Step Detection Accuracy and Energy Expenditure Estimation at Different Speeds by Three Accelerometers in a Controlled Environment in Overweight/Obese Subjects

Our aim was to compare three research-grade accelerometers for their accuracy in step detection and energy expenditure (EE) estimation in a laboratory setting, at different speeds, especially in overweight/obese participants. Forty-eight overweight/obese subjects participated. Participants performed an exercise routine on a treadmill with six different speeds (1.5, 3, 4.5, 6, 7.5, and 9 km/h) for 4 min each. The exercise was recorded on video and subjects wore three accelerometers during the exercise: Sartorio Xelometer (SX, hip), activPAL (AP, thigh), and ActiGraph GT3X (AG, hip), and energy expenditure (EE) was estimated using indirect calorimetry for comparisons. For step detection, speed-wise mean absolute percentage errors for the SX ranged between 9.73-2.26, 6.39-0.95 for the AP, and 88.69-2.63 for the AG. The activPALs step detection was the most accurate. For EE estimation, the ranges were 21.41-15.15 for the SX, 57.38-12.36 for the AP, and 59.45-28.92 for the AG. All EE estimation errors were due to underestimation. All three devices were accurate in detecting steps when speed exceeded 4 km/h and inaccurate in EE estimation regardless of speed. Our results will guide users to recognize the differences, weaknesses, and strengths of the accelerometer devices and their algorithms.Peer reviewe

Step Detection Accuracy and Energy Expenditure Estimation at Different Speeds by Three Accelerometers in a Controlled Environment in Overweight/Obese Subjects

Our aim was to compare three research-grade accelerometers for their accuracy in step detection and energy expenditure (EE) estimation in a laboratory setting, at different speeds, especially in overweight/obese participants. Forty-eight overweight/obese subjects participated. Participants performed an exercise routine on a treadmill with six different speeds (1.5, 3, 4.5, 6, 7.5, and 9 km/h) for 4 min each. The exercise was recorded on video and subjects wore three accelerometers during the exercise: Sartorio Xelometer (SX, hip), activPAL (AP, thigh), and ActiGraph GT3X (AG, hip), and energy expenditure (EE) was estimated using indirect calorimetry for comparisons. For step detection, speed-wise mean absolute percentage errors for the SX ranged between 9.73–2.26, 6.39–0.95 for the AP, and 88.69–2.63 for the AG. The activPALs step detection was the most accurate. For EE estimation, the ranges were 21.41–15.15 for the SX, 57.38–12.36 for the AP, and 59.45–28.92 for the AG. All EE estimation errors were due to underestimation. All three devices were accurate in detecting steps when speed exceeded 4 km/h and inaccurate in EE estimation regardless of speed. Our results will guide users to recognize the differences, weaknesses, and strengths of the accelerometer devices and their algorithms

Step detection accuracy and energy expenditure estimation at different speeds by three accelerometers in a controlled environment in overweight/obese subjects

Abstract Our aim was to compare three research-grade accelerometers for their accuracy in step detection and energy expenditure (EE) estimation in a laboratory setting, at different speeds, especially in overweight/obese participants. Forty-eight overweight/obese subjects participated. Participants performed an exercise routine on a treadmill with six different speeds (1.5, 3, 4.5, 6, 7.5, and 9 km/h) for 4 min each. The exercise was recorded on video and subjects wore three accelerometers during the exercise: Sartorio Xelometer (SX, hip), activPAL (AP, thigh), and ActiGraph GT3X (AG, hip), and energy expenditure (EE) was estimated using indirect calorimetry for comparisons. For step detection, speed-wise mean absolute percentage errors for the SX ranged between 9.73–2.26, 6.39–0.95 for the AP, and 88.69–2.63 for the AG. The activPALs step detection was the most accurate. For EE estimation, the ranges were 21.41–15.15 for the SX, 57.38–12.36 for the AP, and 59.45–28.92 for the AG. All EE estimation errors were due to underestimation. All three devices were accurate in detecting steps when speed exceeded 4 km/h and inaccurate in EE estimation regardless of speed. Our results will guide users to recognize the differences, weaknesses, and strengths of the accelerometer devices and their algorithms