Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Sara K. Rosenkranz x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Richard R. Rosenkranz, Sara K. Rosenkranz and Casey Weber

This study sought to assess criterion validity of the Actical monitor step-count function in children via ankle and waist placement, compared with observed video recordings. Children attending a summer program (12 boys, 7 girls, mean age = 9.6yrs, range 7–11yrs) wore two synchronized Acticals, attached at the ankle (AA) and waist (AW). Children performed treadmill walking at varying speeds, and two research assistants counted steps using observed video recordings (OVR). Results showed high correlations for AW-OVR (r = .927, p < .001) and AA-OVR (r = .854, p < .001), but AW and AA were significantly lower than OVR (t > 11.2, p < .001). AW provided better step estimates than AA for step rates above 130 steps per minute. In contrast, AA was superior to AW for slow walking, and measured more steps during the (nontreadmill) program time. Overall, the Actical monitor showed good evidence of validity as a measure of steps in children for population-based studies.

Restricted access

Brooke J. Cull, Mark. D. Haub, Richard R. Rosenkranz, Thomas Lawler and Sara K. Rosenkranz

Background:

Sedentary time is an independent risk factor for chronic diseases and mortality. It is unknown whether active adults alter their dietary and/or physical activity behaviors in response to imposed sedentary time, possibly modifying risk. The aim of this study was to determine whether imposed sedentary time would alter typical behaviors of active adults.

Methods:

Sixteen physically active, young adults were randomized to the no-intervention control (CON, n = 8) group or the sedentary-intervention (SIT, n = 8) group. SIT participants attended monitored sedentary sessions (8 wk, 10 h/wk). Assessments including diet and physical activity occurred at baseline, week 4, and week 9.

Results:

There were no differences (P > .05) between CON and SIT groups for step counts or time spent in sedentary, light, moderate, or vigorous physical activity when comparing a week during imposed sedentary time (week 4) to baseline and week 9. At week 4, caloric intake was not different from baseline (P > .05) in either group. Caloric intake decreased significantly (P > .05) in SIT from baseline to week 9.

Conclusions:

Active adults did not alter physical activity or dietary behaviors during the imposed sedentary intervention. However, SIT reduced caloric intake from baseline to week 9, indicating a possible compensatory response to imposed sitting in active adults.