Leenders Nicole Y, Sherman William Michael, Nagaraja Haikady N
Sport and Exercise Sciences Section, School of Physical Activity and Educational Services, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1228, USA.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Dec;38(12):2165-72. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000235883.94357.95.
The purpose of this study was to compare energy expenditure derived from regression equations determined from accelerometry with energy expenditure obtained from the doubly labeled water method (DLW).
Thirteen subjects participated in a 7-d protocol during which total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) was measured with DLW. Simultaneously, during the 7 d, subjects wore a Tritrac-R3D and an Actigraph (ACT). Pearson and concordance correlations and one-sample t-tests were used to determine the agreement of six Tritrac and eight ACT regression equations that convert body acceleration to energy expenditure with the DLW measurements.
Tritrac TDEE determined from the different Tritrac regression equations under- and overestimated TDEE determined with DLW that ranged from -10 to +101%. For ACT, the percent difference between DLW and ACT-TDEE determined with the regression equation developed by Hendelman and Swartz were not statistically significantly different from zero. The mean of the difference was -2 and -4%, but the range of the difference was large for both equations, -29 to +24%. TDEE determined with the six other ACT equations were significantly different compared with DLW.
Of the 14 different regression equations from the literature, only two developed for ACT compared favorably with DLW; however, the difference in TDEE between these two methods was variable and rather large. These results reemphasize the difficulty in converting body movement into energy expenditure on an individual basis from accelerometry. These results imply that researchers may want to avoid using accelerometers to predict energy expenditure in free-living conditions, instead using these instruments only to measure patterns of physical activity.
本研究的目的是比较通过加速度计确定的回归方程得出的能量消耗与通过双标记水法（DLW）获得的能量消耗。
13名受试者参与了一项为期7天的方案，在此期间用DLW测量每日总能量消耗（TDEE）。同时，在这7天里，受试者佩戴了Tritrac - R3D和Actigraph（ACT）。使用Pearson和一致性相关性以及单样本t检验来确定六个Tritrac和八个ACT回归方程（将身体加速度转换为能量消耗）与DLW测量值之间的一致性。
从不同的Tritrac回归方程确定的Tritrac TDEE低估和高估了用DLW确定的TDEE，范围从 - 10%到 + 101%。对于ACT，用Hendelman和Swartz开发的回归方程确定的DLW与ACT - TDEE之间的百分比差异与零无统计学显著差异。差异的平均值为 - 2%和 - 4%，但两个方程的差异范围都很大，为 - 29%到 + 24%。用其他六个ACT方程确定的TDEE与DLW相比有显著差异。
在文献中的14个不同回归方程中，只有两个为ACT开发的方程与DLW相比表现良好；然而，这两种方法之间的TDEE差异是可变的且相当大。这些结果再次强调了从加速度计在个体基础上将身体运动转换为能量消耗的困难。这些结果意味着研究人员可能希望避免在自由生活条件下使用加速度计来预测能量消耗，而是仅使用这些仪器来测量身体活动模式。
