{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029110936270653028, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011014948859166011, 'mean_word_length': 5.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Validity of resting energy expenditure estimated by an activity monitor compared to indirect calorimetry

The use of activity monitors (triaxial accelerometers) to estimate total energy expenditure in kilocalories is dependent on the estimation of resting energy expenditure (REE). However, the REE estimated by activity monitors has not been validated against more precise techniques, such as indirect calorimetry (IC). Therefore, the objective of the present study was to compare REE estimated by the Actical activity monitor (ActMon) to that measured by IC and standard prediction equations of REE. Fifty healthy adults between 18 and 43 years of age were measured for weight and percentage of body fat using a digital scale and bioelectrical impedance. The REE estimated by the ActMon was only 129 kJ/d higher, but not statistically different (P>0·05), than the REE measured with IC. Using multiple linear regression, there was a positive relationship for men, but not for women, between fat mass (kg) and percentage of body fat and the difference in REE estimated by the ActMon compared to IC (P < 0·001). Therefore, in the cohort studied, the use of an activity monitor to estimate REE is valid when compared to IC, but not to a standard prediction equation of REE.