Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Kazunori Ohkawara x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Chiaki Tanaka, Yuki Hikihara, Kazunori Ohkawara and Shigeho Tanaka

This study examined the potential relationship between participation in physical activity (PA) assessed by triaxial accelerometry and physical fitness testing, including health-related and skill-related parameters of fitness, in 136 Japanese preschoolers (65 girls and 71 boys, 5.5 ± 0.6 years). In partial correlation analyses, grip strength and 20m shuttle run test were positively correlated with time spent in physical activity ratio (PAR) ≥ 4. Better scores on standing long jump distance and jump over and crawl under tests were associated with lower sedentary time and greater moderate-to-vigorous PA time and PAR ≥ 4 time, and increased physical activity level. Moreover, 25m run speed was positively correlated with time spent in PAR ≥ 4 and locomotive activity. These findings suggest that development of both health-related (muscle strength and aerobic fitness) and skill-related fitness (power, agility and speed) may make engagement in PA easier for preschool children, although further research on the cause-effect relationship is needed.

Restricted access

Yuki Hikihara, Shigeho Tanaka, Kazunori Ohkawara, Kazuko Ishikawa-Takata and Izumi Tabata

Background:

The current study evaluated the validity of 3 commercially-available accelerometers to assess metabolic equivalent values (METs) during 12 activities.

Methods:

Thirty-three men and thirty-two women were enrolled in this study. The subjects performed 5 nonlocomotive activities and 7 locomotive movements. The Douglas bag method was used to gather expired air. The subjects also wore 3 hip accelerometers, a Lifecorder uniaxial accelerometer (LC), and 2 triaxial accelerometers (ActivTracer, AT; Actimarker, AM).

Results:

For nonlocomotive activities, the LC largely underestimated METs for all activities (20.3%–55.6%) except for desk work. The AT overestimated METs for desk work (11.3%) and hanging clothes (11.7%), but underestimated for vacuuming (2.3%). The AM underestimated METs for all nonlocomotive activities (8.0%–19.4%) except for hanging clothes (overestimated by 16.7%). The AT and AM errors were significant, but much smaller than the LC errors (23.2% for desk work and –22.3 to –55.6% for the other activities). For locomotive movements, the 3 accelerometers significantly underestimated METs for all activities except for climbing down stairs.

Conclusions:

We conclude that there were significant differences for most activities in 3 accelerometers. However, the AT, which uses separate equations for nonlocomotive and locomotive activities, was more accurate for nonlocomotive activities than the LC.