Key result
A 200-m self-paced walk test yields free-living energy expenditure estimates comparable to standard treadmill calibration.
Why the study?
Graded exercise tests for individual heart rate-to-energy expenditure calibration require medical screening and are not always feasible in population settings.
Does a 200-m self-paced walk test accurately estimate free-living physical activity energy expenditure compared to treadmill calibration in adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=643)
Does a 200-m self-paced walk test accurately estimate free-living physical activity energy expenditure compared to treadmill calibration in adults?
Mean Difference: 0.7 (95% CI 0–1.5)
Absolute Event Rate: 52.7% vs 52%
A 200-m self-paced walk test provides a valid and practical alternative to treadmill testing for individual calibration of heart rate to estimate free-living physical activity energy expenditure in population settings.
Introduction : Estimating free-living physical activity (PA) with continuous heart rate (HR) monitoring is challenging due to individual variation in the relationship between HR and energy expenditure. This variation can be captured through individual calibration with graded exercise tests, but structured tests with prescribed load require medical screening and are not always feasible in population settings. We present and evaluate an individual calibration method using HR response to a less demanding self-paced walk test. Methods : Six hundred and forty-three participants from the Fenland Study (Cambridgeshire, the United Kingdom) completed a 200-m self-paced walk test, a treadmill test, and 1 week of continuous HR and accelerometry monitoring. Mixed-effects regression was used to derive a walk test calibration model from HR response to the walk using treadmill-based parameters as criterion. Free-living PA estimates from the calibration model were compared with treadmill-calibrated and non-exercise-calibrated estimates. Results : Walk calibration captured 57% of the variance in the HR–energy expenditure relationship determined by the treadmill test. Applying walk calibration to data from free-living yielded similar PA estimates to those using treadmill calibration (52.7 vs. 52.0 kJ·kg −1 ·day −1 ; mean difference: 0.7 kJ·kg −1 ·day −1 , 95% confidence interval [−0.0, 1.5]) and high correlation ( r = .89). Individual differences were observed (root mean square error: 10.0 kJ·kg −1 ·day −1 ; 95% limits of agreement: −20.6, 19.1 kJ·kg −1 ·day −1 ). Walk calibration improved precision by 29% compared with nonexercise group calibration (root mean square error: 14.0 kJ·kg −1 ·day −1 ; 95% limits of agreement: −30.4, 24.5 kJ·kg −1 ·day −1 ). Conclusions : A 200-m self-paced walk test captures between-individual variation in the HR–energy expenditure relationship and facilitates estimation of free-living PA in population settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Westgate et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy adults (n=643). Self-paced walk test calibration vs. Treadmill test calibration was evaluated on Free-living physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) (MD 0.7 kJ·kg−1·day−1, 95% CI -0.0, 1.5). A 200-m self-paced walk test calibration yielded free-living physical activity energy expenditure estimates comparable to treadmill calibration, with a mean difference of 0.7 kJ·kg−1·day−1.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: