journal article·2026-04-17Open access

Comparison of Absolute and Individualized Physical Activity Intensity Thresholds Using Non-Dominant Wrist-Worn Accelerometry in Military Office Workers

Maaike Polspoel, Tara Reilly, Damien Van Tiggelen, Patrick Calders

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 8

Abstract

Accurate classification of physical activity (PA) intensity is essential for exercise prescription, rehabilitation monitoring, and evaluation of guideline adherence. However, widely used wrist-worn accelerometer cut-points may substantially misclassify physiological intensity. This study evaluated absolute accelerometer thresholds during a maximal 2400 m run in military office workers and examined whether individualized cut-points improve agreement with physiological intensity. Seventy-four military office workers completed the test while wearing a wrist-worn ActiGraph GT9X Link and a chest-worn Zephyr BioHarness. Participants achieved near-maximal physiological effort, with peak heart rate averaging 187 ± 11 bpm (95 ± 4.2% age-predicted HRmax). Despite this high intensity, absolute wrist-worn cut-points classified only 34.5% of participants as performing vigorous activity for most of the test. Individualized cut-points, derived from each participant’s individual reference intensity, calculated as the three highest consecutive one-minute epochs during the 2400 m test, substantially improved agreement between accelerometer-derived classifications and physiological intensity. Agreement with %HRmax increased from fair (κ = 0.31), using absolute thresholds, to good (κ = 0.74), using individualized thresholds, and intraclass correlation increased from 0.52 to 0.81. These findings demonstrate that absolute cut-points markedly underestimate high-intensity activity, potentially leading to inaccurate exercise load monitoring and misinterpretation of training intensity. Individualized calibration during a standardized maximal running test provides a feasible strategy to improve the validity of intensity assessment using wearables. Although the study population consisted of military office workers, the approach may be applicable to other active populations. However, further validation in independent samples is needed.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Physical Activity and Health · Occupational Health and Performance · Sports Performance and Training

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Center for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Queen Astrid Military Hospital, 1120 Brussels, Belgium

Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

Canadian Forces Morale & Welfare Services, Ottawa, ON 4210, Canada

Medical Component Command, Belgian Defense, 1140 Brussels, Belgium

Funding

Royal Higher Institute for Defense

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer10.1249/mss.0b013e31815a51b3 ↗
2. Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors in the United States, 2003–200410.1093/aje/kwm390 ↗
3. Physical activity and public health: A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine10.1001/jama.1995.03520290054029 ↗
4. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: Guidance for prescribing exercise10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb ↗
5. 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: A second update of codes and MET values10.1249/MSS.0b013e31821ece12 ↗
6. Mission essential fitness: Comparison of functional circuit training to traditional Army physical training for active duty military10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00143 ↗
7. Risk factors for training-related injuries among men and women in basic combat training10.1097/00005768-200106000-00014 ↗
8. Willems, I., Verbestel, V., Dumuid, D., Calders, P., Lapauw, B., and De Craemer, M. (2024). A comparative analysis of 24-hour movement behaviors features using different accelerometer metrics in adults: Implications for guideline compliance and associations with cardiometabolic health. PLoS ONE, 19.10.1371/journal.pone.0309931 ↗
9. Rey-López, J.P., Lee, D.H., Ferrari, G., Giovannucci, E., and Rezende, L.F.M. (2023). Physical Activity Intensity Measurement and Health: State of the Art and Future Directions for Scientific Research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 20.10.3390/ijerph20116027 ↗
10. Assessment of physical activity using wearable monitors: Recommendations for monitor calibration and use in the field10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399b7e ↗
11. Evolution of accelerometer methods for physical activity research10.1136/bjsports-2014-093546 ↗
12. An artificial neural network to estimate physical activity energy expenditure and identify physical activity type from an accelerometer10.1152/japplphysiol.00465.2009 ↗
13. Chronicle of the Institute of Medicine physical activity recommendation: How a physical activity recommendation came to be among dietary recommendations10.1093/ajcn/79.5.921S ↗
14. Physical activity assessment with accelerometers: An evaluation against doubly labeled water10.1038/oby.2007.281 ↗
15. A novel method for using accelerometer data to predict energy expenditure10.1152/japplphysiol.00818.2005 ↗
16. S08-4 In terms of individual fitness, people with low cardiorespiratory fitness are physically the most active10.1093/eurpub/ckac093.043 ↗
17. Fridolfsson, J., Arvidsson, D., Ekblom-Bak, E., Ekblom, Ö., Bergström, G., and Börjesson, M. (2023). Accelerometer-measured absolute versus relative physical activity intensity: Cross-sectional associations with cardiometabolic health in midlife. BMC Public Health, 23.10.1186/s12889-023-17281-4 ↗
18. A theory-based model of cumulative activity10.1038/s41598-022-18982-3 ↗
19. Individualized Relative-Intensity Physical Activity Accelerometer cut points10.1249/MSS.0000000000002153 ↗
20. Step-Based Metrics and Translations of Physical Activity Guidelines among Adults in the HCHS/SOL10.1249/MSS.0000000000003177 ↗
21. Research Tracker 6 accelerometer calibration and validation in comparison to GENEActiv, ActiGraph, and gas analysis in young adults10.1123/jmpb.2018-0028 ↗
22. Relationship Between the 2.4-km Run and Multistage Shuttle Run Test Performance in Military Personnel10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00291 ↗
23. Trost, S.G., Brookes, D.S.K., and Ahmadi, M.N. (2022). Evaluation of Wrist Accelerometer Cut-Points for Classifying Physical Activity Intensity in Youth. Front. Digit. Health, 4.10.3389/fdgth.2022.884307 ↗
24. Moderate and Vigorous Physical Activity Intensity Cut-Points for Hip-, Wrist-, Thigh-, and Lower Back Worn Accelerometer in Very Old Adults10.1111/sms.70009 ↗
25. McDevitt, S., Hernandez, H., Hicks, J., Lowell, R., Bentahaikt, H., Burch, R., Ball, J., Chander, H., Freeman, C., and Taylor, C. (2022). Wearables for Biomechanical Performance Optimization and Risk Assessment in Industrial and Sports Applications. Bioengineering, 9.10.3390/bioengineering9010033 ↗
26. Van Hees, V.T., Gorzelniak, L., León, E.C.D., Eder, M., Pias, M., Taherian, S., Ekelund, U., Renström, F., Franks, P.W., and Horsch, A. (2013). Separating Movement and Gravity Components in an Acceleration Signal and Implications for the Assessment of Human Daily Physical Activity. PLoS ONE, 8.10.1371/journal.pone.0061691 ↗
27. Evaluation of raw acceleration sedentary thresholds in children and adults10.1111/sms.12795 ↗
28. Comparison of Sleep and Physical Activity Metrics from Wrist-Worn ActiGraph wGT3X-BT and GT9X Accelerometers During Free-Living in Adults
29. Nazari, G., Bobos, P., MacDermid, J.C., Sinden, K.E., Richardson, J., and Tang, A. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Zephyr bioharness device: A systematic review. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil., 10.10.1186/s13102-018-0094-4 ↗
30. Heart Rate Variability-Derived Thresholds for Exercise Intensity Prescription in Endurance Sports: A Systematic Review of Interrelations and Agreement with Different Ventilatory and Blood Lactate Thresholds10.1186/s40798-023-00607-2 ↗
31. American College of Sports Medicine (2020). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. [11th ed.].
32. A means of assessing maximal oxygen intake. Correlation between field and treadmill testing10.1001/jama.1968.03140030033008 ↗
33. How adherence to the updated physical activity guidelines should be assessed with accelerometer?10.1093/eurpub/ckac078 ↗
34. Schwendinger, F., Knaier, R., Wagner, J., Infanger, D., Lichtenstein, E., Hinrichs, T., Rowlands, A., and Schmidt-Trucksass, A. (2025). Relative and absolute intensity accelerometer metrics decipher the effects of age, sex, and occupation on physical activity. BMC Public Health, 25.10.1186/s12889-025-21800-w ↗
35. Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors10.1016/j.jsams.2011.04.003 ↗
36. Age group comparability of raw accelerometer output from wrist-and hip-worn monitors10.1249/MSS.0000000000000289 ↗
37. Exercise training intensity determination in cardiovascular rehabilitation: Should the guidelines be reconsidered?10.1177/2047487319859450 ↗