (EE) in children under free-living conditions has become of increasingly clinical interest. The aim of this study was to compare three different methods to assess EE triaxial accelerometry (TriTrac-R3D; Professional Products, Division of Reining International, Madison, WI, USA), activity diary and heart-rate (HR) monitoring combined with indirect calorimetry (IC). Twenty non-obese children and adolescents, aged 5.5 to 16.0 years, participated in this study. Results from the three methods were collected simultaneously under free-living conditions during the same 24 h schoolday period. Neither activity diary (5904 (sd 1756) kJ) nor the TriTrac-R3D (6389 (sd 979) kJ) showed statistical differences in 24 h total EE compared with HR monitoring (5965 (sd 1911) kJ). When considering different physical activity (PA) periods, compared with HR monitoring, activity diary underestimates total EE during sedentary periods (P<0.001) and overestimates total EE and PA-EE during PA periods (P<0.001) because of the high energy cost equivalence of activity levels. The TriTrac-R3D, compared with HR monitoring, shows good agreement for assessing PA-EE during PA periods (mean difference +0.25 (sd 1.9) kJ/min; 95 % CI for the bias -0.08, 0.58), but underestimates PA-EE and it does not show good precision during sedentary periods (-0.87 (sd 1.4) kJ/min, P<0.001). Correlation between the vector magnitude generated by the TriTrac-R3D accelerometer and EE of activities derived from HR monitoring is high. When compared with the HR method, the TriTrac-R3D and activity diary are not systematically accurate and must be carefully used for the assessment of children's EE depending on the purpose of each study.
在自由生活条件下测定儿童的总能量消耗（EE）已越来越受到临床关注。本研究的目的是比较三种不同的方法来评估EE：三轴加速度计（TriTrac-R3D；Professional Products，Reining International的部门，麦迪逊，威斯康星州，美国）、活动日记以及心率（HR）监测结合间接测热法（IC）。20名年龄在5.5至16.0岁之间的非肥胖儿童和青少年参与了本研究。在自由生活条件下，于同一个24小时上学日期间同时收集三种方法的结果。与HR监测（5965（标准差1911）kJ）相比，活动日记（5904（标准差1756）kJ）和TriTrac-R3D（6389（标准差979）kJ）在24小时总EE方面均未显示出统计学差异。在考虑不同的身体活动（PA）时段时，与HR监测相比，活动日记在久坐时段低估了总EE（P<0.001），而在PA时段高估了总EE和PA-EE（P<0.001），这是由于活动水平的高能量消耗等效性。与HR监测相比，TriTrac-R3D在评估PA时段的PA-EE方面显示出良好的一致性（平均差异+0.25（标准差1.9）kJ/分钟；偏差的95%置信区间为-0.08，0.58），但低估了PA-EE，并且在久坐时段未显示出良好的精度（-0.87（标准差1.4）kJ/分钟，P<0.001）。TriTrac-R3D加速度计产生的矢量大小与HR监测得出的活动EE之间的相关性很高。与HR方法相比，TriTrac-R3D和活动日记并非系统准确，必须根据每项研究的目的谨慎用于评估儿童的EE。
