|
- Main Functions
-
Lifecorder PLUS: Step counts, Activity minutes, Distance, Activity calories, Total calories, Physical activity intensity graph (METs), Target settings (Step, Activity minutes, Activity calories), Physical activity intensity range setting for activity minutes, Evaluation (Achievement message & Balance to goal for steps, Activity minutes, Activity calories), Clock, Memory (LCD view: 7 days; Total: 7 days), Internal memory (60 days) Lifecorder e-Step: Step counts, Activity minutes, Total calories, Clock, Memory (7 days) - Hardware
-
Dimensions: W 70.0 x H 42.0 x D 18.6 mm (excluding belt clip) Weight: 48 gr including battery (Lifecorder e-STEP: 40 gr) Battery: 1 x button type CR2032 3V Battery Life: 2 months (Lifecorder e-STEP: 9 months) - PC Software Features
-
Graphic Charts: Daily step counts, Weekly average steps, Daily activity minutes, Weekly average activity minutes, Activity level distribution, Activity about 10 minutes or greater, Daily energy expenditure, Daily energy expenditure with intake and weight changes, Weight loss plan and progress, Daily physical activity with all measured values, Physical activity ranking, Log book, Summary report, Comparison report (printout only). Settings by PC: Target step, activity minutes and activity calories, Intensity range and food intake, Selecting display mode, Blind display, Key lock, Autostart, Memory lock/Loop.
- Product Gallery
-
- Software/Firmware Screenshots
-
- Printout Samples
-
- Demo Video
-
- Product Literature
-
Product Guide 
- Articles / Bibliography
-
Some validation studies:
- McClain, et al.; Comparison of Kenz Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph Accelerometers in 10-yr-old children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 39(4):630-638, April 2007
- Kumahara, Hideaki et al (2004). Comparison of 2 accelerometers for assessing daily energy expenditure in adults. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 1, 270-280
- T.Washington, et al (2006) Comparison of Lifecorder and MTI ActiGraph Accelerometer Estimates of Measuring Physical Activity Energy Expenditure. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: Volume 38(5) Supplement May 2006 p S103
- Yumiko Yokoyama, et al. (2002). Comparison of Accelerometry and Oxymetry for Measuring Daily Physical Activity. Circulation Journal Vol. 66 (2002) , No. 8 751-754.
- S.Yamada, Y Baba (1990). Validity of daily energy expenditure estimated by calorie counter combined with accelerometer.J.UOEH,12 (1);77-82
- Kumahara, Hideaki et al. (2002). Validity assessment of daily expenditure in a respiration chamber by accelerometry located on the waist vs the wrist or in combination. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 34(5) Supplement 1:S140
- Kumahara, Hideaki, et al. (2004). The use of uniaxial accelerometry for the assessment of physical-activity-related energy expenditure: a validation study against whole-body indirect calorimetry. British Journal of Nutrition.2004, 91(2):235-243.
- Naoshi Saito, et al. (2004). Lifecorder: A New Device for the Long-term Monitoring of Motor Activities for Parkinson’s Disease. Internal Medicine, Vol 43 No. 8, pg 685-692.
- Thompson, et al. (2004). Relationship between Accumulated Walking and Body Composition in Middle-Aged Women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36 (5), 911–914.
- Lauren A. Ewalt, et al.; Validity of Physical Activity Monitors in Assessing Energy Expenditure In Normal, Overweight, and Obese Adults (2008). Univerisyt of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI.
- Leonard A. Kaminsky, et al. Accuracy of energy expenditure estimates from the Lifecorder physical activity monitor (2008). FACSM.
- James C. Hannon, et al. Comparison of Activity Monitor Output in Free Living Conditions (2008). University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. University of kentucky, Lexington, KY. Hofstra University Hempstead, NY. Weber State Univerisy, Ogden, UT.