ViewpointLetter to the EditorLast Word on Viewpoint: Expending our physical activity (measurement) budget wiselyLisa H. Colbert, and Dale A. SchoellerLisa H. ColbertDepartments of Kinesiology and , and Dale A. SchoellerNutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WisconsinPublished Online:01 Aug 2011https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00686.2011MoreSectionsPDF (27 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailWeChat to the editor: We thank those who took the time to write commentaries on our Viewpoint (see Ref. 2). While we were surprised that many were in basic agreement, we were pleased by the many insightful disagreements. Clearly there will always be specific situations that will necessitate self-report, but we still argue that whenever possible, objective measures should be the measurement of choice as they will provide more accuracy for the measurement of physical activity (PA) and as also commented on, for the measure of sedentary time. We do agree that the use of a combination of objective and self-report methods may often be ideal. For example, an objective device cannot provide information regarding motivations for PA or context. More than one response referenced the study by Atienza et al (1), in which self-reported PA was independently associated with various health biomarkers even after adjustment for accelerometer-determined PA. We would point out that although true, the accelerometer had much stronger associations and also picked up more relationships (e.g., systolic blood pressure, triglycerides, glucose, etc.) than did self-report, adding credence to our suggestion that to further define relationships in smaller cohorts, objective monitoring would be a better use of one's measurement budget. We also agree that the doubly labeled water method may not be the ideal criterion method for validating survey instruments. In a head-to-head comparison of self-report and objective measures of free living PA energy expenditure, we know of no better criterion measure; however, doubly labeled water does not provide a criterion measure of frequency, duration, or intensity of PA. Finally, perhaps the greatest unease with objective measures of PA is the large number of options available for purchase. If there were only one, it would be easier to shift to a “simple” objective measure, but there are dozens to pick from and the outputs from each are often different. Although these new tools provide greater objectivity, an investigator is still faced with the difficulty of selecting one device just as they are faced with selecting between multiple survey instruments. Indeed, the wide array of tools will probably complicate the problem of comparisons between studies as well as comparison of secular trends across decades. We don't have a simple solution to this, but do suggest there be efforts to provide standard measures and outputs in order to improve science's ability to extract broad implications by combining findings from multiple studies.REFERENCES1. Atienza AA , Moser RP , Perna F , Dodd K , Ballard-Barbash R , Troiano RP , Berrigan D. Self-reported and objectively measured activity related to biomarkers using NHANES. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 815–821, 2011.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar2. Manini TM , Braga VA , Csizmadi I , Lynch BM , Neilson HK , Friedenreich CM , Leicht AS , Morrow JR , Vingren JL , Vagula MC , Aronis KN , Billat VL , Brugniaux JV , Pichon A , Wac K , Hausmann J , Kayser B , Yeckel C , Carrillo AE , Flouris AD , Ekelund U , Brage S. Commentaries on Viewpoint: Expending our physical activity (measurement) budget wisely. J Appl Physiol; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00650.2011.Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESAddress for reprint requests and other correspondence: L. H. Colbert, Dept. of Kinesiology, 2000 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI 53706 (e-mail: [email protected]wisc.edu). Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation More from this issue > Volume 111Issue 2August 2011Pages 614-614 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2011 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00686.2011History Received 6 June 2011 Accepted 6 June 2011 Published online 1 August 2011 Published in print 1 August 2011 Metrics