首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   3篇
  体育   3篇
  2017年   1篇
  2012年   1篇
  2006年   1篇
排序方式: 共有3条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
步行和日常体力活动能量消耗的推算   总被引:6,自引:0,他引:6  
戴剑松  李靖  顾忠科  孙飙 《体育科学》2006,26(11):91-95
目的:研究不同步速下行走时的能量消耗水平,进而推导出根据计步器参数推算步行能耗和一日总能耗的方程,以期为进一步开发计步器功能提供参考依据。方法:研究对象为在校大学生共计30名(男性15名,女性15名)。受试者身体右侧平肚脐锁骨中线处和腋前线交点处分别佩带计步器,在跑台上分别以3.2、4.8、6.4、8.1、9.7 km/h 5种速度步行800 m,记录计步器计数和实际步数,通过间接热量法测试步行代谢情况。佩带计步器一周,记录每日计步器计数,每日填写Bouchard体力活动日记。结论:以不低于正常步速行走时,计步器可以精确记录步数,放置位置不同对步数记录无影响。随着速度加快,步频加快,步幅加大,单位能耗增加。但在完成相同距离步行时,运动强度(速度)不同,总热量消耗不完全一致,能量消耗不仅与单位能耗有关,运动时间也是重要的因素。根据计步器参数推算步行能量消耗和一日总能量消耗的公式分别为:步行能量消耗(kca l)=0.43×身高(cm) 0.57×体重(kg) 0.26×步频(步/m in) 0.92×时间(m in)-108.44。一日能量消耗(kca l)=0.05×一日计步器计数(步) 2213.09×体表面积(m2)-1993.57。  相似文献
2.
目的:分析大学生步行量与体质的关系,建立大学生步行量参考标准;方法:使用计步器调查302名大学生1周的步行量,并进行体质健康测试,采用Person相关法分析步行量与各项体质指标的相关性,采用ROC曲线法建立大学生健康步行量参考标准;结果:大学生步行量与BMI、台阶指数、肺活量体重指数及体质健康测试总分之间有低度相关性,采用ROC曲线法可建立台阶指数及格、肺活量体重指数及格和体质健康测试及格所对应的步行量切点;结论:11 000步/天可作为大学生步行量参考标准。  相似文献
3.
This study examines the accuracy of three popular, free Android-based pedometer applications (apps), namely, Runtastic (RT), Pacer Works (PW), and Tayutau (TY) in laboratory and free-living settings. Forty-eight adults (22.5 ± 1.4 years) completed 3-min bouts of treadmill walking at five incremental speeds while carrying a test smartphone installed with the three apps. Experiment was repeated thrice, with the smartphone placed either in the pants pockets, at waist level, or secured to the left arm by an armband. The actual step count was manually counted by a tally counter. In the free-living setting, each of the 44 participants (21.9 ± 1.6 years) carried a smartphone with installed apps and a reference pedometer (Yamax Digi-Walker CW700) for 7 consecutive days. Results showed that TY produced the lowest mean absolute percent error (APE 6.7%) and was the only app with acceptable accuracy in counting steps in a laboratory setting. RT consistently underestimated steps with APE of 16.8% in the laboratory. PW significantly underestimated steps when the smartphone was secured to the arm, but overestimated under other conditions (APE 19.7%). TY was the most accurate app in counting steps in a laboratory setting with the lowest APE of 6.7%. In the free-living setting, the APE relative to the reference pedometer was 16.6%, 18.0%, and 16.8% for RT, PW, and TY, respectively. None of the three apps counted steps accurately in the free-living setting.  相似文献
1
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号