This study evaluated whether using a web-linked accelerometer, plus mandatory physical training, is associated with various weight- and fitness-related outcomes in overweight/obese active duty soldiers. Soldiers who failed the height/weight standards of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) were randomized to use a Polar FA20 accelerometer device (polar accelerometer group [PA], n = 15) or usual care (UC, n = 13) for 6 months. Both groups received 1.5 hours of lifestyle instruction. We collected data at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 months, and evaluated group differences in temporal changes in study outcomes. At 6 months, 1/28 subjects (UC) passed the APFT height/weight standards. There were no group differences in changes in weight (PA: -0.1 kg vs. UC: +0.3 kg; p = 0.9), body fat (PA: -0.9% vs. UC: -1.1%; p = 0.9), systolic blood pressure (PA: +1.3 mm Hg vs. UC: -2.1 mm Hg; p = 0.2), diastolic blood pressure (PA: +3.8 mm Hg vs. UC: -2.4 mm Hg; p = 0.3), or resting heart rate in beats per minute (bpm) (PA: +7.8 bpm vs. UC: +0.1 bpm; p = 0.2). These results suggest that using an accelerometer with web-based feedback capabilities plus mandatory physical training does not assist in significant weight loss or ability to pass the APFT height/weight standards among overweight/obese soldiers.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Abstract Activity monitors are frequently used to assess activity in many settings. But as technology advances, so do the mechanisms used to estimate activity causing a continuous need to validate newly developed monitors. The purpose of this study was to examine the step count validity of the Yamax Digiwalker SW-701 pedometer (YX), Omron HJ-720 T pedometer (OP), Polar Active accelerometer (PAC) and Actigraph gt3x+ accelerometer (AG) under controlled and free-living conditions. Participants completed five stages of treadmill walking (n = 43) and a subset of these completed a 3-day free-living wear period (n = 37). Manually counted (MC) steps provided a criterion measure for treadmill walking, whereas the comparative measure during free-living was the YX. During treadmill walking, the OP was the most accurate monitor across all speeds (±1.1% of MC steps), while the PAC underestimated steps by 6.7-16.0% per stage. During free-living, the OP and AG counted 97.5% and 98.5% of YX steps, respectively. The PAC overestimated steps by 44.0%, or 5,265 steps per day. The Omron pedometer seems to provide the most reliable and valid estimate of steps taken, as it was the best performer under lab-based conditions and provided comparable results to the YX in free-living. Future studies should consider these monitors in additional populations and settings.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Effective strategies are required to reduce the prevalence of overweight and obesity; however, the effectiveness of current weight loss programmes is variable. One contributing factor may be the difference in weight loss success between men and women. A systematic review was conducted to determine whether the effectiveness of weight loss interventions differs between men and women. Randomized controlled trials published up until March 2014 were included. Effect sizes (Hedges' g) were used to examine the difference in weight outcomes between men and women. A total of 58 studies met the eligibility criteria with 49 studies of higher quality included in the final data synthesis. Eleven studies that directly compared weight loss in men and women reported a significant sex difference. Ten of these reported that men lost more weight than women; however, women also lost a significant amount of weight. Analysis of effect sizes found small differences in weight loss favouring men for both diet (g = 0.489) and diet plus exercise (g = 0.240) interventions. There is little evidence from this review to indicate that men and women should adopt different weight loss strategies. Current evidence supports moderate energy restriction in combination with exercise for weight loss in both men and women.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.