Physical activity pattern and activity energy expenditure in healthy pregnant and non-pregnant Swedish women.
ABSTRACT Energy costs of pregnancy approximate 320 MJ in well-nourished women, but whether or not these costs may be partly covered by modifications in activity behavior is incompletely known. In healthy Swedish women: (1) to evaluate the potential of the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Physical Activity (IDEEA) to assess energy expenditure during free-living conditions, (2) to assess activity pattern, walking pace and energy metabolism in pregnant women and non-pregnant controls, and (3) to assess the effect on energy expenditure caused by changes in physical activity induced by pregnancy.
Activity pattern was assessed using the IDEEA in 18 women in gestational week 32 and in 21 non-pregnant women. Activity energy expenditure (AEE) was assessed using IDEEA, as well as using the doubly labelled water method and indirect calorimetry.
AEE using the IDEEA was correlated with reference estimates in both groups (r=0.4-0.5; P<0.05). Reference AEE was 0.9 MJ/24 h lower in pregnant than in non-pregnant women. Pregnant women spent 92 min/24 h more on sitting, lying, reclining and sleeping (P=0.020), 73 min/24 h less on standing (P=0.037) and 21 min/24 h less on walking and using stairs (P=0.049), and walked at a slower pace (1.1 ± 0.1 m/s versus 1.2±0.1 m/s; P=0.014) than did non-pregnant controls. The selection of less demanding activities and slower walking pace decreased energy costs by 720 kJ/24 h and 80 kJ/24 h, respectively.
Healthy moderately active Swedish women compensated for the increased energy costs of pregnancy by 0.9 MJ/24 h. The compensation was mainly achieved by selecting less demanding activities.
- SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Noncompliance with scheduled ambulatory saliva sampling is common and has been associated with biased cortisol estimates in nonpregnant subjects. This study is the first to investigate in pregnant women strategies to improve ambulatory saliva-sampling compliance, and the association between sampling noncompliance and saliva cortisol estimates. We instructed 64 pregnant women to collect eight scheduled saliva samples on two consecutive days each. Objective compliance with scheduled sampling times was assessed with a Medication Event Monitoring System and self-reported compliance with a paper-and-pencil diary. In a randomized controlled study, we estimated whether a disclosure intervention (informing women about objective compliance monitoring) and a reminder intervention (use of acoustical reminders) improved compliance. A mixed model analysis was used to estimate associations between women's objective compliance and their diurnal cortisol profiles, and between deviation from scheduled sampling and the cortisol concentration measured in the related sample. Self-reported compliance with a saliva-sampling protocol was 91%, and objective compliance was 70%. The disclosure intervention was associated with improved objective compliance (informed: 81%, noninformed: 60%), F(1,60) = 17.64, p<0.001, but not the reminder intervention (reminders: 68%, without reminders: 72%), F(1,60) = 0.78, p = 0.379. Furthermore, a woman's increased objective compliance was associated with a higher diurnal cortisol profile, F(2,64) = 8.22, p<0.001. Altered cortisol levels were observed in less objective compliant samples, F(1,705) = 7.38, p = 0.007, with delayed sampling associated with lower cortisol levels. The results suggest that in pregnant women, objective noncompliance with scheduled ambulatory saliva sampling is common and is associated with biased cortisol estimates. To improve sampling compliance, results suggest informing women about objective compliance monitoring but discourage use of acoustical reminders.PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(1):e86204. · 3.53 Impact Factor
Article: Physical Activity and Pregnancy[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose. In this review, we provide researchers and practitioners with an overview of the physical activity and pregnancy literature to promote prenatal physical activity, improve measurement, further elucidate the role of activity in reducing maternal health complications, and inform future research. Method. We examined past and present physical activity and pregnancy studies and highlight key papers with a focus on maternal health outcomes to best inform physical activity promotion efforts. Results. We discuss: (a) historical overview of prenatal physical activity relative to the physical activity guidelines, how they have changed over time, and how evidence of the effect of prenatal activity on maternal/fetal health outcomes has affected clinical recommendations; (b) existing tools and challenges associated with measuring prenatal physical activity; (c) empirical evidence on multilevel determinants of prenatal activity to guide future intervention work; (d) empirical evidence of prenatal activity on adverse maternal outcomes (gestational diabetes mellitus, preeclampsia, excessive gestational weight gain) from observational and intervention studies; and (e) summary/recommendations for future research and practice. Conclusions. The physical activity and pregnancy literature has evolved over the past 50 years, and there is sufficient empirical evidence to support the promotion of moderate-to-vigorous prenatal physical activity for maternal health benefits. Future studies and interventions should be carefully designed, theoretically driven, and include validated and reliable activity measures. Researchers and practitioners should also consider the multifaceted determinants and outcomes of prenatal physical activity and intervene to promote physical activity before, during, and after pregnancy.Research quarterly for exercise and sport 02/2013; 83(4):485-502. · 1.26 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Activity energy expenditure (AEE) during free-living conditions can be assessed using devices based on different principles. To make proper comparisons of different devices' capacities to assess AEE, they should be evaluated in the same population. Thus, in the present study we evaluated, in the same group of subjects, the ability of three devices to assess AEE in groups and individuals during free-living conditions. In twenty women, AEE was assessed using RT3 (three-axial accelerometry) (AEERT3), Actiheart (a combination of heart rate and accelerometry) (AEEActi) and IDEEA (a multi-accelerometer system) (AEEIDEEA). Reference AEE (AEEref) was assessed using the doubly labelled water method and indirect calorimetry. Average AEEActi was 5760 kJ per 24 h and not significantly different from AEEref (5020 kJ per 24 h). On average, AEERT3 and AEEIDEEA were 2010 and 1750 kJ per 24 h lower than AEEref, respectively (P < 0·001). The limits of agreement (± 2 sd) were 2940 (Actiheart), 1820 (RT3) and 2650 (IDEEA) kJ per 24 h. The variance for AEERT3 was lower than for AEEActi (P = 0·006). The RT3 classified 60 % of the women in the correct activity category while the corresponding value for IDEEA and Actiheart was 30 %. In conclusion, the Actiheart may be useful for groups and the RT3 for individuals while the IDEEA requires further development. The results are likely to be relevant for a large proportion of Western women of reproductive age and demonstrate that the procedure selected to assess physical activity can greatly influence the possibilities to uncover important aspects regarding interactions between physical activity, diet and health.Journal of Nutritional Science. 01/2013; 2.