Your browser has javascript turned off or blocked. This will lead to some parts of our website to not work properly or at all. Turn on javascript for best performance.

The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Paul Franks

Paul Franks

Principal investigator

Paul Franks

Estimation of Daily Energy Expenditure in Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women Using a Wrist-Worn Tri-Axial Accelerometer

Author

  • Vincent T. van Hees
  • Frida Renstrom
  • Antony Wright
  • Anna Gradmark
  • Michael Catt
  • Kong Y. Chen
  • Marie Lof
  • Les Bluck
  • Jeremy Pomeroy
  • Nicholas J. Wareham
  • Ulf Ekelund
  • Soren Brage
  • Paul Franks

Summary, in English

Background: Few studies have compared the validity of objective measures of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in pregnant and non-pregnant women. PAEE is commonly estimated with accelerometers attached to the hip or waist, but little is known about the validity and participant acceptability of wrist attachment. The objectives of the current study were to assess the validity of a simple summary measure derived from a wrist-worn accelerometer (GENEA, Unilever Discover, UK) to estimate PAEE in pregnant and non-pregnant women, and to evaluate participant acceptability. Methods: Non-pregnant (N = 73) and pregnant (N = 35) Swedish women (aged 20-35 yrs) wore the accelerometer on their wrist for 10 days during which total energy expenditure (TEE) was assessed using doubly-labelled water. PAEE was calculated as 0.96TEE-REE. British participants (N = 99; aged 22-65 yrs) wore accelerometers on their non-dominant wrist and hip for seven days and were asked to score the acceptability of monitor placement (scored 1 [least] through 10 [most] acceptable). Results: There was no significant correlation between body weight and PAEE. In non-pregnant women, acceleration explained 24% of the variation in PAEE, which decreased to 19% in leave-one-out cross-validation. In pregnant women, acceleration explained 11% of the variation in PAEE, which was not significant in leave-one-out cross-validation. Median (IQR) acceptability of wrist and hip placement was 9(8-10) and 9(7-10), respectively; there was a within-individual difference of 0.47 (p < .001). Conclusions: A simple summary measure derived from a wrist-worn tri-axial accelerometer adds significantly to the prediction of energy expenditure in non-pregnant women and is scored acceptable by participants.

Department/s

  • Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology
  • EXODIAB: Excellence in Diabetes Research in Sweden
  • EpiHealth: Epidemiology for Health

Publishing year

2011

Language

English

Publication/Series

PLoS ONE

Volume

6

Issue

7

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Public Library of Science

Topic

  • Endocrinology and Diabetes

Status

Published

Research group

  • Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1932-6203