Marco Altini
  • Home
  • Research & Publications
  • Apps & Projects
  • Blog

data 2 calories

14/3/2015

0 Comments

 
The topic of EE estimation or physical activity assessment is gaining more and more interest lately, with the release of many activity trackers in the consumer market, some of them claiming higher accuracy due to a combination of accelerometer and physiological data (e.g. Bodymedia, Basis or the Apple watch). However, simply combining multiple signals, without personalization, provides suboptimal results, as I'll show in this post. 

Let's take heart rate (HR) as an example. HR is the most commonly used physiological parameter to monitor physical activity and is getting used more and more with the introduction of many wrist-based HR monitors. HR can be key in providing accurate, personalized estimates at the individual level due to the strong relation between oxygen consumption, HR and EE within one individual. Here we can see how EE and HR evolve during different activities performed by one individual. The signals follow a similar trend. Pearson's correlation coefficient between HR and EE is 0.98, clearly, HR can be used as a predictor of EE. 
Picture
This post is about machine learning for energy expenditure (EE) estimation. More specifically, I'll show how to model the relation between accelerometer, physiological data and EE using Bayesian models and hierarchical regression. 

During my PhD I've been working on developing EE models combining accelerometer and physiological data acquired using wearable sensors. I mainly focused on developing personalization techniques able to normalize physiological data across individuals, without the need for individual calibration.
Figure highlights:
  • HR is highly correlated with EE, especially for moderate and vigorous activities. We can see a weaker link between HR and EE during lying, sedentary behavior and household. 

However, this individual-specific relation does not hold across individuals, challenging standard population-based approaches for EE estimation. As a result, individual calibration and laboratory tests are needed to normalize HR. The rationale behind the need for normalization is that individuals with similar body size expend similar amounts of energy during a certain activity, however their HR differs depending on other factors, for example, fitness. 

Let's look at another example to clarify this point. Here we have walking, running and biking data from two participants, the similar body size (weight P1: 57 and P2: 52 kg, height P1: 166 and P2: 169 cm), results in similar levels of EE for the same activities, as shown in the two plots on the left side. However, the different fitness level (VO2max P1: 2100 ml/min and P2: 3130 ml/min) results in higher HR for the unfit participant, as shown in the two plot on the right end side. Thus, estimation models relying on HR to predict EE will result in underestimations and overestimations of EE. 
Picture
Figure highlights:
  • EE is similar between participants with similar anthropometric characteristics (e.g. similar body weight), as shown in the two plots on the left side
  • HR differs during moderate to vigorous activities based on the participant's fitness level, as shown in the two plots on the right side
  • estimating EE from HR works only if HR is properly normalized

The main focus of my research was then to define methods and models able to take into account variability in physiological signals between individuals without the need for individual calibration. Let's take a step back, and start with the basics. 

Read More
0 Comments

defining a new indicator of cardiovascular endurance and fitness

13/3/2015

11 Comments

 
Picture
UPDATE: StayFit is not available on the Apple Store anymore. However, I am currently including the Fitness Index as an additional Insight in HRV4Training, please check out HRV4Training if you are interested in physiological data, training, recovery and fitness.

​Additionally, some of the research backing up the assumptions in this post have been recently published in Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, you can find out more here.


I spent the last few weeks defining a new indicator of cardiovascular endurance and fitness, based on simple parameters that can be acquired with minimal effort using a mobile phone. The indicator is called Fitness Index, and the app I developed around this concept is StayFit. 

This post goes into the details of the limitations of current methods used to define fitness and how the Fitness Index overcomes some of these limitations. I will also show some anecdotal evidence of the benefit of using the Fitness Index, based on my data. I was mainly motivated by the lack of services (methods, apps, or whatever) able to track my fitness level as I keep training and try to improve my personal bests. I’d love to engage in a deeper conversation on the complexities of determining fitness level, so if you are interested as a user, coach, or expert in the field, feel free to drop me a line. 

cardiovascular endurance and fitness

Moving on, let’s introduce the concept of cardiovascular endurance or cardiorespiratory fitness. Cardiorespiratory fitness (from now on just fitness) is defined as the ability of the circulatory and respiratory systems to supply oxygen during sustained physical activity. Fitness is not only an objective measure of habitual physical activity, but also a useful diagnostic and prognostic health indicator for patients in clinical settings, as well as healthy individuals [1]. Fitness is considered among the most important determinants of health and wellbeing. 

In this post, my interest is purely related to performance in sports. So everything that follows should be considered in this context. 

Read More
11 Comments

    Marco ALtini

    Founder of HRV4Training, Advisor @Oura , Guest Lecturer @VUamsterdam , Editor @ieeepervasive. PhD Data Science, 2x MSc: Sport Science, Computer Science Engineering. Runner

    Archives

    December 2022
    August 2022
    June 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    June 2017
    December 2016
    July 2016
    March 2016
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013

    RSS Feed

  • Home
  • Research & Publications
  • Apps & Projects
  • Blog