Advertisement

The Contrastive Analysis of Three Models About Human Energy Expenditure

  • Chenming Li
  • Tianhao WangEmail author
  • Yuhong Shen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 527)

Abstract

Objective Through the studies on contrastive analysis of three models, find a scientific and simple method to evaluate energy expenditure. Methods Six healthy young men are selected as the test objects. The tests were conducted until the test objects’ heart rate reached 90% of the maximum or they could not insist on testing. Data including VO2, VCO2, HR, and ACC were measured. The energy expenditure models put forward by Keytel and Sasaki were adopted to measure energy expenditure based on heart rate and accelerometer. Results There is no significant difference between the energy expenditure based on heart rate and IC method under the high exercise intensity (P > 0.05) and the energy expenditure measured according to acceleration and IC method (P > 0.05) under the low exercise intensity. In other conditions, there are significant differences between the two methods. Conclusions Energy expenditure is affected by many factors. Based on test purposes, researchers should adopt many physical parameters to evaluate and reduce the influence of single factor on the test results.

Keywords

Energy metabolism IC method Heart rate Accelerometer 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research is supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2016YFC0802807).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study had obtained approval from the Army Key Laboratory of SEEPC Ethics Committee.

All subjects participated in the experiment had signed the informed consent.

There is no damage to test objects.

References

  1. 1.
    McLaughlin JE, King GA, Howley ET et al (2001) Validation of the COSMED K4 b2 portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med 22(4):280–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hawkins MN, Raven PB, Snell PG et al (2007) Maximal oxygen uptake as a parametric measure of cardiorespiratory capacity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39(1):103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keytel LR, Goedecke JH, Noakes TD et al (2005) Prediction of energy expenditure from heart rate monitoring during submaximal exercise. J Sports Sci 23(3):289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eston RG, Rowlands AV, Ingledew DK (1998) Validity of heart rate, pedometry, and accelerometry for predicting the energy cost of children 's activities. J Appl Physiol 84(1):362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benson R, Connolly D (2011) Heart rate training. Human KineticsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guinhouya CB, Hubert H, Dupont G et al (2005) Relationship between the accelerometer (actigraph) counts and running speed during continuous and intermttent exercise. J Sports Sci Med 4(4):534–542Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouten CV, Westerterp KR, Verduin M et al (1994) Assessment of energy expenditure for physical activity using a triaxial accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 26(12):1516–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Quartermaster Research Institute of Engineering and TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations