Dataset Information

Accelerometry-Based External Load Indicators in Sport: Too Many Options, Same Practical Outcome?

ABSTRACT: With the development of new microsensor technology to assess load in sports, some indicators of external load through accelerometry-based data have been created by sport technology companies. Thus, the study aim was to analyze the agreement between different accelerometry-based external load indicators (ABELIs) available in sport science. A U-16 male soccer team was assessed during three official matches, divided by periods, to obtain 3-D accelerometry data (x, y and z axes). An average of 1,420,000 data points was analyzed per axis per player. The ABELIs were calculated using this information, and the agreement between them was explored. The following ABELIs were considered after a literature review: AcelT, Player LoadRT, PlayerLoadTM, Impulse Load, Player LoadRE and Total Load. In order to compare ABELIs, two analyses were performed using: (1) absolute data; and (2) normalized and centered data (Z-scores). In absolute and centered data, very large to nearly perfect correlations (1st period: r > 0.803, p > 0.01; 2nd period: r > 0.919; p > 0.01) were found. Instead, very large differences were found in absolute values (bias = -579,226.6 to 285,931.1; t = -224.66 to 213.91, p < 0.01), and no differences in scaled and centered values (bias = 0; t = 1; p = 1). In conclusion, considering the different output (magnitude and units) among ABELIs, the standardization of a universal index to calculate accelerometer load is needed in order to make possible between-study comparison.

SUBMITTER: Gomez-Carmona CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6950167 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accelerometry-Based External Load Indicators in Sport: Too Many Options, Same Practical Outcome?

Gómez-Carmona Carlos D CD Pino-Ortega José J Sánchez-Ureña Braulio B Ibáñez Sergio J SJ Rojas-Valverde Daniel D

International journal of environmental research and public health 20191213 24

With the development of new microsensor technology to assess load in sports, some indicators of external load through accelerometry-based data have been created by sport technology companies. Thus, the study aim was to analyze the agreement between different accelerometry-based external load indicators (ABELIs) available in sport science. A U-16 male soccer team was assessed during three official matches, divided by periods, to obtain 3-D accelerometry data (x, y and z axes). An average of 1,420 ...[more]

PMID: 31847248

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to apply open-source analysis code to raw habitual physical activity data from wrist-worn monitors to: 1) objectively, unobtrusively, and accurately discriminate between "running" and "nonrunning" days; and 2) develop and compare simple accelerometer-derived metrics of external training load with existing self-report measures.MethodsSeven-day wrist-worn accelerometer (GENEActiv; Activinsights Ltd, Kimbolton, UK) data obtained from 35 experienced runners (age, 41.9 ± 11.4 yr; height, 1.72 ± 0.08 m; mass, 68.5 ± 9.7 kg; body mass index, 23.2 ± 2.2 kg·m; 19 [54%] women) every other week over 9 to 18 wk were date-matched with self-reported training log data. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were applied to accelerometer metrics ("Average Acceleration," "Most Active-30mins," "Mins≥400 mg") to discriminate between "running" and "nonrunning" days and cross-validated (leave one out cross-validation). Variance explained in training log criterion metrics (miles, duration, training load) by accelerometer metrics (Mins≥400 mg, "workload (WL) 400-4000 mg") was examined using linear regression with leave one out cross-validation.ResultsMost Active-30mins and Mins≥400 mg had >94% accuracy for correctly classifying "running" and "nonrunning" days, with validation indicating robustness. Variance explained in miles, duration, and training load by Mins≥400 mg (67%-76%) and WL400-4000 mg (55%-69%) was high, with validation indicating robustness.ConclusionsWrist-worn accelerometer metrics can be used to objectively, unobtrusively, and accurately identify running training days in runners, reducing the need for training logs or user input in future prospective research or commercial activity tracking. The high percentage of variance explained in existing self-reported measures of training load by simple, accelerometer-derived metrics of external training load supports the future use of accelerometry for prospective, preventative, and prescriptive monitoring purposes in runners.

Project description:AimsAccelerometers are becoming increasingly commonplace for assessing physical activity; however, their use in patients with cardiovascular diseases is relatively substandard. We aimed to systematically review the methods used for collecting and processing accelerometer data in cardiology, using the example of heart failure, and to provide practical recommendations on how to improve objective physical activity assessment in patients with cardiovascular diseases by using accelerometers.Methods and resultsFour electronic databases were searched up to September 2019 for observational, interventional, and validation studies using accelerometers to assess physical activity in patients with heart failure. Study and population characteristics, details of accelerometry data collection and processing, and description of physical activity metrics were extracted from the eligible studies and synthesized. To assess the quality and completeness of accelerometer reporting, the studies were scored using 12 items on data collection and processing, such as the placement of accelerometer, days of data collected, and criteria for non-wear of the accelerometer. In 60 eligible studies with 3500 patients (of those, 536 were heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients), a wide variety of accelerometer brands (n = 27) and models (n = 46) were used, with Actigraph being the most frequent (n = 12), followed by Fitbit (n = 5). The accelerometer was usually worn on the hip (n = 32), and the most prevalent wear period was 7 days (n = 22). The median wear time required for a valid day was 600 min, and between two and five valid days was required for a patient to be included in the analysis. The most common measures of physical activity were steps (n = 20), activity counts (n = 15), and time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (n = 14). Only three studies validated accelerometers in a heart failure population, showing that their accuracy deteriorates at slower speeds. Studies failed to report between one and six (median 4) of the 12 scored items, with non-wear time criteria and valid day definition being the most underreported items.ConclusionsThe use of accelerometers in cardiology lacks consistency and reporting on data collection, and processing methods need to be improved. Furthermore, calculating metrics based on raw acceleration and machine learning techniques is lacking, opening the opportunity for future exploration. Therefore, we encourage researchers and clinicians to improve the quality and transparency of data collection and processing by following our proposed practical recommendations for using accelerometers in patients with cardiovascular diseases, which are outlined in the article.

Dataset Information

Accelerometry-Based External Load Indicators in Sport: Too Many Options, Same Practical Outcome?

Publications

Accelerometry-Based External Load Indicators in Sport: Too Many Options, Same Practical Outcome?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure