Use of consumer monitors for estimating energy expenditure in youth.

The purpose of this study was to compare energy expenditure (EE) estimates from 5 consumer physical activity monitors (PAMs) to indirect calorimetry in a sample of youth. Eighty-nine youth (mean (SD); age, 12.3 (3.4) years; 50% female) performed 16 semi-structured activities. Activities were performed in duplicate across 2 visits. Participants wore a Cosmed K4b2 (criterion for EE), an Apple Watch 2 (left wrist), Mymo Tracker (right hip), and Misfit Shine 2 devices (right hip; right shoe). Participants were randomized to wear a Samsung Gear Fit 2 or a Fitbit Charge 2 on the right wrist. Oxygen consumption was converted to EE by subtracting estimated basal EE (Schofield's equation) from the measured gross EE. EE from each visit was summed across the 2 visit days for comparison with the total EE recorded from the PAMs. All consumer PAMs estimated gross EE, except for the Apple Watch 2 (net Active EE). Paired t tests were used to assess differences between estimated (PAM) and measured (K4b2) EE. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE) was used to assess individual-level error. The Mymo Tracker was not significantly different from measured EE and was within 15.9 kcal of measured kilocalories (p = 0.764). Mean percent errors ranged from 3.5% (Mymo Tracker) to 48.2% (Apple Watch 2). MAPE ranged from 16.8% (Misfit Shine 2 - right hip) to 49.9% (Mymo Tracker). Novelty Only the Mymo Tracker was not significantly different from measured EE but had the greatest individual error. The Misfit Shine 2 - right hip had the lowest individual error. Caution is warranted when using consumer PAMs in youth for tracking EE.

Accuracy of the Cosmed K5 portable calorimeter.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of the Cosmed K5 portable metabolic system dynamic mixing chamber (MC) and breath-by-breath (BxB) modes against the criterion Douglas bag (DB) method. METHODS: Fifteen participants (mean age±SD, 30.6±7.4 yrs) had their metabolic variables measured at rest and during cycling at 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250W. During each stage, participants were connected to the first respiratory gas collection method (randomized) for the first four minutes to reach steady state, followed by 3-min (or 5-min for DB) collection periods for the resting condition, and 2-min collection periods for all cycling intensities. Collection periods for the second and third methods were preceded by a washout of 1-3 min. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to compare metabolic variables measured by each method, for seated rest and each cycling work rate. RESULTS: For ventilation (VE) and oxygen uptake (VO2), the K5 MC and BxB modes were within 2.1 l/min (VE) and 0.08 l/min (VO2) of the DB (p≥0.05). Compared to DB values, carbon dioxide production (VCO2) was significantly underestimated by the K5 BxB mode at work rates ≥150W by 0.12-0.31 l/min (p<0.05). K5 MC and BxB respiratory exchange ratio values were significantly lower than DB at cycling work rates ≥100W by 0.03-0.08 (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared to the DB method, the K5 MC and BxB modes are acceptable for measuring VE and VO2 across a wide range of cycling intensities. Both K5 modes provided comparable values to each other.

Estimating Energy Expenditure with ActiGraph GT9X Inertial Measurement Unit.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore whether gyroscope and magnetometer data from the ActiGraph GT9X improved accelerometer-based predictions of energy expenditure (EE). METHODS: Thirty participants (mean ± SD: age, 23.0 ± 2.3 yr; body mass index, 25.2 ± 3.9 kg·m) volunteered to complete the study. Participants wore five GT9X monitors (right hip, both wrists, and both ankles) while performing 10 activities ranging from rest to running. A Cosmed K4b was worn during the trial, as a criterion measure of EE (30-s averages) expressed in METs. Triaxial accelerometer data (80 Hz) were converted to milli-G using Euclidean norm minus one (ENMO; 1-s epochs). Gyroscope data (100 Hz) were expressed as a vector magnitude (GVM) in degrees per second (1-s epochs) and magnetometer data (100 Hz) were expressed as direction changes per 5 s. Minutes 4-6 of each activity were used for analysis. Three two-regression algorithms were developed for each wear location: 1) ENMO, 2) ENMO and GVM, and 3) ENMO, GVM, and direction changes. Leave-one-participant-out cross-validation was used to evaluate the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percent error (MAPE) of each algorithm. RESULTS: Adding gyroscope to accelerometer-only algorithms resulted in RMSE reductions between 0.0 METs (right wrist) and 0.17 METs (right ankle), and MAPE reductions between 0.1% (right wrist) and 6.0% (hip). When direction changes were added, RMSE changed by ≤0.03 METs and MAPE by ≤0.21%. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of gyroscope and accelerometer at the hip and ankles improved individual-level prediction of EE compared with accelerometer only. For the wrists, adding gyroscope produced negligible changes. The magnetometer did not meaningfully improve estimates for any algorithms.

The patient protection and affordable care act: effects on dental care.

Health care reform has been a subject of debate long before the presidential campaign of 2008, through the presidential signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on March 23, 2010, and is likely to continue as a topic of discussion well into the future. The effects of this historic reform on the delivery of healthcare and on the economy are subject to speculation. While most people are at least generally aware that access to medical care will be improved in many ways, few people, including many in the dental profession, are aware that this legislation also addresses oral health disparities and access to dental care. It is the purpose of this paper to review how dental care is currently accessed in the United States and where oral health care disparities exist, to suggest approaches to alleviating these disparities and to delineate how the changes in dental policies found in the PPACA hope to address these concerns. The main arguments of organized dentistry, both those in support of and in opposition to the PPACA, are summarized.