Validity of the Use of a Triaxial Accelerometer and a Physical Activity Questionnaire for Estimating Total Energy Expenditure and Physical Activity Level among Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: CLEVER-DM Study

Abstract

Introduction: Evaluation of total energy expenditure (TEE) and physical activity level (PAL) is important for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the validity of accelerometers (ACC) and physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) for estimating TEE and PAL remains unknown in elderly populations with T2DM. We evaluated the accuracy of TEE and PAL results estimated by an ACC (TEEACC and PALACC) and a PAQ (TEEPAQ and PALPAQ) in elderly patients with T2DM. Methods: Fifty-one elderly patients with T2DM (aged 61–79 years) participated in this study. TEEACC was calculated with PALACC using a triaxial ACC (Active style Pro HJA-750c) over 2 weeks and predicted basal metabolic rate (BMR) by Ganpule’s equation. TEEPAQ was estimated using predicted BMR and the PALPAQ from the ­Japan Public Health Center Study-Long questionnaire. We compared the results to TEEDLW measured with the doubly labeled water (DLW) method and PALDLW calculated with BMR using indirect calorimetry. Results: TEEDLW was 2,165 ± 365 kcal/day, and TEEACC was 2,014 ± 339 kcal/day; TEEACC was strongly correlated with TEEDLW (r = 0.87, p < 0.01) but significantly underestimated (–150 ± 183 kcal/day, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in TEEPAQ and TEEDLW (–49 ± 284 kcal/day), while the range of difference seemed to be larger than TEEACC. PALDLW, PALACC, and PALPAQ were calculated to be 1.71 ± 0.17, 1.69 ± 0.16, and 1.78 ± 0.24, respectively. ­PALACC was strongly correlated with PALDLW (r = 0.71, p < 0.01), and there was no significant difference between the 2 values. PALPAQ was moderately correlated with PALDLW (r = 0.43, p < 0.01) but significantly overestimated. Predicted BMR was significantly lower than the BMR ­measured by indirect calorimetry (1,193 ± 186 vs. 1,262 ± 155 kcal/day, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The present ACC and questionnaire showed acceptable correlation of TEE and PAL compared with DLW method in elderly patients with T2DM. Systematic errors in estimating TEE may be improved by the better equation for predicting BMR.