Validation of ActiReg to measure physical activity and energy expenditure against doubly labelled water in obese persons.

ActiReg is an instrument that uses combined recordings of body position and motion to calculate energy expenditure (EE) and physical activity (PA). The aim of the study was to compare mean total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by ActiReg and doubly labelled water (DLW) in obese subjects. TEE was measured by the DLW method during a period of 14 d in fifty obese men and women with metabolic risk factors. During the same period ActiReg recordings were obtained for 7 d. RMR was measured by indirect calorimetry and also estimated by standardized equations. Because EE may be disproportionately increased in obese subjects during weight-bearing activities, we established a new set of physical activity ratios (PAR). These ratios were based on oxygen uptake measurements during treadmill walking. The mean TEE according to the DLW was 13.94 (sd 2.47) MJ/d. Mean TEE calculated from the ActiReg data and measured RMR was 13.39 (sd 2.26) MJ/d, an underestimation of 0.55 MJ (95 % CI 0.13, 0.98; P = 0.012) or 3.9 %. RMR derived from standard equations based on weight, age and sex were overestimated while the RMR based on fat-free mass values in addition was underestimated. Despite slight underestimation ActiReg may be used to measure TEE in obese subjects on two premises: RMR should be measured, and the increased EE during weight-bearing activities in obese subjects should be considered.

Validation of a pre-coded food diary used among 13-year-olds: comparison of energy intake with energy expenditure.

OBJECTIVE: To validate energy intake (EI) estimated from pre-coded food diaries against energy expenditure (EE) measured with a validated position-and-movement monitor (ActiReg) in groups of 13-year-old Norwegian schoolchildren. DESIGN: Two studies were conducted. In study 1 the monitoring period was 4 days; participants recorded their food intake for four consecutive weekdays using food diaries and wore the ActiReg during the same period. In study 2 the monitoring period was 7 days; participants recorded their food intake for four consecutive days but wore the ActiReg for a whole week. SETTINGS: Participants were recruited from grade 8 in a school in and one outside Oslo (Norway). SUBJECTS: Forty-one and 31 participants from study 1 and 2, respectively, completed the study. RESULTS: The group average EI was 34% lower than the measured EE in study 1 and 24% lower in study 2. The width of the 95% confidence limits of agreement in a Bland-Altman plot for EI and EE varied from -0.2 MJ to 8.2 MJ in study 1 and from -2.3 MJ to 6.9 MJ in study 2. The Pearson correlation coefficients between reported energy intake and expenditure were 0.47 (P=0.002) in study 1 and 0.74 (P<0.001) in study 2. CONCLUSION: The data showed that there was substantial variability in the accuracy of the food diary at the individual level. Furthermore, the diary underestimated the average energy intake. The ability of the food diary to rank individuals according to energy intake was found to be good in one of the studies and moderate in the other.

Description and validation of the ActiReg: a novel instrument to measure physical activity and energy expenditure.

The ActiReg (PreMed AS, Oslo, Norway) system is unique in using combined recordings of body position and motion alone or combined with heart rate (HR) to calculate energy expenditure (EE) and express physical activity (PA). The ActiReg has two pairs of position and motion sensors connected by cables to a battery-operated storage unit fixed to a waist belt. Each pair of sensors was attached by medical tape to the chest and to the front of the right thigh respectively. The collected data were transferred to a personal computer and processed by a dedicated program ActiCalc. Calculation models for EE with and without HR are presented. The models were based on literature values for the energy costs of different activities and therefore require no calibration experiments. The ActiReg system was validated against doubly labelled water (DLW) and indirect calorimetry. The DLW validation demonstrated that neither EE calculated from ActiReg data alone (EEAR) nor from combined ActiReg and HR data (EEAR-HR) were statistically different from DLW results. The EEAR procedure causes some underestimation of EE >11 MJ corresponding to a PA level >2.0. This underestimation is reduced by the EEAR-HR procedure. The objective recording of the time spent in different body positions and at different levels of PA may be useful in studies of PA in different groups and in studies of whether recommendations for PA are being met. The comparative ease of data collection and calculation should make ActiReg a useful instrument to measure habitual PA level and EE.