File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Kids are not little adults: what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children?

TitleKids are not little adults: what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children?
Authors
KeywordsPublic health
Resting energy expenditure
Measurement
Youth
Issue Date2016
Citation
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2016, v. 116, n. 1, p. 29-38 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2015, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Purpose: The study compares MET-defined cutpoints used to classify sedentary behaviors in children using a simulated free-living design. Methods: A sample of 102 children (54 boys and 48 girls; 7–13 years) completed a set of 12 activities (randomly selected from a pool of 24 activities) in a random order. Activities were predetermined and ranged from sedentary to vigorous intensities. Participant’s energy expenditure was measured using a portable indirect calorimetry system, Oxycon mobile. Measured minute-by-minute VO2values (i.e., ml/kg/min) were converted to an adult- or child-MET value using the standard 3.5 ml/kg/min or the estimated child resting metabolic rate, respectively. Classification agreement was examined for both the “standard” (1.5 adult-METs) and an “adjusted” (2.0 adult-METs) MET-derived threshold for classifying sedentary behavior. Alternatively, we also tested the classification accuracy of a 1.5 child-MET threshold. Classification accuracy of sedentary activities was evaluated relative to the predetermined intensity categorization using receiver operator characteristic curves. Results: There were clear improvements in the classification accuracy for sedentary activities when a threshold of 2.0 adult-METs was used instead of 1.5 METs (Se1.5 METs = 4.7 %, Sp1.5 METs = 100.0 %; Se2.0 METs = 36.9 %, Sp2.0 METs = 100.0 %). The use of child-METs while maintaining the 1.5 threshold also resulted in improvements in classification (Se = 45.1 %, Sp = 100.0 %). Conclusion: Adult-MET thresholds are not appropriate for children when classifying sedentary activities. Classification accuracy for identifying sedentary activities was improved when either an adult-MET of 2.0 or a child-MET of 1.5 was used.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/267021
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 2.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.016
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSaint-Maurice, Pedro F.-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Youngwon-
dc.contributor.authorWelk, Gregory J.-
dc.contributor.authorGaesser, Glenn A.-
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-31T07:20:17Z-
dc.date.available2019-01-31T07:20:17Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology, 2016, v. 116, n. 1, p. 29-38-
dc.identifier.issn1439-6319-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/267021-
dc.description.abstract© 2015, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Purpose: The study compares MET-defined cutpoints used to classify sedentary behaviors in children using a simulated free-living design. Methods: A sample of 102 children (54 boys and 48 girls; 7–13 years) completed a set of 12 activities (randomly selected from a pool of 24 activities) in a random order. Activities were predetermined and ranged from sedentary to vigorous intensities. Participant’s energy expenditure was measured using a portable indirect calorimetry system, Oxycon mobile. Measured minute-by-minute VO2values (i.e., ml/kg/min) were converted to an adult- or child-MET value using the standard 3.5 ml/kg/min or the estimated child resting metabolic rate, respectively. Classification agreement was examined for both the “standard” (1.5 adult-METs) and an “adjusted” (2.0 adult-METs) MET-derived threshold for classifying sedentary behavior. Alternatively, we also tested the classification accuracy of a 1.5 child-MET threshold. Classification accuracy of sedentary activities was evaluated relative to the predetermined intensity categorization using receiver operator characteristic curves. Results: There were clear improvements in the classification accuracy for sedentary activities when a threshold of 2.0 adult-METs was used instead of 1.5 METs (Se1.5 METs = 4.7 %, Sp1.5 METs = 100.0 %; Se2.0 METs = 36.9 %, Sp2.0 METs = 100.0 %). The use of child-METs while maintaining the 1.5 threshold also resulted in improvements in classification (Se = 45.1 %, Sp = 100.0 %). Conclusion: Adult-MET thresholds are not appropriate for children when classifying sedentary activities. Classification accuracy for identifying sedentary activities was improved when either an adult-MET of 2.0 or a child-MET of 1.5 was used.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology-
dc.subjectPublic health-
dc.subjectResting energy expenditure-
dc.subjectMeasurement-
dc.subjectYouth-
dc.titleKids are not little adults: what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children?-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00421-015-3238-1-
dc.identifier.pmid26271677-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84952984949-
dc.identifier.volume116-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage29-
dc.identifier.epage38-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000367610200004-
dc.identifier.issnl1439-6319-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats