Department of Human Nutrition and Hospitality Management

Permanent URI for this community

https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/59

Browse

Browsing Department of Human Nutrition and Hospitality Management by Author "Aguiar, Elroy J."

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cadence (steps/min) and relative intensity in 21 to 60-year-olds: the CADENCE-adults study
    (BMC, 2021) McAvoy, Cayla R.; Moore, Christopher C.; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Ducharme, Scott W.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago V.; Chase, Colleen J.; Gould, Zachary R.; Amalbert-Birriel, Marcos A.; Chipkin, Stuart R.; Staudenmayer, John; Tudor-Locke, Catrine; Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; California State University Long Beach; Oregon State University; Syracuse University; University of Massachusetts Amherst
    Background: Heuristic cadence (steps/min) thresholds of >= 100 and >= 130 steps/min correspond with absolutely-defined moderate (3 metabolic equivalents [METs]; 1 MET = 3.5 mL O-2 center dot kg(- 1)center dot min(- 1)) and vigorous (6 METs) intensity, respectively. Scarce evidence informs cadence thresholds for relatively-defined moderate (>= 64% heart rate maximum [HRmax = 220-age], >= 40%HR reserve [HRR = HRmax -HRresting, and >= 12 Rating of Perceived Exertion [RPE]); or vigorous intensity (>= 77%HRmax, >= 60%HRR, and >= 14 RPE). Purpose: To identify heuristic cadence thresholds corresponding with relatively-defined moderate and vigorous intensity in 21-60-year-olds. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 157 adults (40.4 +/- 11.5 years; 50.6% men) completed up to twelve 5-min treadmill bouts, beginning at 0.5 mph and increasing by 0.5 mph. Steps were directly observed, HR was measured with chest-worn monitors, and RPE was queried in the final minute of each bout. Segmented mixed model regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses identified optimal cadence thresholds, stratified by age (21-30, 31-40, 41-50, and 51-60 years). Reconciliation of the two analytical models, including trade-offs between sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy, yielded final heuristic cadences. Results: Across all moderate intensity indicators, the segmented regression models estimated optimal cadence thresholds ranging from 123.8-127.5 (ages 21-30), 121.3-126.0 (ages 31-40), 117.7-122.7 (ages 41-50), and 113.3-116.1 steps/min (ages 51-60). Corresponding values for vigorous intensity were 140.3-144.1, 140.2-142.6, 139.3-143.6, and 131.6-132.8 steps/min, respectively. ROC analysis estimated chronologically-arranged age groups' cadence thresholds ranging from 114.5-118, 113.5-114.5, 104.6-112.9, and 103.6-106.0 across all moderate intensity indicators, and 127.5, 121.5, 117.2-123.2, and 113.0 steps/min, respectively, for vigorous intensity. Conclusions: Heuristic cadence thresholds corresponding to relatively-defined moderate intensity for the chronologically-arranged age groups were >= 120, 120, 115, and 105 steps/min, regardless of the intensity indicator (i.e., % HRmax, %HRR, or RPE). Corresponding heuristic values for vigorous intensity indicators were >= 135, 130, 125, and 120 steps/min. These cadences are useful for predicting/programming intensity aligned with age-associated differences in physiological response to, and perceived experiences of, moderate and/or vigorous intensity.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cadence (steps/min) and relative intensity in 21 to 60-year-olds: the CADENCE-adults study (vol 18, 27, 2021)
    (BMC, 2022) McAvoy, Cayla R.; Moore, Christopher C.; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Ducharme, Scott W.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago V.; Chase, Colleen J.; Gould, Zachary R.; Amalbert-Birriel, Marcos A.; Chipkin, Stuart R.; Staudenmayer, John; Tudor-Locke, Catrine; Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; California State University Long Beach; Oregon State University; Syracuse University; University of Massachusetts Amherst
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies during treadmill walking: the CADENCE-adults study
    (BMC, 2022) Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; Gould, Zachary R.; Moore, Christopher C.; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Ducharme, Scott W.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago, V; Staudenmayer, John; McAvoy, Cayla R.; Boikova, Mariya; Miller, Taavy A.; Tudor-Locke, Catrine; University of Granada; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; University of Massachusetts Amherst; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; California State University Long Beach; Oregon State University; Syracuse University
    Background Standardized validation indices (i.e., accuracy, bias, and precision) provide a comprehensive comparison of step counting wearable technologies. Purpose To expand a previously published child/youth catalog of validity indices to include adults (21-40, 41-60 and 61-85 years of age) assessed across a range of treadmill speeds (slow [0.8-3.2 km/h], normal [4.0-6.4 km/h], fast [7.2-8.0 km/h]) and device wear locations (ankle, thigh, waist, and wrist). Methods Two hundred fifty-eight adults (52.5 +/- 18.7 years, 49.6% female) participated in this laboratory-based study and performed a series of 5-min treadmill bouts while wearing multiple devices; 21 devices in total were evaluated over the course of this multi-year cross-sectional study (2015-2019). The criterion measure was directly observed steps. Computed validity indices included accuracy (mean absolute percentage error, MAPE), bias (mean percentage error, MPE), and precision (correlation coefficient, r; standard deviation, SD; coefficient of variation, CoV). Results Over the range of normal speeds, 15 devices (Actical, waist-worn ActiGraph GT9X, activPAL, Apple Watch Series 1, Fitbit Ionic, Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip, Garmin vivoactive 3, Garmin vivofit 3, waist-worn GENEActiv, NL-1000, PiezoRx, Samsung Gear Fit2, Samsung Gear Fit2 Pro, and StepWatch) performed at < 5% MAPE. The wrist-worn ActiGraph GT9X displayed the worst accuracy across normal speeds (MAPE = 52%). On average, accuracy was compromised across slow walking speeds for all wearable technologies (MAPE = 40%) while all performed best across normal speeds (MAPE = 7%). When analyzing the data by wear locations, the ankle and thigh demonstrated the best accuracy (both MAPE = 1%), followed by the waist (3%) and the wrist (15%) across normal speeds. There were significant effects of speed, wear location, and age group on accuracy and bias (both p < 0.001) and precision (p <= 0.045). Conclusions Standardized validation indices cataloged by speed, wear location, and age group across the adult lifespan facilitate selecting, evaluating, or comparing performance of step counting wearable technologies. Speed, wear location, and age displayed a significant effect on accuracy, bias, and precision. Overall, reduced performance was associated with very slow walking speeds (0.8 to 3.2 km/h). Ankle- and thigh-located devices logged the highest accuracy, while those located at the wrist reported the worst accuracy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies during treadmill walking: the CADENCE-Kids study
    (BMC, 2021) Gould, Zachary R.; Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago, V; Moore, Christopher C.; Staudenmayer, John; Tudor-Locke, Catrine; University of Massachusetts Amherst; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; Oregon State University; Syracuse University; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
    Background: Wearable technologies play an important role in measuring physical activity (PA) and promoting health. Standardized validation indices (i.e., accuracy, bias, and precision) compare performance of step counting wearable technologies in young people. Purpose: To produce a catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies assessed during different treadmill speeds (slow [0.8-3.2 km/h], normal [4.0-6.4 km/h], fast [7.2-8.0 km/h]), wear locations (waist, wrist/arm, thigh, and ankle), and age groups (children, 6-12 years; adolescents, 13-17 years; young adults, 18-20 years). Methods: One hundred seventeen individuals (13.1 +/- 4.2 years, 50.4% female) participated in this cross-sectional study and completed 5-min treadmill bouts (0.8 km/h to 8.0 km/h) while wearing eight devices (Waist Actical, ActiGraph GT3X+, NL-1000, SW-200; Wrist ActiGraph GT3X+; Arm: SenseWear; Thigh: activPAL; Ankle: StepWatch). Directly observed steps served as the criterion measure. Accuracy (mean absolute percentage error, MAPE), bias (mean percentage error, MPE), and precision (correlation coefficient, r; standard deviation, SD; coefficient of variation, CoV) were computed. Results: Five of the eight tested wearable technologies (i.e., Actical, waist-worn ActiGraph GT3X+, activPAL, StepWatch, and SW-200) performed at < 5% MAPE over the range of normal speeds. More generally, waist (MAPE = 4%), thigh (4%) and ankle (5%) locations displayed higher accuracy than the wrist location (23%) at normal speeds. On average, all wearable technologies displayed the lowest accuracy across slow speeds (MAPE = 50.1 +/- 35.5%), and the highest accuracy across normal speeds (MAPE = 15.9 +/- 21.7%). Speed and wear location had a significant effect on accuracy and bias (P < 0.001), but not on precision (P> 0.05). Age did not have any effect (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Standardized validation indices focused on accuracy, bias, and precision were cataloged by speed, wear location, and age group to serve as important reference points when selecting and/or evaluating device performance in young people moving forward. Reduced performance can be expected at very slow walking speeds (0.8 to 3.2 km/h) for all devices. Ankle-worn and thigh-worn devices demonstrated the highest accuracy. Speed and wear location had a significant effect on accuracy and bias, but not precision.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluation of a Type 2 diabetes risk reduction online program for women with recent gestational diabetes: a randomised trial
    (BMC, 2022) Taylor, Rachael; Rollo, Megan E.; Baldwin, Jennifer N.; Hutchesson, Melinda; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Wynne, Katie; Young, Ashley; Callister, Robin; Collins, Clare E.; University of Newcastle; Hunter Medical Research Institute; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    Background: To evaluate the preliminary efficacy, feasibility and acceptability of the 3-month Body Balance Beyond (BBB) online program among Australian women with overweight/obesity and recent gestational diabetes mellitus. Methods: Women were randomised into either: 1) High Personalisation (HP) (access to'BBB'website, video coaching sessions, text message support); 2) Medium Personalisation (MP) (website and text message support); or 3) Low Personalisation (LP) (website only). Generalised linear mixed models were used to evaluate preliminary efficacy, weight, diet quality, physical activity levels, self-efficacy and quality of life (QoL) at baseline and 3-months. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment and retention metrics and acceptability determined via online process evaluation survey at 3-months. Results: Eighty three women were randomised, with 76 completing the study. Self-efficacy scores showed significant improvements in confidence to resist eating in a variety of situations from baseline to 3-months in HP compared to MP and LP groups (P=.03). The difference in mean QoL scores favoured the HP compared to MP and LP groups (P=.03). Half of the women (HP n=17[81%], MP n=12[75%], LP n=9[56%]) lost weight at 3-months. No significant group-by-time effect were reported for other outcomes. Two-thirds of women in the HP group were satisfied with the program overall and 86% would recommend it to others, compared with 25% and 44% in the MP group, and 14% and 36% in the LP group, respectively. Conclusions: Video coaching sessions were associated with improvements in QoL scores and self-efficacy, however further refinement of the BBB website and text messages support could improve program acceptability.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Walking cadence (steps/min) and intensity in 41 to 60-year-old adults: the CADENCE-adults study
    (BMC, 2020) Tudor-Locke, Catrine; Ducharme, Scott W.; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago V.; Moore, Christopher C.; Chase, Colleen J.; Gould, Zachary R.; Amalbert-Birriel, Marcos A.; Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; Chipkin, Stuart R.; Staudenmayer, John; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; California State University Long Beach; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; Oregon State University; Syracuse University; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of Massachusetts Amherst
    Background In younger adults (i.e., those < 40 years of age) a walking cadence of 100 steps/min is a consistently supported threshold indicative of absolutely-defined moderate intensity ambulation (i.e., >= 3 metabolic equivalents; METs). Less is known about the cadence-intensity relationship in adults of middle-age. Purpose To establish heuristic (i.e., evidence-based, practical, rounded) cadence thresholds for absolutely-defined moderate (3 METs) and vigorous (6 METs) intensity in adults 41 to 60 years of age. Methods In this cross-sectional study, 80 healthy adults of middle-age (10 men and 10 women representing each 5-year age-group between 41 to 60 years; body mass index = 26.0 +/- 4.0 kg/m(2)) walked on a treadmill for 5-min bouts beginning at 0.5 mph and increasing in 0.5 mph increments. Performance termination criteria included: 1) transitioning to running, 2) reaching 75% of age-predicted maximum heart rate, or 3) reporting a Borg rating of perceived exertion > 13. Cadence was directly observed (i.e., hand tallied). Intensity (i.e., oxygen uptake [VO2] mL/kg/min) was assessed with an indirect calorimeter and converted to METs (1 MET = 3.5 mL/kg/min). A combination of segmented regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) modeling approaches was used to identify optimal cadence thresholds. Final heuristic thresholds were determined based on an evaluation of classification accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, overall accuracy). Results The regression model identified 101.7 (95% Predictive Interval [PI]: 54.9-110.6) and 132.1 (95% PI: 122.0-142.2) steps/min as optimal cadence thresholds for 3 METs and 6 METs, respectively. Corresponding values based on ROC models were 98.5 (95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 97.1-104.9) and 117.3 (95% CI: 113.1-126.1) steps/min. Considering both modeling approaches, the selected heuristic thresholds for moderate and vigorous intensity were 100 and 130 steps/min, respectively. Conclusions Consistent with our previous report in 21 to 40-year-old adults, cadence thresholds of 100 and 130 steps/min emerged as heuristic values associated with 3 and 6 METs, respectively, in 41 to 60-year-old adults. These values were selected based on their utility for public health messaging and on the trade-offs in classification accuracy parameters from both statistical methods. Findings will need to be confirmed in older adults and in free-living settings.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Walking cadence (steps/min) and intensity in 61-85-year-old adults: the CADENCE-Adults study
    (BMC, 2021) Tudor-Locke, Catrine; Mora-Gonzalez, Jose; Ducharme, Scott W.; Aguiar, Elroy J.; Schuna, John M., Jr.; Barreira, Tiago, V; Moore, Christopher C.; Chase, Colleen J.; Gould, Zachary R.; Amalbert-Birriel, Marcos A.; Chipkin, Stuart R.; Staudenmayer, John; University of North Carolina; University of North Carolina Charlotte; California State University Long Beach; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; Oregon State University; Syracuse University; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; University of Massachusetts Amherst
    Background: Heuristic (i.e., evidence-based, rounded) cadences of >= 100 and >= 130 steps/min have consistently corresponded with absolutely-defined moderate (3 metabolic equivalents [METs]) and vigorous (6 METs) physical activity intensity, respectively, in adults 21-60 years of age. There is no consensus regarding similar thresholds in older adults. Purpose: To provide heuristic cadence thresholds for 3, 4, 5, and 6 METs in 61-85-year-old adults. Methods: Ninety-eight community-dwelling ambulatory and ostensibly healthy older adults (age = 72.6 +/- 6.9 years; 49% women) walked on a treadmill for a series of 5-min bouts (beginning at 0.5 mph with 0.5 mph increments) in this laboratory-based cross-sectional study until: 1) transitioning to running, 2) reaching >= 75% of their age-predicted maximum heart rate, or 3) reporting a Borg rating of perceived exertion > 13. Cadence was directly observed and hand-tallied. Intensity (oxygen uptake [VO2] mL/kg/min) was assessed with indirect calorimetry and converted to METs (1 MET = 3.5 mL/kg/min). Cadence thresholds were identified via segmented mixed effects model regression and using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Final heuristic cadence thresholds represented an analytical compromise based on classification accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and overall accuracy). Results: Cadences of 103.1 (95% Prediction Interval: 70.0-114.2), 116.4 (105.3-127.4), 129.6 (118.6-140.7), and 142.9 steps/min (131.8-148.4) were identified for 3, 4, 5, and 6 METs, respectively, based on the segmented regression. Comparable values based on ROC analysis were 100.3 (95% Confidence Intervals: 95.7-103.1), 111.5 (106.1-112.9), 116.0 (112.4-120.2), and 128.6 steps/min (128.3-136.4). Heuristic cadence thresholds of 100, 110, and 120 were associated with 3, 4, and 5 METs. Data to inform a threshold for >= 6 METs was limited, as only 6/98 (6.0%) participants achieved this intensity. Conclusions: Consistent with previous data collected from 21-40 and 41-60-year-old adults, heuristic cadence thresholds of 100, 110, and 120 steps/min were associated with 3, 4, and 5 METs, respectively, in 61-85-year-old adults. Most older adults tested did not achieve the intensity of >= 6 METs; therefore, our data do not support establishing thresholds corresponding with this intensity level.