Barnett Anthony, Cerin Ester, Vandelanotte Corneel, Matsumoto Aya, Jenkins David
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125 Australia ; Institute for Health & Ageing, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC 3000 Australia.
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125 Australia ; School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2015 Nov 25;7:29. doi: 10.1186/s13102-015-0024-7. eCollection 2015.
For many patients clinical prescription of walking will be beneficial to health and accelerometers can be used to monitor their walking intensity, frequency and duration over many days. Walking intensity should include establishment of individual specific accelerometer count, walking speed and energy expenditure (VO2) relationships and this can be achieved using a walking protocol on a treadmill or overground. However, differences in gait mechanics during treadmill compared to overground walking may result in inaccurate estimations of free-living walking speed and VO2. The aims of this study were to compare the validity of track- and treadmill-based calibration methods for estimating free-living level walking speed and VO2 and to explain between-method differences in accuracy of estimation.
Fifty healthy adults [32 women and 18 men; mean (SD): 40 (13) years] walked at four pre-determined speeds on an outdoor track and a treadmill, and completed three 1-km self-paced level walks while wearing an Actigraph monitor and a mobile oxygen analyser. Speed- and VO2-to-Actigraph count individual calibration equations were computed for each calibration method. Between-method differences in calibration equation parameters, prediction errors, and relationships of walking speed with VO2 and Actigraph counts were assessed.
The treadmill-calibration equation overestimated free-living walking speed (on average, by 0.7 km · h(-1)) and VO2 (by 4.99 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1)), while the track-calibration equation did not. This was because treadmill walking, from which the calibration equation was derived, produced lower Actigraph counts and higher VO2 for a given walking speed compared to walking on a track. The prediction error associated with the use of the treadmill-calibration method increased with free-living walking speed. This issue was not observed when using the track-calibration method.
The proposed track-based individual accelerometer calibration method can provide accurate and unbiased estimates of free-living walking speed and VO2 from walking. The treadmill-based calibration produces calibration equations that tend to substantially overestimate both VO2 and speed.
对于许多患者而言,临床开具的步行处方对健康有益,且加速度计可用于监测他们多日的步行强度、频率和时长。步行强度应包括建立个体特定的加速度计计数、步行速度和能量消耗(VO2)之间的关系,这可以通过在跑步机上或实地行走的方案来实现。然而,与实地行走相比,跑步机行走时的步态力学差异可能导致对日常步行速度和VO2的估计不准确。本研究的目的是比较基于跑道和跑步机的校准方法在估计日常步行速度和VO2方面的有效性,并解释方法间估计准确性的差异。
50名健康成年人[32名女性和18名男性;平均(标准差):40(13)岁]在室外跑道和跑步机上以四种预定速度行走,并在佩戴Actigraph监测仪和便携式氧气分析仪的同时完成三次1公里的自定步速平地行走。针对每种校准方法计算速度和VO2与Actigraph计数的个体校准方程。评估校准方程参数、预测误差以及步行速度与VO2和Actigraph计数之间关系的方法间差异。
跑步机校准方程高估了日常步行速度(平均高估0.7公里·小时-1)和VO2(高估4.99毫升·千克-1·分钟-1),而跑道校准方程则没有。这是因为与在跑道上行走相比,用于推导校准方程的跑步机行走在给定步行速度下产生的Actigraph计数更低,VO2更高。与使用跑步机校准方法相关的预测误差随着日常步行速度的增加而增大。使用跑道校准方法时未观察到这个问题。
所提出的基于跑道的个体加速度计校准方法能够从步行中准确且无偏差地估计日常步行速度和VO2。基于跑步机的校准产生的校准方程往往会大幅高估VO2和速度。