Carrying loads: Validating a portable tri-axial accelerometer during frequent and brief physical activity

A meta-analysis of Fitbit devices: same company, different models, different validity evidence

Fitbit devices are among the most commonly used physical activity devices used by the general public. Multiple studies have examined the validity evidence of Fitbit devices of estimating energy expenditure during physical activity compared to criterion references. However, the literature lacks objective, summary validity evidence that supports the use of various models of Fitbit devices. Therefore, this study aims (a) to examine the validity evidence among the various models of Fitbit devices and (b) to investigate the influence of several device factors on the validity evidence of Fitbit models using meta-analysis. A total of 402 articles were identified through five databases. Upon review of the articles, 29 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Seven different moderator variables, including Fitbit model, device placement, type of device, heart rate capability, release year of devices, activity types and sedentary activity, were identified and included in the meta-analysis to examine their impact on the validity evidence of Fitbit devices. The summarised validity coefficient of energy expenditure during physical activity estimated by Fitbit devices and measured by criterion references was r=.64 (k = 29, 95% CI [.59, .69], p<.001). Fitbit model was not found to be a significant factor impacting validity evidence of Fitbit devices, but heart rate capability, activity types and sedentary activity were found to be significant factors impacting validity evidence. This study found that not all Fitbit models have a similar ability in estimating energy expenditure during physical activity. Continued research is needed in examining the validity evidence of Fitbit devices, especially considering some factors may affect the validity evidence in measuring energy expenditure during physical activity.

Body composition helps: Differences in energy expenditure between pregnant and nonpregnant females

OBJECTIVES

Human pregnancy is associated with important physiological changes that usually increase energetic requirements. However, great variability exists in the costs and mechanisms required to bear pregnancy. Since body mass (BM) and composition are modified during gestation, it is of great interest to compare the influence of BM on energy expenditure (EE) in pregnant and nonpregnant females.

METHODS

BM, body composition, and EE of 77 volunteers (35 pregnant and 42 nonpregnant females) were measured. The pregnant volunteers completed two measurement rounds at 28 and 32 gestation weeks. Differences on the measured parameters were sought, and comparison of regression lines was computed to test how BM affected the EE of the volunteers.

RESULTS

BM and body composition parameters are significantly higher in pregnant females, but EE is not statistically different. Pregnant females have a larger percentage of fat mass, but lower percentage of fat-free mass (FFM). The EE per kg of FFM is similar in both groups. Comparison of regression lines shows that pregnancy does not change the relationship between BM and EE, but for similar BM pregnant females expend less energy than nonpregnant females.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose that their larger percentage of passive body tissues is the reason why pregnant females expend less energy than nonpregnant females of similar BM, without changing the scaling of EE on BM. Thus, pregnancy could not be as energetically constraining as usually assumed, with important consequences for human reproductive ecology.

Validity of Accelerometers for the Evaluation of Energy Expenditure in Obese and Overweight Individuals: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Even though the validity of accelerometers for the measurement of energy expenditure (EE) has been demonstrated for normal-weight individuals, the applicability of this instrument in obese individuals remains controversial. This review aims to summarize the level of agreement between accelerometers and the gold standards (indirect calorimetry and doubly labelled water) for the measurement of energy expenditure (EE) in obese or overweight individuals.

METHODS

The literature search was limited to comparison studies assessing agreement in EE determination between accelerometers and indirect calorimetry (IC) or doubly labelled water (DLW). We searched in PubMed and in Scopus until March 1, 2019. The analysis was restricted to obese or overweight adult individuals. The following descriptive information was extracted for each study: sample size, characteristics of participants (sex, age, BMI, fat mass percentage, any pathological conditions, modality of recruitment in the study, and exclusion criteria), accelerometer description (model, type and body position), and type of gold standard and validity protocol (duration, conditions, and requirements during and before the experiment). Three review authors independently screened the obtained results, and the quality of the selected articles was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

We obtained seventeen eligible articles, thirteen of which showed concerns for the applicability section, due to the patient selection. Regarding the accelerometers, nine devices were validated in the included studies with the BodyMedia SenseWear® (SWA) being the most frequently validated. Although correlations between accelerometers and the gold standard were high in some studies, agreement between the two methods was low, as shown by the Bland-Altman plots.

CONCLUSIONS

Most accelerometer estimations of EE were inaccurate for obese/overweight subjects, and authors advise to improve the accuracy of algorithms for SWA software, or the predicted equations for estimating EE from other accelerometers.