scholarly journals Use of consumer monitors for estimating energy expenditure in youth

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel R. LaMunion ◽  
Andrew L. Blythe ◽  
Paul R. Hibbing ◽  
Andrew S. Kaplan ◽  
Brandon J. Clendenin ◽  
...  

The purpose of this study was to compare energy expenditure (EE) estimates from 5 consumer physical activity monitors (PAMs) to indirect calorimetry in a sample of youth. Eighty-nine youth (mean (SD); age, 12.3 (3.4) years; 50% female) performed 16 semi-structured activities. Activities were performed in duplicate across 2 visits. Participants wore a Cosmed K4b2(criterion for EE), an Apple Watch 2 (left wrist), Mymo Tracker (right hip), and Misfit Shine 2 devices (right hip; right shoe). Participants were randomized to wear a Samsung Gear Fit 2 or a Fitbit Charge 2 on the right wrist. Oxygen consumption was converted to EE by subtracting estimated basal EE (Schofield’s equation) from the measured gross EE. EE from each visit was summed across the 2 visit days for comparison with the total EE recorded from the PAMs. All consumer PAMs estimated gross EE, except for the Apple Watch 2 (net Active EE). Paired t tests were used to assess differences between estimated (PAM) and measured (K4b2) EE. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE) was used to assess individual-level error. The Mymo Tracker was not significantly different from measured EE and was within 15.9 kcal of measured kilocalories (p = 0.764). Mean percent errors ranged from 3.5% (Mymo Tracker) to 48.2% (Apple Watch 2). MAPE ranged from 16.8% (Misfit Shine 2 – right hip) to 49.9% (Mymo Tracker).Novelty Only the Mymo Tracker was not significantly different from measured EE but had the greatest individual error. The Misfit Shine 2 – right hip had the lowest individual error. Caution is warranted when using consumer PAMs in youth for tracking EE.

2005 ◽  
Vol 37 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S115
Author(s):  
George A. King ◽  
Sarah E. Deemer ◽  
Bernadette M. Franco ◽  
Charlie Potter ◽  
Karen J. Coleman

2005 ◽  
Vol 37 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S115
Author(s):  
George A. King ◽  
Sarah E. Deemer ◽  
Bernadette M. Franco ◽  
Charlie Potter ◽  
Karen J. Coleman

2015 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. 246
Author(s):  
Glen M. Davis ◽  
Jasmine Yee ◽  
Bridget Abell ◽  
Leigh C. Ward ◽  
David Currow ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Washburn ◽  
Anne G. Copay

We assessed the validity of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. (CSA) accelerometer as a measure of energy expenditure during wheelchair pushing. Participants completed three timed pushes over an indoor course at three different speeds while wearing a CSA accelerometer on both wrists. Pushing speeds were assigned in a random order and separated by a 5–10 min rest. Heart rate and energy expenditure were measured using an Aerosport TEEM 100. Results indicated pushing speed, heart rate, and oxygen consumption increased significantly over the three conditions (p < .01). Significant associations (p < .01) were noted between CSA readings from both wrists and energy expenditure over the three pushing speeds (left wrist, r = .66, right wrist r = .52). These results suggest that the CSA accelerometer worn at the wrist may provide a useful measure of physical activity in persons who use wheelchairs as their primary mode of locomotion.


2013 ◽  
Vol 45 (11) ◽  
pp. 2105-2112 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATHRYN L. DANNECKER ◽  
NADEZHDA A. SAZONOVA ◽  
EDWARD L. MELANSON ◽  
EDWARD S. SAZONOV ◽  
RAYMOND C. BROWNING

2008 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Ewalt ◽  
Ann M. Swartz ◽  
Scott J. Strath ◽  
Nora E. Miller ◽  
Keith P. Gennuso ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 43 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 61-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean A. Petro ◽  
Kathryn L. Dannecker ◽  
Edward L. Melanson ◽  
Raymond C. Browning

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document