Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 20 of 32 items for :

  • "SenseWear armband" x
  • Sport and Exercise Science/Kinesiology x
Clear All
Restricted access

Greg Welk, Youngwon Kim, Robin P. Shook, Laura Ellingson and Roberto L. Lobelo

Background:

The study evaluated the concurrent and criterion validity of a new, disposable activity monitor designed to provide objective data on physical activity and energy expenditure in clinical populations.

Methods:

A sample of healthy adults (n = 52) wore the disposable Metria IH1 along with the established Sensewear armband (SWA) monitor for a 1-week period. Concurrent validity was examined by evaluating the statistical equivalence of estimates from the Metria and the SWA. Criterion validity was examined by comparing the relative accuracy of the Metria IH1 and the SWA for assessing walking/running. The absolute validity of the 2 monitors was compared by computing correlations and mean absolute percent error (MAPE) relative to criterion data from a portable metabolic analyzer.

Results:

The output from 2 monitors was highly correlated (correlations > 0.90) and the summary measures yielded nearly identical allocations of time spent in physical activity and energy expenditure. The monitors yielded statistically equivalent estimates and had similar absolute validity relative to the criterion measure (12% to 15% error).

Conclusions:

The disposable nature of the adhesive Metria IH1 monitor offers promise for clinical evaluation of physical activity behavior in patients. Additional research is needed to test utility for counseling and behavior applications.

Restricted access

Alexander Allan Wetten, Marijka Batterham, Sze Yen Tan and Linda Tapsell

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.

Restricted access

Alicia Ann Thorp, Bronwyn A. Kingwell, Coralie English, Louise Hammond, Parneet Sethi, Neville Owen and David W. Dunstan

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.

Restricted access

Robin P. Shook, Nicole C. Gribben, Gregory A. Hand, Amanda E. Paluch, Gregory J. Welk, John M. Jakicic, Brent Hutto, Stephanie Burgess and Steven N. Blair

Background:

Subjective measures of moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) rely on relative intensity whereas objective measures capture absolute intensity; thus, fit individuals and unfit individuals may perceive the same activity differently.

Methods:

Adults (N = 211) wore the SenseWear Armband (SWA) for 10 consecutive days to objectively assess sedentary time and MVPA. On day 8, participants completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) to subjectively assess sitting time and MVPA. Fitness was assessed via a maximal treadmill test, and participants were classified as unfit if the result was in the bottom tertile of the study population by sex or fit if in the upper 2 tertiles.

Results:

Overall, estimates of MVPA between the IPAQ and SWA were not significantly different (IPAQ minus SWA, 67.4 ± 919.1 MVPA min/wk, P = .29). However, unfit participants overestimated MVPA using the IPAQ by 37.3% (P = .02), but fit participants did not (P = .99). This between-group difference was due to overestimation, using the IPAQ, of moderate activity by 93.8 min/wk among the unfit individuals, but underestimation of moderate activity among the fit participants by 149.4 min/wk.

Conclusion:

Subjective measures of MVPA using the IPAQ varied by fitness category; unfit participants overestimated their MVPA and fit participants accurately estimated their MVPA.

Restricted access

Gianluca Vernillo, Aldo Savoldelli, Barbara Pellegrini and Federico Schena

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.

Restricted access

Kathryn J. DeShaw, Laura Ellingson, Yang Bai, Jeni Lansing, Maria Perez and Greg Welk

conditions ( Plasqui, 2017 ). A primary goal of the present study is to provide an example to guide future monitor validation research. A major challenge with free-living validation studies is that commonly used reference monitors. For example, the Sensewear armband has been widely used as a reference

Restricted access

Giovanni Mario Pes, Maria Pina Dore, Alessandra Errigo and Michel Poulain

et al., 2011 ). However, all these methods except the last are time-consuming and require specific training by the operators. Among the portable movement sensors able to record energy expenditure (EE) under free-living conditions, the SensewearArmband (BodyMedia Inc., Pittsburg, PA, USA) has gained

Restricted access

Sara Knaeps, Stijn De Baere, Jan Bourgois, Evelien Mertens, Ruben Charlier and Johan Lefevre

013e3181e0b3ff 16. Bhammar DM , Sawyer BJ , Tucker WJ , Lee JM , Gaesser GA . Validity of SenseWear ® Armband v5.2 and v2.2 for estimating energy expenditure . J Sports Sci . 2016 ; 34 ( 19 ): 1830 – 1838 . PubMed doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1140220 26854829 10

Restricted access

Gregory A. Hand, Robin P. Shook, Daniel P. O’Connor, Madison M. Kindred, Sarah Schumacher, Clemens Drenowatz, Amanda E. Paluch, Stephanie Burgess, John E. Blundell and Steven N. Blair

, and a dual X-ray absorptiometry scan was performed. Baseline session 2 followed a 12-hour overnight fast. Resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured. Individuals were given a SenseWear armband accelerometry device to measure activity over a period of 10 days. Randomization After completion of baseline

Restricted access

Giovanna Ghiani, Sara Magnani, Azzurra Doneddu, Gianmarco Sainas, Virginia Pinna, Marco Caboi, Girolamo Palazzolo, Filippo Tocco and Antonio Crisafulli

characteristics of America’s Cup sailors . Journal of Sports Sciences, 25 , 1153 – 1160 . doi:10.1080/02640410701287180 10.1080/02640410701287180 Drenowatz , C. , & Eisenmann , J.C. ( 2011 ). Validation of the SenseWear Armband at high intensity exercise . European Journal of Applied Physiology, 111