Validation of the SenseWear Armband as a Measure of Sedentary Behavior and Light Activity

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 1229-1237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel D. Reece ◽  
Vaughn Barry ◽  
Dana K. Fuller ◽  
Jennifer Caputo
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Sedentary Behavior ◽  
Indirect Calorimetry ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Measurement Method ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Office Work ◽  
Sensewear Armband ◽  
Light Activity

Background:This study determined the validity and sensitivity of the SenseWear armband (SWA) during sedentary and light office duties compared with indirect calorimetry (IC).Methods:Participants (N = 22), 30 to 64 years of age, randomly performed 6 conditions for 5 minutes each (ie, supine, sitting no movement, standing no movement, sitting office work, standing office work, walking at 1.0 mph). Steady state for each activity (ie, average for minutes 4 and 5) was analyzed.Results:Energy expenditure (EE) for the SWA (1.58 kcal/min) and the IC (1.64 kcal/min) were significantly correlated, r(20) = 0.90, P < .001 and ICC = 0.90, 95% CI (0.699, 0.966). Correlation results for each condition varied in strength, r(20) = 0.53 to 0.83 and ICC = 0.49 to 0.81, but were all significant (P < .05). A significant interaction between measurement method and condition existed (P < .001). The SWA under predicted EE during standing with no movement, sitting office work, and standing office work.Conclusion:The SWA and IC EE rates were strongly correlated during sedentary and light activity office behaviors. However, the SWA may under predict EE during office work (standing or sitting) and when standing motionless, making it slightly less sensitive than IC.

Evaluation of the SenseWear Mini Armband to Assess Energy Expenditure During Pole Walking

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 565-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianluca Vernillo ◽  
Aldo Savoldelli ◽  
Barbara Pellegrini ◽  
Federico Schena
Keyword(s):  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Indirect Calorimetry ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Total Energy Expenditure ◽  
Motion Sensor ◽  
Sensewear Armband ◽  
Mixed Model Anova ◽  
Main Effects ◽  
Pole Walking

The current study aimed to show the validity of a portable motion sensor, the SenseWear Armband (SWA), for the estimation of energy expenditure during pole walking. Twenty healthy adults (mean ± SD: age 30.1 ± 7.2 year, body mass 66.1 ± 10.6 kg, height 172.4 ± 8.0 cm, BMI 22.1 ± 2.4 kg·m−2) wore the armband during randomized pole walking activities at a constant speed (1.25 m·s−1) and at seven grades (0%, ±5%, ±15% and ±25%). Estimates of total energy expenditure from the armband were compared with values derived from indirect calorimetry methodology (IC) using a 2–way mixed model ANOVA (Device × Slope), correlation analyses and Bland-Altman plots. Results revealed significant main effects for device, and slope (p < .025) as well as a significant interaction (p < .001). Significant differences between IC and SWA were observed for all conditions (p < .05). SWA generally underestimate the EE values during uphill PW by 0.04 kcal·kg−1·min−1 (p < .05). Whereas, a significant overestimation has been detected during flat and downhill PW by 0.01 and 0.03 kcal·kg−1·min−1 (p < .05), respectively. The Bland-Altman plots revealed bias of the armband compared with the indirect calorimetry at any condition examined. The present data suggest that the armband is not accurate to correctly detect and estimate the energy expenditure during pole walking activities. Therefore, the observed over- and under-estimations warrants more work to improve the ability of SWA to accurately measure EE for these activities.

scholarly journals Energy Expenditure Evaluation in Humans and Non-Human Primates by SenseWear Armband. Validation of Energy Expenditure Evaluation by SenseWear Armband by Direct Comparison with Indirect Calorimetry

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e73651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Casiraghi ◽  
Raweewan Lertwattanarak ◽  
Livio Luzi ◽  
Alberto O. Chavez ◽  
Alberto M. Davalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Indirect Calorimetry ◽  
Sensewear Armband

Energy Expenditure During Acute Periods of Sitting, Standing, and Walking

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 573-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth A. Creasy ◽  
Renee J. Rogers ◽  
Thomas D. Byard ◽  
Robert J. Kowalsky ◽  
John M. Jakicic
Keyword(s):  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Sedentary Behavior ◽  
Indirect Calorimetry ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Laptop Computer ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Increase Energy Expenditure ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Harmful Effects

Background:Identifying strategies to increase energy expenditure (EE) may help combat the harmful effects of sedentary behavior. This study examined EE during sitting, standing, and walking.Methods:Participants (N = 74) were randomized to 2 of the following activities: sitting using a laptop computer (SIT-C), sitting watching television (SIT-T), standing watching television (STAND), and walking at a self-selected pace ≤3.0 (mph) (WALK). Each activity lasted 15 minutes with a 3-minute transition period between activities. The experimental conditions were: SIT-C to STAND (N = 18), SIT-T to WALK (N = 18), STAND to SIT-C (N = 20), and WALK to SIT-T (N = 18). EE was measured using indirect calorimetry.Results:Based on the first activity performed, EE during WALK (55.92 ± 14.19 kcal) was significantly greater than SIT-C (19.63 ± 6.90 kcal), SIT-T (18.66 ± 4.01 kcal), and STAND (21.92 ± 5.08 kcal) (P < .001). Cumulative EE in SIT-T to WALK (74.50 ± 17.88 kcal) and WALK to SIT-T (82.72 ± 21.70 kcal) was significantly greater than EE in SIT-C to STAND (45.38 ± 14.78 kcal) and STAND to SIT-C (45.64 ± 9.69 kcal) (P < .001).Conclusions:Conclusion: Substituting periods of sitting or standing with walking significantly increases EE, but substituting periods of sitting with standing may not affect EE. Thus, the potential benefits of standing as opposed to sitting need further investigation beyond the role of EE.

scholarly journals Approximate Time to Steady-state Resting Energy Expenditure Using Indirect Calorimetry in Young, Healthy Adults

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collin J. Popp ◽  
Jocelyn J. Tisch ◽  
Kenan E. Sakarcan ◽  
William C. Bridges ◽  
Elliot D. Jesch
Keyword(s):  
Steady State ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Indirect Calorimetry ◽  
Resting Energy Expenditure ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Resting Energy

scholarly journals Estimation of Metabolic Energy Expenditure during Short Walking Bouts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilse Johanna Blokland ◽  
Jos J. de Koning ◽  
Thomas van Kan ◽  
Coen A. M. van Bennekom ◽  
Jaap H. van Dieen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oxygen Consumption ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Metabolic Energy ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Metabolic Energy Expenditure

AbstractAssessment of metabolic energy expenditure from indirect calorimetry is currently limited to sustained (>4 min) cyclic activities, because of steady-state requirements. This is problematic for patient populations who are unable to perform such sustained activities. Therefore, this study explores validity and reliability of a method estimating metabolic energy expenditure based on oxygen consumption (V̇O2) during short walking bouts. Twelve able-bodied adults twice performed six treadmill walking trials (1, 2 and 6 min at 4 and 5 km/h), while V̇O2 was measured. Total V̇O2 was calculated by integrating net V̇O2 over walking and recovery. Concurrent validity with steady-state V̇O2 was assessed with Pearson’s correlations. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses. Total V̇O2 was strongly correlated with steady-state V̇O2 (r=0.91–0.99), but consistently higher. Test-retest reliability of total V̇O2 (ICC=0.65–0.92) was lower than or comparable to steady-state V̇O2 (ICC=0.83–0.92), with lower reliability for shorter trials. Total V̇O2 discriminated between gait speeds. Total oxygen uptake provides a useful measure to estimate metabolic load of short activities from oxygen consumption. Although estimates are less reliable than steady-state measurements, they can provide insight in the yet unknown metabolic demands of daily activities for patient populations unable to perform sustained activities.

scholarly journals Relative Validity of 3 Accelerometer Models for Estimating Energy Expenditure During Light Activity

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 638-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Allan Wetten ◽  
Marijka Batterham ◽  
Sze Yen Tan ◽  
Linda Tapsell
Keyword(s):  
Light Intensity ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Physical Inactivity ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Sensewear Armband ◽  
Relative Validity ◽  
Light Activity ◽  
Prevalence Of Obesity ◽  
Stepping Exercise ◽  
Sedentary Activities

Background:With physical inactivity inextricably linked to the increasing prevalence of obesity, there is a need for validated methods that measure free-living energy expenditure (EE) within sedentary environments. While accelerometers enable these measurements, few studies have compared device accuracy in such settings. The aim of this study was to investigate the relative validity of the Actigraph, RT3 and SenseWear Armband (SWA).Methods:Twenty-three (11 male, 12 female) participants (age: 25.3 ± 6.3 yr; BMI: 22.6 ± 2.7) wore 3 accelerometers at designated sites during a 4-hour stay in the Whole Room Calorimeter (WRC). Participants performed 2 10-minute bouts of light-intensity exercise (stepping and stationary cycling) and engaged in unstructured sedentary activities. EE estimated by accelerometers was compared with WRC EE derived from measurements of gaseous exchange.Results:The Actigraph and SWA both accurately estimated EE during the stepping exercise. EE estimated by the RT3 during stepping was significantly lower than the WRC value (31.2% ± 15.6%, P < .001). All accelerometers underestimated cycling and unstructured activity EE over the trial period (P < .001).Conclusions:The Actigraph and SWA are both valid tools for quantifying EE during light-intensity stepping. These results provide further valuable information on how accelerometer devices may be appropriately used.

Alternating Sitting and Standing Increases the Workplace Energy Expenditure of Overweight Adults

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Ann Thorp ◽  
Bronwyn A. Kingwell ◽  
Coralie English ◽  
Louise Hammond ◽  
Parneet Sethi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Indirect Calorimetry ◽  
Office Workers ◽  
Criterion Measure ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Sensewear Armband ◽  
Work Posture ◽  
Valid Estimate ◽  
Overweight Adults

Background:To determine whether alternating bouts of sitting and standing at work influences daily workplace energy expenditure (EE).Methods:Twenty-three overweight/obese office workers (mean ± SD; age: 48.2 ± 7.9 y, body mass index: 29.6 ± 4.0 kg/m2) undertook two 5-day experimental conditions in an equal, randomized order. Participants wore a “metabolic armband” (SenseWear Armband Mini) to estimate daily workplace EE (KJ/8 h) while working (1) in a seated work posture (SIT condition) or (2) alternating between a standing and seated work posture every 30 minutes using a sit-stand workstation (STAND-SIT condition). To assess the validity of the metabolic armband, a criterion measure of acute EE (KJ/min; indirect calorimetry) was performed on day 4 of each condition.Results:Standing to work acutely increased EE by 0.7 [95% CI 0.3–1.0] KJ/min (13%), relative to sitting (P = .002). Compared with indirect calorimetry, the metabolic armband provided a valid estimate of EE while standing to work (mean bias: 0.1 [–0.3 to 0.4] KJ/min) but modestly overestimated EE while sitting (P = .005). Daily workplace EE was greatest during the STAND-SIT condition (mean condition difference [95% CI]: 76 [8–144] KJ/8-h workday, P = .03).Conclusions:Intermittent standing at work can modestly increase daily workplace EE compared with seated work in overweight/obese office workers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document