Powell Cormac, Carson Brian P, Dowd Kieran P, Donnelly Alan E
Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences and Centre for Physical Activity and Health Research, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Physiol Meas. 2016 Oct;37(10):1715-1727. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/37/10/1715. Epub 2016 Sep 21.
Activity monitors such as the SenseWear Pro3 (SWP3) and the activPAL3 Micro (aPM) are regularly used by researchers and practitioners to provide estimates of the metabolic cost (METs) of activities in free-living settings. The purpose of this study is to examine the accuracy of the MET predictions from the SWP3 and the aPM compared to the criterion standard MET values from indirect calorimetry. Fifty-six participants (mean age: 39.9 (±11.5), 25M/31F) performed eight activities (four daily living, three ambulatory and one cycling), while simultaneously wearing a SWP3, aPM and the Cosmed K4B (K4B) mobile metabolic unit. Paired samples T-tests were used to examine differences between device predicted METs and criterion METs. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to examine the mean bias and limits of agreement for predicted METs compared to criterion METs. SWP3 predicted MET values were significantly different from the K4B for each activity (p ⩽ 0.004), excluding sweeping (p = 0.122). aPM predicted MET values were significantly different (p < 0.001) from the K4B for each activity. When examining the activities collectively, both devices underestimated activity intensity (0.20 METs (SWP3), 0.95 METs (aPM)). The greatest mean bias for the SWP3 was for cycling (-3.25 METs), with jogging (-5.16 METs) producing the greatest mean bias for the aPM. All of the activities (excluding SWP3 sweeping) were significantly different from the criterion measure. Although the SWP3 predicted METs are more accurate than their aPM equivalent, the predicted MET values from both devices are significantly different from the criterion measure for the majority of activities.
诸如SenseWear Pro3（SWP3）和activPAL3 Micro（aPM）等活动监测器经常被研究人员和从业者用于估计自由生活环境中活动的代谢成本（代谢当量）。本研究的目的是检验SWP3和aPM预测的代谢当量与间接量热法得出的标准代谢当量值相比的准确性。56名参与者（平均年龄：39.9（±11.5），25名男性/31名女性）进行了八项活动（四项日常生活活动、三项步行活动和一项骑行活动），同时佩戴SWP3、aPM和Cosmed K4B（K4B）移动代谢单元。采用配对样本T检验来检验设备预测的代谢当量与标准代谢当量之间的差异。构建Bland-Altman图以检验预测的代谢当量与标准代谢当量相比的平均偏差和一致性界限。除扫地活动外（p = 0.122），SWP3预测的每项活动的代谢当量值与K4B均有显著差异（p ⩽ 0.004）。aPM预测的每项活动的代谢当量值与K4B均有显著差异（p < 0.001）。综合各项活动来看，两种设备都低估了活动强度（SWP3为0.20代谢当量，aPM为0.95代谢当量）。SWP3最大的平均偏差出现在骑行活动中（-3.25代谢当量）。aPM最大的平均偏差出现在慢跑活动中（-5.16代谢当量）。所有活动（不包括SWP3的扫地活动）与标准测量值均有显著差异。尽管SWP3预测的代谢当量比aPM更准确，但两种设备预测的代谢当量值与大多数活动的标准测量值均有显著差异。
