accel_gradient_final_submitted.pdf (35.3 MB)

Beyond Cut-points: Accelerometer Metrics that Capture the Physical Activity Profile.

Download (35.3 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 19.02.2018, 15:43 by Alex V. Rowlands, Charlotte L. Edwardson, Melanie J. Davies, Kamlesh Khunti, Deirdre M. Harrington, Tom Yates
PURPOSE: Commonly used physical activity metrics tell us little about the intensity distribution across the activity profile. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a metric, the intensity gradient, which can be used in combination with average acceleration (overall activity level) to fully describe the activity profile. METHODS: 1669 adolescent girls (sample 1) and 295 adults with type 2 diabetes (sample 2) wore a GENEActiv accelerometer on their non-dominant wrist for up to 7-days. Body mass index and percent body fat were assessed in both samples and physical function (grip strength, Short Physical Performance Battery, sit-to-stand repetitions) in sample 2. Physical activity metrics were: average acceleration (AccelAV); the intensity gradient (IntensityGRAD from the log-log regression line: 25 mg intensity bins (x)/time accumulated in each bin (y)); total moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA); and bouted MVPA (sample 2 only). RESULTS: Correlations between AccelAV and the IntensityGRAD (r=0.39-0.51) were similar to correlations between AccelAV and bouted MVPA (r=0.48), and substantially lower than between AccelAV and total MVPA (r>0.93). The IntensityGRAD was negatively associated with body fatness in sample 1 (p<0.05) and positively associated with physical function in sample 2 (p<0.05); associations were independent of AccelAV and potential co-variates. In contrast, MVPA was not independently associated with body fatness or physical function. CONCLUSION: AccelAV and the IntensityGRAD provide a complementary description of a person's activity profile, each explaining unique variance, and independently associated with body fatness and/or physical function. Both metrics are appropriate for reporting as standardised measures and suitable for comparison across studies using raw acceleration accelerometers. Concurrent use will facilitate investigation of the relative importance of intensity and volume of activity for a given outcome.

Funding

The Girls Active evaluation was funded by the NIHR Public Health Research Programme (13/90/30). Professors Davies and Khunti are NIHR Senior Investigators. University of Leicester authors are supported by the NIHR Leicester-Loughborough Biomedical Research Unit (2012- 2017), the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (2017-2022) and the Collaboration for leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East Midlands. The Girls Active evaluation was undertaken in collaboration with the Leicester Clinical Trials Unit, a UKCRC-registered clinical trials unit in receipt of NIHR CTU support funding.

History

Citation

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2018

Author affiliation

/Organisation/COLLEGE OF LIFE SCIENCES/School of Medicine/Diabetes Research Centre

Version

AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Published in

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

Publisher

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)

issn

0195-9131

eissn

1530-0315

Copyright date

2018

Available date

23/01/2019

Publisher version

https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/publishahead/Beyond_Cut_points___Accelerometer_Metrics_that.96997.aspx

Notes

The file associated with this record is under embargo until 12 months after publication, in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above.

Language

en