Purpose. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of three non-calorimetric methods’ measurements of energy expenditure (EE) in laboratory conditions and to compare the results obtained by each method in free-living condition in a group of adult subjects. Methods. Measurement was performed on 20 individuals aged 19-39 years. An assessment of EE at different intensities of physical activity was conducted by: monitoring heart rate with a S-610 Polar Sport Tester (HRM), measuring body movement by an ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer (AM), and recording METs (MR) by a physical activity questionnaire, for different activities (leisure and exercise) at various intensities in laboratory and free-living conditions. Indirect calorimetry (Cosmed K4b2 respirometer) was used as a reference standard. Results. The most reliable tool for EE assessment was HRM (100% accurate). AM overestimated EE (about 60%) for activity at moderate-intensity and underestimated EE (about 40%) at vigorous-intensity. MR overestimated the results, with measurement errors increasing with an increase in physical activity intensity (about 40-120%). Conclusions. Although AM and MR provided less accurate results than HRM in laboratory conditions, there were no significant differences between the three methods (HRM, AM and MR) when total daily energy expenditure was calculated for the participants in free-living condition.