Training-induced changes in daily energy expenditure: Methodological evaluation using wrist-worn accelerometer, heart rate monitor, and doubly labeled water technique

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Autor:Kinnunen, Hannu; Häkkinen, Keijo; Schumann, Moritz; Karavirta, Laura; Westerterp, Klaas R.; Kyröläinen, Heikki
Erschienen in:PLoS one / Public Library of Science
Veröffentlicht:14 (2019), 7, Art.-ID e0219563, [19 S.], Lit.
Format: Literatur (SPOLIT)
Publikationstyp: Zeitschriftenartikel
Medienart: Elektronische Ressource (online)
Sprache:Englisch
ISSN:1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0219563
Schlagworte:
Online Zugang:
Erfassungsnummer:PU202011009698
Quelle:BISp

Abstract des Autors

Introduction: Wrist-mounted motion sensors can quantify the volume and intensity of physical activities, but little is known about their long-term validity. Our aim was to validate a wrist motion sensor in estimating daily energy expenditure, including any change induced by long-term participation in endurance and strength training. Supplemental heart rate monitoring during weekly exercise was also investigated.
Methods: A 13-day doubly labeled water (DLW) measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) was performed twice in healthy male subjects: during two last weeks of a 12-week Control period (n = 15) and during two last weeks of a 12-week combined strength and aerobic Training period (n = 13). Resting energy expenditure was estimated using two equations: one with body weight and age, and another one with fat-free mass. TEE and activity induced energy expenditure (AEE) were determined from motion sensor alone, and from motions sensor combined with heart rate monitor, the latter being worn during exercise only.
Results: When body weight and age were used in the calculation of resting energy expenditure, the motion sensor data alone explained 78% and 62% of the variation in TEE assessed by DLW at the end of Control and Training periods, respectively, with a bias of +1.75 (p <.001) and +1.19 MJ/day (p = .002). When exercise heart rate data was added to the model, the combined wearable device approach explained 85% and 70% of the variation in TEE assessed by DLW with a bias of +1.89 and +1.75 MJ/day (p <.001 for both). While significant increases in TEE and AEE were detected by all methods as a result of participation in regular training, motion sensor approach underestimated the change measured by DLW: +1.13±0.66 by DLW, +0.59±0.69 (p = .004) by motion sensor, and +0.98±0.70 MJ/day by combination of motion sensor and heart rate. Use of fat-free mass in the estimation of resting energy expenditure removed the biases between the wearable device estimations and the golden standard reference method of TEE and demonstrated a training-induced increase in resting energy expenditure by +0.18±0.13 MJ/day (p <.001).
Conclusions: Wrist motion sensor combined with a heart rate monitor during exercise sessions, showed high agreement with the golden standard measurement of daily TEE and its change induced by participation in a long-term training protocol. The positive findings concerning the validity, especially the ability to follow-up the change associated with a lifestyle modification, can be considered significant because they partially determine the feasibility of wearable devices as quantifiers of health-related behavior.