Eisenmann Joey C, Strath Scott J, Shadrick Danny, Rigsby Paul, Hirsch Nicole, Jacobson Leigh
Department of Health and Human Performance, Iowa State University, 255 Forker Building, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Mar;91(2-3):259-63. doi: 10.1007/s00421-003-0983-3. Epub 2003 Oct 21.
The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of treadmill-based equations of two commonly used uniaxial accelerometers to estimate energy expenditure (EE) during activities of daily living in children. Twelve subjects with mean (SD) age11.4 (0.4) years engaged in a choreographed routine consisting of three activities (sweeping, bowling, and basketball) of 4min duration while wearing a Manufacturing Technology, Inc. (MTI) accelerometer, Caltrac accelerometer, and a portable gas analyzer (Cosmed K4b(2)). The equations of Trost et al. and Sallis et al. were used to convert activity counts to estimations of EE for the MTI and Caltrac, respectively. Correlation coefficients between Caltrac predictions of EE and measured EE from indirect calorimetry ranged from r=0.22 to 0.72 for individual activities. Correlations between MTI EE predictions and indirect calorimetry ranged from r=0.50 to 0.68 for individual activities. When the activities were pooled the correlations between EE from uniaxial accelerometers and EE from indirect calorimetry were moderately strong (MTI, r=0.78 and Caltrac, r=0.82). Inter-accelerometer (counts min(-1)) correlations were 0.08, -0.54, 0.63, and 0.79 for sweeping, bowling, basketball, and pooled data, respectively. The overall mean difference, or bias, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each uniaxial accelerometer compared to indirect calorimetry were as follows: Caltrac, bias = 2.80 (2.36, 3.24) kcal min(-1); MTI, bias = 0.88 (0.23, 1.53) kcal min(-1). Both accelerometers significantly underestimated measured EE ( P<0.05). Uniaxial accelerometers provide potential for the measurement of physical activity (PA) and EE in children. Future studies refining accelerometry predictions of PA and EE are warranted.
本研究的目的是检验两种常用单轴加速度计基于跑步机的方程在估计儿童日常生活活动中的能量消耗（EE）方面的有效性。12名平均（标准差）年龄为11.4（0.4）岁的受试者在进行一项编排好的日常活动时，佩戴了制造技术公司（MTI）加速度计、Caltrac加速度计和便携式气体分析仪（Cosmed K4b(2)），该日常活动包括三项时长均为4分钟的活动（扫地、保龄球和篮球）。分别使用特罗斯特等人和萨利斯等人的方程将活动计数转换为MTI加速度计和Caltrac加速度计的EE估计值。对于各项活动，Caltrac加速度计预测的EE与间接量热法测量的EE之间的相关系数范围为r = 0.22至0.72。对于各项活动，MTI加速度计预测的EE与间接量热法之间的相关系数范围为r = 0.50至0.68。当将这些活动汇总时，单轴加速度计的EE与间接量热法的EE之间的相关性较强（MTI，r = 0.78；Caltrac，r = 0.82）。扫地、保龄球、篮球和汇总数据的加速度计间（计数·分钟(-1)）相关性分别为0.08、-0.54、0.63和0.79。与间接量热法相比，每个单轴加速度计的总体平均差异或偏差以及95%置信区间（CI）如下：Caltrac，偏差 = 2.80（2.36，3.24）千卡·分钟(-1)；MTI，偏差 = 0.88（0.23，1.53）千卡·分钟(-1)。两种加速度计均显著低估了测量的EE（P < 0.05）。单轴加速度计为测量儿童的身体活动（PA）和EE提供了潜力。未来有必要开展进一步研究以完善PA和EE的加速度计预测。
