基于加速度计的高强度间歇训练能量消耗估算的验证

Nicholas Rémillard, Marisa Mulvey, Greg J. Petrucci, J. Sirard
{"title":"基于加速度计的高强度间歇训练能量消耗估算的验证","authors":"Nicholas Rémillard, Marisa Mulvey, Greg J. Petrucci, J. Sirard","doi":"10.33697/ajur.2022.057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accelerometers are used to assess free-living physical activity (PA) and energy expenditure (EE). Energy expenditure estimation algorithms have been calibrated using steady-state exercise. However, most free-living PA is not steady-state. Objective: The purpose of this study was to discern the differences between criterion-measured and accelerometer-estimated EE (kCals) during a non-steady-state High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) session. Methods: Recreationally active adults (N=29, 18-30 years) completed one of two HIIT protocols. Each participant wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers on the right hip and non-dominant wrist while EE was measured using portable indirect calorimetry. Data analysis was conducted using custom R scripts and bias [95% CIs] to determine significant differences between indirect calorimetry and EE estimates using previously developed algorithms. Results: All accelerometer algorithms underestimated EE during recovery intervals (range; -4.31 to -6.55 kCals) and overestimated EE during work intervals (0.57 to 5.70 kcals). Over the whole HIIT session, only the Hildebrand wrist method was not significantly different from the criterion measured EE. Conclusion: Current ActiGraph EE estimations based on steady-state activities underestimate EE during recovery periods of treadmill HIIT sessions. Future studies should investigate accelerometer signals immediately after high-intensity bouts to more accurately predict EE of the subsequent recovery period.\n\nKEYWORDS: ActiGraph; Accelerometer; HIIT; Indirect calorimetry; EPOC; Energy expenditure; Non-steady state; Calories","PeriodicalId":72177,"journal":{"name":"American journal of undergraduate research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of Accelerometer-Based Estimations of Energy Expenditure During High-Intensity Interval Training\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Rémillard, Marisa Mulvey, Greg J. Petrucci, J. Sirard\",\"doi\":\"10.33697/ajur.2022.057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Accelerometers are used to assess free-living physical activity (PA) and energy expenditure (EE). Energy expenditure estimation algorithms have been calibrated using steady-state exercise. However, most free-living PA is not steady-state. Objective: The purpose of this study was to discern the differences between criterion-measured and accelerometer-estimated EE (kCals) during a non-steady-state High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) session. Methods: Recreationally active adults (N=29, 18-30 years) completed one of two HIIT protocols. Each participant wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers on the right hip and non-dominant wrist while EE was measured using portable indirect calorimetry. Data analysis was conducted using custom R scripts and bias [95% CIs] to determine significant differences between indirect calorimetry and EE estimates using previously developed algorithms. Results: All accelerometer algorithms underestimated EE during recovery intervals (range; -4.31 to -6.55 kCals) and overestimated EE during work intervals (0.57 to 5.70 kcals). Over the whole HIIT session, only the Hildebrand wrist method was not significantly different from the criterion measured EE. Conclusion: Current ActiGraph EE estimations based on steady-state activities underestimate EE during recovery periods of treadmill HIIT sessions. Future studies should investigate accelerometer signals immediately after high-intensity bouts to more accurately predict EE of the subsequent recovery period.\\n\\nKEYWORDS: ActiGraph; Accelerometer; HIIT; Indirect calorimetry; EPOC; Energy expenditure; Non-steady state; Calories\",\"PeriodicalId\":72177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of undergraduate research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of undergraduate research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33697/ajur.2022.057\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of undergraduate research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33697/ajur.2022.057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加速度计用于评估自由生活的身体活动(PA)和能量消耗(EE)。能量消耗估计算法已经使用稳态练习进行了校准。然而,大多数自由生活的PA并不是稳定的。目的:本研究的目的是在非稳态高强度间歇训练(HIIT)期间,辨别标准测量的EE和加速度计估计的EE(kCals)之间的差异。方法:具有娱乐活动能力的成年人(N=29,18-30岁)完成两个HIIT方案中的一个。每个参与者在右髋关节和非显性手腕上佩戴ActiGraph GT3X+加速度计,同时使用便携式间接量热法测量EE。使用自定义R脚本和偏差[95%CI]进行数据分析,以确定使用先前开发的算法的间接量热法和EE估计之间的显著差异。结果:所有加速度计算法在恢复间隔期间低估了EE(范围:-4.31至-6.55 kCals),在工作间隔期间高估了EE(0.57至5.70 kCals)。在整个HIIT会话中,只有Hildebrand腕关节法与标准测量的EE没有显著差异。结论:当前基于稳态活动的ActiGraph EE估计低估了跑步机HIIT会话恢复期的EE。未来的研究应该在高强度比赛后立即研究加速度计信号,以更准确地预测随后恢复期的EE。关键词:ActiGraph;加速度计;HIIT;间接量热法;EPOC;能源支出;非稳态;卡路里
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Validation of Accelerometer-Based Estimations of Energy Expenditure During High-Intensity Interval Training
Accelerometers are used to assess free-living physical activity (PA) and energy expenditure (EE). Energy expenditure estimation algorithms have been calibrated using steady-state exercise. However, most free-living PA is not steady-state. Objective: The purpose of this study was to discern the differences between criterion-measured and accelerometer-estimated EE (kCals) during a non-steady-state High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) session. Methods: Recreationally active adults (N=29, 18-30 years) completed one of two HIIT protocols. Each participant wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers on the right hip and non-dominant wrist while EE was measured using portable indirect calorimetry. Data analysis was conducted using custom R scripts and bias [95% CIs] to determine significant differences between indirect calorimetry and EE estimates using previously developed algorithms. Results: All accelerometer algorithms underestimated EE during recovery intervals (range; -4.31 to -6.55 kCals) and overestimated EE during work intervals (0.57 to 5.70 kcals). Over the whole HIIT session, only the Hildebrand wrist method was not significantly different from the criterion measured EE. Conclusion: Current ActiGraph EE estimations based on steady-state activities underestimate EE during recovery periods of treadmill HIIT sessions. Future studies should investigate accelerometer signals immediately after high-intensity bouts to more accurately predict EE of the subsequent recovery period. KEYWORDS: ActiGraph; Accelerometer; HIIT; Indirect calorimetry; EPOC; Energy expenditure; Non-steady state; Calories
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Faculty Opinions of AI Tools: Text Generators and Machine Translators On Sample Size Needed for Block Bootstrap Confidence Intervals to Have Desired Coverage Rates Fibroblast Embedded 3D Collagen as a Potential Tool for Epithelial Wound Repair Elongation Factor P is Required for Processes Associated with Acinetobacter Pathogenesis Measurement System for Compliance in Tubular Structures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1