Comparisons of prediction equations for estimating energy expenditure in youth

Youngwon Kim, Scott E. Crouter, Jung Min Lee, Phillip M. Dixon, Glenn Gaesser, Gregory J. Welk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of Actigraph 2-regression models (2RM) and 1-regression models (1RM) for estimation of EE in children. Design: The study used a cross-sectional design with criterion estimates from a metabolic cart. Methods: A total of 59 children (7-13yrs) performed 12 activities (randomly selected from a set of 24 activities) for 5min each, while being concurrently measured with an Actigraph GT3X and indirect calorimetry. METRMR (MET considering one's resting metabolic rate) for the GT3X was estimated applying 2RM with vector magnitude (VM2RM) and vertical axis (VA2RM), and four standard 1RMs. The validity of the 2RMs and 1RMs was evaluated using 95% equivalence testing and mean absolute percent error (MAPE). Results: For the group-level comparison, equivalence testing revealed that the 90% confidence intervals for all 2RMs and 1RMs were outside of the equivalence zone (range: 3.63, 4.43) for indirect calorimetry. When comparing the individual activities, VM2RM produced smaller MAPEs (range: 14.5-45.3%) than VA2RM (range, 15.5-58.1%) and 1RMs (range, 14.5-75.1%) for most of the light and moderate activities. Conclusions: None of the 2RMs and 1RMs were equivalent to indirect calorimetry. The 2RMs showed smaller individual-level errors than the 1RMs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)35-40
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Science and Medicine in Sport
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Indirect Calorimetry
Energy Metabolism
Basal Metabolism
Confidence Intervals
Light

Keywords

  • Accelerometer
  • Calibration
  • Children
  • Physical fitness
  • Public health
  • Validation studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Comparisons of prediction equations for estimating energy expenditure in youth. / Kim, Youngwon; Crouter, Scott E.; Lee, Jung Min; Dixon, Phillip M.; Gaesser, Glenn; Welk, Gregory J.

In: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Vol. 19, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 35-40.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kim, Youngwon ; Crouter, Scott E. ; Lee, Jung Min ; Dixon, Phillip M. ; Gaesser, Glenn ; Welk, Gregory J. / Comparisons of prediction equations for estimating energy expenditure in youth. In: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2016 ; Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 35-40.
@article{3f4cdf85480044b39d1569b4e1b98fdc,
title = "Comparisons of prediction equations for estimating energy expenditure in youth",
abstract = "Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of Actigraph 2-regression models (2RM) and 1-regression models (1RM) for estimation of EE in children. Design: The study used a cross-sectional design with criterion estimates from a metabolic cart. Methods: A total of 59 children (7-13yrs) performed 12 activities (randomly selected from a set of 24 activities) for 5min each, while being concurrently measured with an Actigraph GT3X and indirect calorimetry. METRMR (MET considering one's resting metabolic rate) for the GT3X was estimated applying 2RM with vector magnitude (VM2RM) and vertical axis (VA2RM), and four standard 1RMs. The validity of the 2RMs and 1RMs was evaluated using 95{\%} equivalence testing and mean absolute percent error (MAPE). Results: For the group-level comparison, equivalence testing revealed that the 90{\%} confidence intervals for all 2RMs and 1RMs were outside of the equivalence zone (range: 3.63, 4.43) for indirect calorimetry. When comparing the individual activities, VM2RM produced smaller MAPEs (range: 14.5-45.3{\%}) than VA2RM (range, 15.5-58.1{\%}) and 1RMs (range, 14.5-75.1{\%}) for most of the light and moderate activities. Conclusions: None of the 2RMs and 1RMs were equivalent to indirect calorimetry. The 2RMs showed smaller individual-level errors than the 1RMs.",
keywords = "Accelerometer, Calibration, Children, Physical fitness, Public health, Validation studies",
author = "Youngwon Kim and Crouter, {Scott E.} and Lee, {Jung Min} and Dixon, {Phillip M.} and Glenn Gaesser and Welk, {Gregory J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jsams.2014.10.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "35--40",
journal = "Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport",
issn = "1440-2440",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparisons of prediction equations for estimating energy expenditure in youth

AU - Kim, Youngwon

AU - Crouter, Scott E.

AU - Lee, Jung Min

AU - Dixon, Phillip M.

AU - Gaesser, Glenn

AU - Welk, Gregory J.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of Actigraph 2-regression models (2RM) and 1-regression models (1RM) for estimation of EE in children. Design: The study used a cross-sectional design with criterion estimates from a metabolic cart. Methods: A total of 59 children (7-13yrs) performed 12 activities (randomly selected from a set of 24 activities) for 5min each, while being concurrently measured with an Actigraph GT3X and indirect calorimetry. METRMR (MET considering one's resting metabolic rate) for the GT3X was estimated applying 2RM with vector magnitude (VM2RM) and vertical axis (VA2RM), and four standard 1RMs. The validity of the 2RMs and 1RMs was evaluated using 95% equivalence testing and mean absolute percent error (MAPE). Results: For the group-level comparison, equivalence testing revealed that the 90% confidence intervals for all 2RMs and 1RMs were outside of the equivalence zone (range: 3.63, 4.43) for indirect calorimetry. When comparing the individual activities, VM2RM produced smaller MAPEs (range: 14.5-45.3%) than VA2RM (range, 15.5-58.1%) and 1RMs (range, 14.5-75.1%) for most of the light and moderate activities. Conclusions: None of the 2RMs and 1RMs were equivalent to indirect calorimetry. The 2RMs showed smaller individual-level errors than the 1RMs.

AB - Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of Actigraph 2-regression models (2RM) and 1-regression models (1RM) for estimation of EE in children. Design: The study used a cross-sectional design with criterion estimates from a metabolic cart. Methods: A total of 59 children (7-13yrs) performed 12 activities (randomly selected from a set of 24 activities) for 5min each, while being concurrently measured with an Actigraph GT3X and indirect calorimetry. METRMR (MET considering one's resting metabolic rate) for the GT3X was estimated applying 2RM with vector magnitude (VM2RM) and vertical axis (VA2RM), and four standard 1RMs. The validity of the 2RMs and 1RMs was evaluated using 95% equivalence testing and mean absolute percent error (MAPE). Results: For the group-level comparison, equivalence testing revealed that the 90% confidence intervals for all 2RMs and 1RMs were outside of the equivalence zone (range: 3.63, 4.43) for indirect calorimetry. When comparing the individual activities, VM2RM produced smaller MAPEs (range: 14.5-45.3%) than VA2RM (range, 15.5-58.1%) and 1RMs (range, 14.5-75.1%) for most of the light and moderate activities. Conclusions: None of the 2RMs and 1RMs were equivalent to indirect calorimetry. The 2RMs showed smaller individual-level errors than the 1RMs.

KW - Accelerometer

KW - Calibration

KW - Children

KW - Physical fitness

KW - Public health

KW - Validation studies

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84948119782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84948119782&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.10.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.10.002

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 35

EP - 40

JO - Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

JF - Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

SN - 1440-2440

IS - 1

ER -