Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorSilva, Analiza M.
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Diana A.
dc.contributor.authorMatias, Catarina Nunes
dc.contributor.authorJudice, Pedro B.
dc.contributor.authorMagalhães, João Paulo P.
dc.contributor.authorEkelund, Ulf
dc.contributor.authorSardinha, Luis B.
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-06T08:42:19Z
dc.date.available2016-04-06T08:42:19Z
dc.date.issued2015-01
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2015, 69, 20-27.nb_NO
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2384187
dc.descriptionDette er siste tekst-versjon av artikkelen, og den kan inneholde små forskjeller fra forlagets pdf-versjon. Forlagets pdf-versjon finner du på www.nature.com: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.51 / This is the final text version of the article, and it may contain minor differences from the journal's pdf version. The original publication is available at www.nature.com: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.51nb_NO
dc.description.abstractBackground/Objectives: A combined heart rate (HR) and motion sensor (Actiheart) has been proposed as an accurate method for assessing total energy expenditure (TEE) and physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE). However, the extent to which factors such as caffeine may affect the accuracy by which the estimated HR-related PAEE contribution will affect TEE and PAEE estimates is unknown. Therefore, we examined the validity of Actiheart in estimating TEE and PAEE in free-living adults under a caffeine trial compared with doubly labeled water (DLW) as reference criterion. Subjects/Methods: Using a double-blind crossover trial (Clinicaltrials.gov ID: #NCT01477294) with two conditions (4-day each with a 3-day-washout period), randomly ordered as caffeine (5 mg/kg per day) and placebo (malt-dextrine) intake, TEE was measured by DLW in 17 physically active men (20–38 years) who were non-caffeine users. In each condition, resting energy expenditure (REE) was assessed by indirect calorimetry and PAEE was calculated as (TEE−(REE+0.1 TEE)). Simultaneously, PAEE and TEE were estimated by Actiheart using an individual calibration (ACC+HRstep). Results: Under caffeine, ACC+HRstep explained 76 and 64% of TEE and PAEE from DLW, respectively; corresponding results for the placebo condition were 82 and 66%. No mean bias was found between ACC+HRstep and DLW for TEE (caffeine:-468 kJ per day; placebo:-407 kJ per day), although PAEE was slightly underestimated (caffeine:-856 kJ per day; placebo:-1147 kJ per day). Similar limits of agreement were observed in both conditions ranging from −2066 to 3002 and from −3488 to 1776 kJ per day for TEE and PAEE, respectively. Conclusions: Regardless of caffeine intake, the combined HR and motion sensor is valid for estimating free-living energy expenditure in a group of healthy men but is less accurate for an individual assessment.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherNature publishing groupnb_NO
dc.subjectphysical activitynb_NO
dc.subjectindirect calorimetrynb_NO
dc.subjectheart rate monitoringnb_NO
dc.subjectaccelerometrynb_NO
dc.subjectmethodsnb_NO
dc.titleAccuracy of a combined heart rate and motion sensor for assessing energy expenditure in free-living adults during a double-blind crossover caffeine trial using doubly labeled water as the reference method.nb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Medical disciplines: 700nb_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Medical disciplines: 700::Health sciences: 800nb_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Medical disciplines: 700::Health sciences: 800::Nutrition: 811nb_NO
dc.source.journalEuropean Journal of Clinical Nutritionnb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/ejcn.2014.51
dc.description.localcodeSeksjon for idrettsmedisinske fag / Department of Sports Medicinenb_NO


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel