Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • Author: Marijka Batterham x
  • Psychology and Behavior in Sport/Exercise x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Sze Yen Tan, Marijka Batterham and Linda Tapsell

Background:

Knowing the total energy expenditure (TEE) of overweight adults is important for prescribing weight loss interventions. However, objective measurements of TEE may not always be readily available and can be expensive. This study aimed to investigate the validity of RT3 accelerometers in predicting the TEE of sedentary overweight adults, and to identify any sensitivity to anthropometric changes.

Methods:

The analysis used data from a 12-week weight loss study. At baseline and 12-week, TEE was predicted using RT3 accelerometers during whole room calorimeter stays. Bias between 2 methods was compared at and between the baseline and 12-week measurement points. Multiple regression analyses of TEE data were conducted.

Results:

Predicted and measured values for TEE were not different at baseline (P = .677) but were significantly different after weight loss (P = .007). However, the mean bias between methods was small (<100 kcal/d) and was not significantly different between 2 time-points. RT3 activity counts explained an additional 2% of the variation in TEE at 12-week but not at baseline.

Conclusion:

RT3 accelerometers are not sensitive to body composition changes and do not explain variation in TEE of overweight and obese individuals in a sedentary environment.

Restricted access

Alexander Allan Wetten, Marijka Batterham, Sze Yen Tan and Linda Tapsell

Background:

With physical inactivity inextricably linked to the increasing prevalence of obesity, there is a need for validated methods that measure free-living energy expenditure (EE) within sedentary environments. While accelerometers enable these measurements, few studies have compared device accuracy in such settings. The aim of this study was to investigate the relative validity of the Actigraph, RT3 and SenseWear Armband (SWA).

Methods:

Twenty-three (11 male, 12 female) participants (age: 25.3 ± 6.3 yr; BMI: 22.6 ± 2.7) wore 3 accelerometers at designated sites during a 4-hour stay in the Whole Room Calorimeter (WRC). Participants performed 2 10-minute bouts of light-intensity exercise (stepping and stationary cycling) and engaged in unstructured sedentary activities. EE estimated by accelerometers was compared with WRC EE derived from measurements of gaseous exchange.

Results:

The Actigraph and SWA both accurately estimated EE during the stepping exercise. EE estimated by the RT3 during stepping was significantly lower than the WRC value (31.2% ± 15.6%, P < .001). All accelerometers underestimated cycling and unstructured activity EE over the trial period (P < .001).

Conclusions:

The Actigraph and SWA are both valid tools for quantifying EE during light-intensity stepping. These results provide further valuable information on how accelerometer devices may be appropriately used.

Open access

Christiana M.T. van Loo, Anthony D. Okely, Marijka Batterham, Tina Hinkley, Ulf Ekelund, Soren Brage, John J. Reilly, Gregory E. Peoples, Rachel Jones, Xanne Janssen and Dylan P. Cliff

Background:

To validate the activPAL3 algorithm for predicting metabolic equivalents (TAMETs) and classifying MVPA in 5- to 12-year-old children.

Methods:

Fifty-seven children (9.2 ± 2.3y, 49.1% boys) completed 14 activities including sedentary behaviors (SB), light (LPA) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activities (MVPA). Indirect calorimetry (IC) was used as the criterion measure. Analyses included equivalence testing, Bland-Altman procedures and area under the receiver operating curve (ROC-AUC).

Results:

At the group level, TAMETs were significantly equivalent to IC for handheld e-game, writing/coloring, and standing class activity (P < .05). Overall, TAMETs were overestimated for SB (7.9 ± 6.7%) and LPA (1.9 ± 20.2%) and underestimated for MVPA (27.7 ± 26.6%); however, classification accuracy of MVPA was good (ROC-AUC = 0.86). Limits of agreement were wide for all activities, indicating large individual error (SB: −27.6% to 44.7%; LPA: −47.1% to 51.0%; MVPA: −88.8% to 33.9%).

Conclusions:

TAMETs were accurate for some SB and standing, but were overestimated for overall SB and LPA, and underestimated for MVPA. Accuracy for classifying MVPA was, however, acceptable.