Suchergebnisse

Objectives.To investigate the validity of different devices and algorithms used in military organizations worldwide to assess physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) and heart rate (HR) among soldiers. Design. Device validation study. Methods. Twenty-three male participants serving their mandatory military service accomplished, firstly, nine different military specific activities indoors, and secondly, a normal military routine outdoors. Participants wore simultaneously an ActiHeart, Everion, MetaMax 3B, Garmin Fenix 3, Hidalgo EQ02, and PADIS 2.0 system. The PAEE and HR data of each system were compared to the criterion measures MetaMax 3B and Hidalgo EQ02, respectively. Results. Overall, the recorded systematic errors in PAEE estimation ranged from 0.1 (±1.8) kcal.min−1 to −1.7 (±1.8) kcal.min−1 for the systems PADIS 2.0 and Hidalgo EQ02 running the Royal Dutch Army algorithm, respectively, and in the HR assessment ranged from −0.1 (±2.1) b.min−1 to 0.8 (±3.0) b.min−1 for the PADIS 2.0 and ActiHeart systems, respectively. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) in PAEE estimation ranged from 29.9% to 75.1%, with only the Everion system showing an overall MAPE <30%, but all investigated devices reported overall MAPE <1.4% in the HR assessment. Conclusions. The present study demonstrated poor to moderate validity in terms of PAEE estimation, but excellent validity in all investigated devices in terms of HR assessment. Overall, the Everion performed among the best in both parameters and with a device placement on the upper arm, the Everion system is particularly useful during military service, as it does not interfere with other relevant equipment. ; ISSN:0967-3334 ; ISSN:1361-6579

Purpose:Exertional heat stress adversely distrupts (GI) barrier integrity and, through subsequent microbial translocation (MT), negativly impacts health. Despite widespread application, the temporal reliability of popular GI barrier integity and MT biomarkers is poorly characterised. Method: Fourteen males completed two 80‐min exertional heat stress tests (EHST) separated by 7–14 days. Venous blood was drawn pre, immediately‐ and 1‐hr post both EHSTs. GI barrier integrity was assessed using the serum Dual‐Sugar Absorption Test (DSAT), Intestinal Fatty‐Acid‐Binding Protein (I‐FABP) and Claudin‐3 (CLDN‐3). MT was assessed using plasma Lipopolysaccharide Binding Protein (LBP), total 16S bacterial DNA and Bacteroides DNA. Results: No GI barrier integrity or MT biomarker, except absolute Bacteroides DNA, displayed systematic trial order bias (p ≥ .05). I‐FABP (trial 1 = Δ 0.834 ± 0.445 ng ml−1; trial 2 = Δ 0.776 ± 0.489 ng ml−1) and CLDN‐3 (trial 1 = Δ 0.317 ± 0.586 ng ml−1; trial 2 = Δ 0.371 ± 0.508 ng ml−1) were increased post‐EHST (p ≤ .01). All MT biomarkers were unchanged post‐EHST. Coefficient of variation and typical error of measurement post‐EHST were: 11.5% and 0.004 (ratio) for the DSAT 90‐min postprobe ingestion; 12.2% and 0.004 (ratio) at 150‐min postprobe ingestion; 12.1% and 0.376 ng ml−1 for I‐FABP; 4.9% and 0.342 ng ml−1 for CLDN‐3; 9.2% and 0.420 µg ml−1 for LBP; 9.5% and 0.15 pg µl−1 for total 16S DNA; and 54.7% and 0.032 for Bacteroides/total 16S DNA ratio. Conclusion: Each GI barrier integrity and MT translocation biomarker, except Bacteroides/total 16S ratio, had acceptable reliability at rest and postexertional heat stress.