For total EE , correlation coefficients were statistically significantly lower in uniaxial compared to multisensor devices .
For active EE , correlations were slightly but not significantly lower in uniaxial compared to triaxial and multisensor devices .
The high level of heterogeneity in the validation studies is only partly explained by the type of activity monitor and the activity monitor outcome .
Triaxial and multisensor devices tend to be more valid monitors .
The assessment of physical activity in healthy population s and in those with chronic diseases is challenging .
The aim of this systematic review was to identify whether available activity monitors ( AM ) have been appropriately vali date d for use in assessing physical activity in these groups .
A comparison of energy expenditure estimates from the Actiheart and Actical physical activity monitors during low intensity activities, walking, and jogging
Combining accelerometry with heart rate monitoring has been suggested to improve energy estimates , however , it remains unclear whether the single , currently existing commercially available device combining these data streams ( Actiheart ) provides improved energy estimates compared to simpler and less expensive accelerometry-only devices . The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of the heart rate ( HR ) , accelerometry ( ACC ) , and combined ACC/HR estimates of the Actiheart to the ACC estimates of the Actical during low and moderate intensity activities . Twenty-seven participants ( mean age 26.3 ± 7.3 ) wore an Actical , Actiheart and indirect calorimeter ( K4b2 ) while performing card playing , sweeping , lifting weights , walking and jogging activities . All estimates tended to underestimate energy , sometimes by substantial amounts . Viewed across all activities studied , there was no significant difference in the ability of the waist-mounted Actical and torso-mounted Actiheart ( ACC , HR , ACC/HR ) estimates to predict energy expenditure . However , the Actiheart provided significantly better estimates than the Actical for the activities in which acceleration of the pelvis is not closely related to energy expenditure ( card playing , sweeping , lifting weights ) and the Actical provided significantly better estimates for level walking and level jogging . Similar to a previous study , the ACC component of the Actiheart was found to be the weakest predictor of energy suggesting it may be responsible for the failure of the combined ACC/HR estimate to equal or better the estimates derived solely from a waist mounted ACC device
For total EE , correlation coefficients were statistically significantly lower in uniaxial compared to multisensor devices .
For active EE , correlations were slightly but not significantly lower in uniaxial compared to triaxial and multisensor devices .
The high level of heterogeneity in the validation studies is only partly explained by the type of activity monitor and the activity monitor outcome .
Triaxial and multisensor devices tend to be more valid monitors .
The assessment of physical activity in healthy population s and in those with chronic diseases is challenging .
The aim of this systematic review was to identify whether available activity monitors ( AM ) have been appropriately vali date d for use in assessing physical activity in these groups .