Daly-Smith et al. [
1] suggest that there are four issues with our approach to accelerometers, namely that (1) we analysed data in 60 s rather than 15 s epochs; (2) we did not analyse data in epochs of ≤15 s; (3) we did not report whether participants were given the same accelerometer model in pre- and post-intervention measurements; and (4) we included weekend days in our analysis of MVPA and sedentary time. On points 1 and 2, the review by Migueles et al. [
14] cited by Daly-Smith et al. [
1] demonstrates that there are mixed reports on epoch length in the literature. We certainly agree that altering epoch length could change the conclusions. Thus, we chose to use the Evenson cut points [
15], as recommended for school age children [
16], with 60 s epochs and 60 min of non-wear time to allow direct comparison with data from the largest collection of accelerometer measurements in children – the International Children’s Accelerometry Database [
13]. To address point 3, we note that the International Children’s Accelerometry Database includes studies with variable accelerometer models. It is vital that data from different studies can be compared. Further, as stated on page 4 of our original article (Methods, Participant assessments section [
2], others have compared different accelerometer models and found their use acceptable in the same study. Finally, regarding point 4, Daly-Smith et al. [
1] pose a good question about differences in MVPA between days on which the Daily Mile™ is completed versus days on which it is not (i.e. weekend days) and the potential for compensation; this is why we chose to look at overall MVPA and highlight (Discussion, Strengths and limitations section [
2], p. 11) that further assessment of this issue is an important question for future research.