11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validation of an integrated pedal desk and electronic behavior tracking platform

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          This study tested the validity of revolutions per minute (RPM) measurements from the Pennington Pedal Desk™. Forty-four participants (73 % female; 39 ± 11.4 years-old; BMI 25.8 ± 5.5 kg/m 2 [mean ± SD]) completed a standardized trial consisting of guided computer tasks while using a pedal desk for approximately 20 min. Measures of RPM were concurrently collected by the pedal desk and the Garmin Vector power meter. After establishing the validity of RPM measurements with the Garmin Vector, we performed equivalence tests, quantified mean absolute percent error (MAPE), and constructed Bland–Altman plots to assess agreement between RPM measures from the pedal desk and the Garmin Vector (criterion) at the minute-by-minute and trial level (i.e., over the approximate 20 min trial period).

          Results

          The average (mean ± SD) duration of the pedal desk trial was 20.5 ± 2.5 min. Measures of RPM (mean ± SE) at the minute-by-minute (Garmin Vector: 54.8 ± 0.4 RPM; pedal desk: 55.8 ± 0.4 RPM) and trial level (Garmin Vector: 55.0 ± 1.7 RPM; pedal desk: 56.0 ± 1.7 RPM) were deemed equivalent. MAPE values for RPM measured by the pedal desk were small (minute-by-minute: 2.1 ± 0.1 %; trial: 1.8 ± 0.1 %) and no systematic relationships in error variance were evident by Bland–Altman plots.

          Conclusion

          The Pennington Pedal Desk™ provides a valid count of RPM, providing an accurate metric to promote usage.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

          In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How many steps/day are enough? Preliminary pedometer indices for public health.

            Pedometers are simple and inexpensive body-worn motion sensors that are readily being used by researchers and practitioners to assess and motivate physical activity behaviours. Pedometer-determined physical activity indices are needed to guide their efforts. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review the rationale and evidence for general pedometer-based indices for research and practice purposes. Specifically, we evaluate popular recommendations for steps/day and attempt to translate existing physical activity guidelines into steps/day equivalents. Also, we appraise the fragmented evidence currently available from associations derived from cross-sectional studies and a limited number of interventions that have documented improvements (primarily in body composition and/or blood pressure) with increased steps/day.A value of 10000 steps/day is gaining popularity with the media and in practice and can be traced to Japanese walking clubs and a business slogan 30+ years ago. 10000 steps/day appears to be a reasonable estimate of daily activity for apparently healthy adults and studies are emerging documenting the health benefits of attaining similar levels. Preliminary evidence suggests that a goal of 10000 steps/day may not be sustainable for some groups, including older adults and those living with chronic diseases. Another concern about using 10000 steps/day as a universal step goal is that it is probably too low for children, an important target population in the war against obesity. Other approaches to pedometer-determined physical activity recommendations that are showing promise of health benefit and individual sustainability have been based on incremental improvements relative to baseline values. Based on currently available evidence, we propose the following preliminary indices be used to classify pedometer-determined physical activity in healthy adults: (i). or=10000 steps/day indicates the point that should be used to classify individuals as 'active'. Individuals who take >12500 steps/day are likely to be classified as 'highly active'.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effectiveness of worksite physical activity programs on physical activity, physical fitness, and health.

              To critically review the literature with respect to the effectiveness of worksite physical activity programs on physical activity, physical fitness, and health. A search for relevant English-written papers published between 1980 and 2000 was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sportdiscus, CINAHL, and Psychlit. The key words used involved a combination of concepts regarding type of study, study population, intervention, and outcome measure. In addition, a search was performed in our personal databases, as well as a reference search of the studies retrieved. The following criteria for inclusion were used: 1) randomized, controlled trial or nonrandomized, controlled trial; 2) working population; 3) worksite intervention program to promote employees' physical activity or physical fitness; and 4) physical activity, physical fitness, or health-related outcomes. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of relevant studies using a predefined set of nine methodological criteria. Conclusions regarding the effectiveness of a worksite physical activity programs were based on a rating system consisting of five levels of evidence. Fifteen randomized, controlled trials and 11 nonrandomized, controlled trials met the criteria for inclusion and were reviewed. Six randomized, controlled trials and none of the nonrandomized, controlled trials were of high methodological quality. Strong evidence was found for a positive effect of a worksite physical activity program on physical activity and musculoskeletal disorders. Limited evidence was found for a positive effect on fatigue. For physical fitness, general health, blood serum lipids, and blood pressure, inconclusive or no evidence was found for a positive effect. To increase the level of physical activity and to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders, we support implementation of worksite physical activity programs. For the other outcome measures, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of such a program is still limited or inconclusive, which is mainly the result of the small number of high-quality trials. Therefore, we recommend performing more randomized, controlled trials of high methodological quality, taking into account criteria such as randomization, blinding, and compliance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                John.Schuna@oregonstate.edu
                ctudorlocke@umass.edu
                mahara.proenca@gmail.com
                tvbarrei@syr.edu
                Daniel.Hsia@pbrc.edu
                fabiopitta@uol.com.br
                padma@vinformatix.com
                rguidry@vinformatix.com
                mmagnuson@sjtechs.com
                Mandy.Cowley@pbrc.edu
                (225) 763-2585 , Corby.Martin@pbrc.edu
                Journal
                BMC Res Notes
                BMC Res Notes
                BMC Research Notes
                BioMed Central (London )
                1756-0500
                9 February 2016
                9 February 2016
                2016
                : 9
                : 74
                Affiliations
                [ ]Pennington Biomedical Research Center, 6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70808 USA
                [ ]School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR USA
                [ ]Department of Kinesiology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003 USA
                [ ]Laboratório de Pesquisa em Fisioterapia Pulmonar (LFIP), Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), Londrina, PR Brazil
                [ ]CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil, Brasília, DF 70040-020 Brazil
                [ ]Department of Exercise Science, Syracuse University, 900 S. Crouse Ave., Syracuse, NY 13210 USA
                [ ]Vinformatrix, Baton Rouge, LA USA
                [ ]St. James Technologies, Baton Rouge, LA USA
                Article
                1882
                10.1186/s13104-016-1882-0
                4746820
                26857115
                a5894f3a-ee74-45ee-afd8-af070acf8dfa
                © Schuna Jr. et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 28 August 2015
                : 22 January 2016
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Medicine
                physical activity,sedentary behavior,workplace,exercise,pedal desk
                Medicine
                physical activity, sedentary behavior, workplace, exercise, pedal desk

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content334

                Most referenced authors692