Estimating activity energy expenditure: how valid are physical activity questionnaires?

Division of Population Health and Information, Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, Canada.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Impact Factor: 6.92). 03/2008; 87(2):279-91.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Activity energy expenditure (AEE) is the modifiable component of total energy expenditure (TEE) derived from all activities, both volitional and nonvolitional. Because AEE may affect health, there is interest in its estimation in free-living people. Physical activity questionnaires (PAQs) could be a feasible approach to AEE estimation in large populations, but it is unclear whether or not any PAQ is valid for this purpose. Our aim was to explore the validity of existing PAQs for estimating usual AEE in adults, using doubly labeled water (DLW) as a criterion measure. We reviewed 20 publications that described PAQ-to-DLW comparisons, summarized study design factors, and appraised criterion validity using mean differences (AEE(PAQ) - AEE(DLW), or TEE(PAQ) - TEE(DLW)), 95% limits of agreement, and correlation coefficients (AEE(PAQ) versus AEE(DLW) or TEE(PAQ) versus TEE(DLW)). Only 2 of 23 PAQs assessed most types of activity over the past year and indicated acceptable criterion validity, with mean differences (TEE(PAQ) - TEE(DLW)) of 10% and 2% and correlation coefficients of 0.62 and 0.63, respectively. At the group level, neither overreporting nor underreporting was more prevalent across studies. We speculate that, aside from reporting error, discrepancies between PAQ and DLW estimates may be partly attributable to 1) PAQs not including key activities related to AEE, 2) PAQs and DLW ascertaining different time periods, or 3) inaccurate assignment of metabolic equivalents to self-reported activities. Small sample sizes, use of correlation coefficients, and limited information on individual validity were problematic. Future research should address these issues to clarify the true validity of PAQs for estimating AEE.


Available from: Christine M Friedenreich, Aug 25, 2014
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Physical activity (PA) is essential for health, but many adults find PA adherence challenging. Acceptance of discomfort related to PA may influence an individual's ability to begin and sustain a program of exercise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Physical Activity Acceptance Questionnaire (PAAQ).
    Journal of physical activity & health 08/2014; DOI:10.1123/jpah.2013-0338 · 1.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Epidemiologic studies examining circulating levels of inflammatory markers in relation to obesity and physical inactivity may aid in our understanding of the role of inflammation in obesity-related cancers. However, previous studies on this topic have focused on a limited set of markers. Methods: We evaluated associations between body mass index (BMI) and vigorous physical activity level, based on self-report, and serum levels of 78 inflammation-related markers. Markers were measured using a bead-based multiplex method among 1,703 men and women, ages 55-74 years and with no prior history of cancer at blood draw, selected for case-control studies nested within the Prostate, Lung, Ovarian, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, smoking, case-control study, physical activity, and BMI. Results: Twelve markers were positively associated with BMI after False Discovery Rate (FDR) correction. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) for highest versus lowest levels of CCL2/MCP-1, CXCL5/ENA-78, sTNFR-II, CXCL10/IP-10, CXCL6/GCP2, CCL13/MCP-4, amylin, CRP, C-peptide, CCL19/MIP-3b, insulin, and leptin were 1.50 (1.14-1.98), 1.52 (1.12-2.05), 1.61 (1.17-2.20), 1.69 (1.25-2.28), 1.74 (1.24-2.44), 1.75 (1.22-2.50), 1.91 (1.31-2.78), 2.41 (1.36-4.25), 2.78 (1.83-4.24), 3.30 (2.28-4.78), 4.05 (2.51-6.55), 50.03 (19.87-125.99) per 5-kg/m2, respectively. Only CXCL12/SDF-1a was associated with physical activity (≥3 versus <1 hours/week; OR=3.28, 95% CI: 1.55-6.94) after FDR correction. Conclusions: BMI was associated with a wide range of circulating markers involved in the inflammatory response. Impact: This cross-sectional analysis identified serum markers could be considered in future studies aimed at understanding the underlying mechanisms linking inflammation with obesity and obesity-related cancers.
    Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 09/2014; 23(12). DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0699-T · 4.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pre-practice euhydration is key in the prevention of heat related injuries. The pre-practice hydration status of male National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)-Division III athletes and the effects of a direct hydration regimen have yet to be investigated therefore; the aim of the study was 1) to analyze the pre-practice hydration status of current NCAA-DIII male ath-letes and 2) assess the impact of a directed intervention on pre-practice hydration status. The study was divided into baseline, pre and post intervention phases. For baseline, hydration status through urine specific gravity (USG) and anthropometric indices were measured prior to morning practice. Following baseline, pre-intervention commenced and participants were assigned to either control (CON) or experimental (EXP) groups. The CON and EXP group participants were instructed to maintain normal hydration and diet schedules and record fluid intake for seven days leading to post-intervention. The EXP group participants were asked to consume an additional 23.9 fl oz (~ 750 ml) per day for one week (7 days) leading to post-intervention. After 7 days the same measures were taken. At baseline, the majority of the participants were hypohydrated. Following the intervention, the EXP group participants consumed significantly more fluids than the participants in the CON group (3277.91 ± 1360. 23 ml vs 1931.54 ± 881.81 ml; p < 0.05). A-two-way repeated measure ANOVA revealed a non-significant time or treatment effect for USG or body mass but did demonstrate a significant USG inter-action. In addition, an independent t-test examining absolute changes in USG demonstrated a significant difference between groups in which the EXP group improved hydration status and the CON group did not (-0.02 ± 0.006 vs 0.001 ± 0.005 ml; p < 0.05). In addition, there was no significant (p >0.05) difference in the regression slopes or intercepts between the CON and EXP groups when expressed as daily fluid intake per kg body (ml·kg -1) and change in USG from pre-intervention to post-intervention. Most of the participants were hypohydrated at baseline/pre-intervention and the direct hydration intervention improved post-intervention hydration status but only to a small extent.
    Journal of sports science & medicine 03/2015; 14(1):23-28. · 0.90 Impact Factor