Bryan Shirley N, Katzmarzyk Peter T
Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2009 Aug;34(4):666-72. doi: 10.1139/H09-054.
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of 2 different calculation methods for total leisure-time physical activity energy expenditure (LTPAEE) and LTPAEE from different intensity activities on the classification of level of physical activity in the population. Nationally representative cross-sectional data from the Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 4.1 (2007) were used for this study (N = 64, 397). LTPAEE was calculated using a metabolic equivalent (MET) value of 4.0 for all activities in the "other activity" category for method 1 (currently employed by Statistics Canada) and using activity-specific MET values for method 2. The weighted prevalence and 95% confidence intervals of active (> or =3 kcal.kg-1.day-1 (kkd)), moderately active (1.5-2.9 kkd), and inactive (<1.5 kkd) were determined for each method by demographic characteristics. The agreement between the 2 methods was assessed overall, and for light, moderate, and vigorous activities. There was no difference between methods in the proportion classified as active, moderately active, or inactive for any of the subgroups studied and there was no difference in the distribution or mean LTPAEE between methods. However, assessment of the agreement showed a large number of outliers and a tendency to underestimate LTPAEE from light and vigorous activities while overestimating LTPAEE from moderate activities at the individual level. The results of this study should be considered when performing inferential statistics on the relationship between physical activity and health outcomes.
本研究的目的是确定两种不同的总休闲时间身体活动能量消耗(LTPAEE)计算方法以及不同强度活动的LTPAEE对人群身体活动水平分类的影响。本研究使用了来自加拿大社区健康调查第4.1轮(2007年)具有全国代表性的横断面数据(N = 64,397)。对于方法1(加拿大统计局目前采用的方法),“其他活动”类别中的所有活动均使用代谢当量(MET)值4.0来计算LTPAEE;对于方法2,则使用特定活动的MET值。通过人口统计学特征确定了每种方法下活跃(≥3千卡·千克⁻¹·天⁻¹(kkd))、中度活跃(1.5 - 2.9 kkd)和不活跃(<1.5 kkd)的加权患病率及95%置信区间。总体上以及针对轻度、中度和剧烈活动评估了两种方法之间的一致性。在所研究的任何亚组中,被归类为活跃、中度活跃或不活跃的比例在两种方法之间没有差异,并且两种方法之间的LTPAEE分布或均值也没有差异。然而,一致性评估显示在个体层面存在大量异常值,并且存在低估轻度和剧烈活动的LTPAEE而高估中度活动的LTPAEE的趋势。在对身体活动与健康结果之间的关系进行推断统计时,应考虑本研究的结果。