Wearable physical activity monitors are growing in popularity and provide the opportunity for large numbers of the public to self-monitor physical activity behaviours. The latest generation of these devices feature multiple sensors, ostensibly similar or even superior to advanced research instruments. However, little is known about the accuracy of their energy expenditure estimates. Here, we assessed their performance against criterion measurements in both controlled laboratory conditions (simulated activities of daily living and structured exercise) and over a 24 hour period in free-living conditions. Thirty men (n = 15) and women (n = 15) wore three multi-sensor consumer monitors (Microsoft Band, Apple Watch and Fitbit Charge HR), an accelerometry-only device as a comparison (Jawbone UP24) and validated research-grade multi-sensor devices (BodyMedia Core and individually calibrated Actiheart^™). During discrete laboratory activities when compared against indirect calorimetry, the Apple Watch performed similarly to criterion measures. The Fitbit Charge HR was less consistent at measurement of discrete activities, but produced similar free-living estimates to the Apple Watch. Both these devices underestimated free-living energy expenditure (-394 kcal/d and -405 kcal/d, respectively; P<0.01). The multi-sensor Microsoft Band and accelerometry-only Jawbone UP24 devices underestimated most laboratory activities and substantially underestimated free-living expenditure (-1128 kcal/d and -998 kcal/d, respectively; P<0.01). None of the consumer devices were deemed equivalent to the reference method for daily energy expenditure. For all devices, there was a tendency for negative bias with greater daily energy expenditure. No consumer monitors performed as well as the research-grade devices although in some (but not all) cases, estimates were close to criterion measurements. Thus, whilst industry-led innovation has improved the accuracy of consumer monitors, these devices are not yet equivalent to the best research-grade devices or indeed equivalent to each other. We propose independent quality standards and/or accuracy ratings for consumer devices are required.

Accurately measuring physical activity and energy expenditure in persons with chronic physical disabilities who use wheelchairs is a considerable and ongoing challenge. Quantifying various free-living lifestyle behaviours in this group is at present restricted by our understanding of appropriate measurement tools and analytical techniques. This review provides a detailed evaluation of the currently available measurement tools used to predict physical activity and energy expenditure in persons who use wheelchairs. It also outlines numerous considerations specific to this population and suggests suitable future directions for the field. Of the existing three self-report methods utilised in this population, the 3-day Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury (PARA-SCI) telephone interview demonstrates the best reliability and validity. However, the complexity of interview administration and potential for recall bias are notable limitations. Objective measurement tools, which overcome such considerations, have been validated using controlled laboratory protocols. These have consistently demonstrated the arm or wrist as the most suitable anatomical location to wear accelerometers. Yet, more complex data analysis methodologies may be necessary to further improve energy expenditure prediction for more intricate movements or behaviours. Multi-sensor devices that incorporate physiological signals and acceleration have recently been adapted for persons who use wheelchairs. Population specific algorithms offer considerable improvements in energy expenditure prediction accuracy. This review highlights the progress in the field and aims to encourage the wider scientific community to develop innovative solutions to accurately quantify physical activity in this population.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a life-changing event that, as a result of paralysis, negatively influences habitual levels of physical activity and hence cardiometabolic health. Performing regular structured exercise therefore appears extremely important in persons with SCI. However, exercise options are mainly limited to the upper body, which involves a smaller activated muscle mass compared with the mainly leg-based activities commonly performed by nondisabled individuals. Current exercise guidelines for SCI focus predominantly on relative short durations of moderate-intensity aerobic upper-body exercise, yet contemporary evidence suggests this is not sufficient to induce meaningful improvements in risk factors for the prevention of cardiometabolic disease in this population. As such, these guidelines and their physiological basis require reappraisal. In this special communication, we propose that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) may be a viable alternative exercise strategy to promote vigorous-intensity exercise and prevent cardiometabolic disease in persons with SCI. Supplementing the limited data from SCI cohorts with consistent findings from studies in nondisabled populations, we present strong evidence to suggest that HIIT is superior to moderate-intensity aerobic exercise for improving cardiorespiratory fitness, insulin sensitivity, and vascular function. The potential application and safety of HIIT in this population is also discussed. We conclude that increasing exercise intensity could offer a simple, readily available, time-efficient solution to improve cardiometabolic health in persons with SCI. We call for high-quality randomized controlled trials to examine the efficacy and safety of HIIT in this population.

Despite obesity being highly prevalent in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI), our current understanding of the interactions between energy balance components, which may contribute to this, is limited. The primary aim of this study is to identify the intra-individual variability of physical activity dimensions across days and suggest an appropriate monitoring time frame for these constructs in adults with SCI. The secondary aim is to examine these parameters with regard to energy intake and dietary macronutrient composition. Participants [33 men and women with chronic (> 1 year post injury) paraplegia; age = 44 ± 9 years (mean ± S.D.] wore an Actiheart™ PA monitor and completed a weighed food diary for 7 consecutive days. Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formulae, based on Intraclass Correlations of .80 (acceptable reliability), were used to predict the number of days required to measure energy balance components. Linear mixed-effects analyses and magnitude-based inferences were performed for all energy intake, expenditure and physical activity dimensions. Adjustments were made for age, injury level, wear time, sex, day of the week and measurement order as fixed effects. To reliably measure energy expenditure components; 1 day [total energy expenditure (TEE)], 2 days [physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE), light-intensity activity, moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA)], 3 days [physical activity level (PAL)] and 4 days (sedentary behaviour) are necessary. Device wear time (P < 0.02), injury level (P < 0.04) and sex (P < 0.001) were covariates for energy expenditure components. Four and ≤24 days are required to reliably measure total energy intake (kcal) and diet macronutrient composition (%), respectively. Measurement order (from day 1–7) was a covariate for total energy intake (P = 0.01). This is the first study to demonstrate the variability of energy intake and expenditure components in free-living persons with chronic (> 1 year) paraplegia and propose suitable measurement durations to achieve acceptable reliability in outcome measures. Device wear time and measurement order play a role in the quality of energy expenditure and intake data, respectively, and should be considered when designing and analysing studies of energy balance components in persons with SCI. N/A

To assess the validity of two accelerometer devices, at two different anatomical locations, for the prediction of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in manual wheelchair users (MWUs). Seventeen MWUs (36 ± 10 yrs, 72 ± 11 kg) completed ten activities; resting, folding clothes, propulsion on a 1% gradient (3,4,5,6 and 7 km·hr^-1) and propulsion at 4km·hr^-1 (with an additional 8% body mass, 2% and 3% gradient) on a motorised wheelchair treadmill. GT3X+ and GENEActiv accelerometers were worn on the right wrist (W) and upper arm (UA). Linear regression analysis was conducted between outputs from each accelerometer and criterion PAEE, measured using indirect calorimetry. Subsequent error statistics were calculated for the derived regression equations for all four device/location combinations, using a leave-one-out cross-validation analysis. Accelerometer outputs at each anatomical location were significantly (p < .01) associated with PAEE (GT3X+-UA; r = 0.68 and GT3X+-W; r = 0.82. GENEActiv-UA; r = 0.87 and GENEActiv-W; r = 0.88). Mean ± SD PAEE estimation errors for all activities combined were 15 ± 45%, 14 ± 50%, 3 ± 25% and 4 ± 26% for GT3X+-UA, GT3X+-W, GENEActiv-UA and GENEActiv-W, respectively. Absolute PAEE estimation errors for devices varied, 19 to 66% for GT3X+-UA, 17 to 122% for GT3X+-W, 15 to 26% for GENEActiv-UA and from 17.0 to 32% for the GENEActiv-W. The results indicate that the GENEActiv device worn on either the upper arm or wrist provides the most valid prediction of PAEE in MWUs. Variation in error statistics between the two devices is a result of inherent differences in internal components, on-board filtering processes and outputs of each device.