Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 40 items for :

Clear All
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

Karsten Koehler, Thomas Abel, Birgit Wallmann-Sperlich, Annika Dreuscher and Volker Anneken

Background:

Inactivity and overweight are major health concerns in children and adolescents with disabilities. Methods for the assessment of activity and energy expenditure may be affected negatively by the underlying disability, especially when motor function is impaired. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of the SenseWear Armband in adolescents with cerebral palsy and hemiparesis.

Methods:

Ten volunteers (age: 13.4 ± 1.6 years) were equipped with SenseWear Armbands on the hemiparetic and nonhemiparetic side of the body. Energy expenditure was measured at rest and during treadmill exercise (speed range: 0.85 to 2.35 m/s). Indirect calorimetry served as independent reference method.

Results:

The mean error was between −0.6 and 0.8 kcal/min and there were no significant differences between SenseWear and indirect calorimetry at any speed. Differences between body sides in expenditure (mean: −0.2 to 0.0 kcal/min) and step count (mean: −3.4 to 9.7 steps/min) were not significant.

Conclusions:

The validity of the SenseWear Armband does not appear to be negatively affected by cerebral palsy during laboratory treadmill exercise. Future field studies are necessary to assess the validity and practicability of energy expenditure and physical activity assessment in children and adolescents with physical disabilities.

Restricted access

Gianluca Vernillo, Aldo Savoldelli, Barbara Pellegrini and Federico Schena

Background:

Accurate assessments of physical activity and energy expenditure (EE) are needed to advance research on positive and negative graded walking.

Purpose:

To evaluate the validity of 2 SenseWear Armband monitors (Pro3 and the recently released Mini) during graded walking.

Methods:

Twenty healthy adults wore both monitors during randomized walking activities on a motorized treadmill at 7 grades (0%, ±5%, ±15%, and ±25%). Estimates of total EE from the monitors were computed using different algorithms and compared with values derived from indirect calorimetry methodology using a 2-way mixed model ANOVA (Device × Condition), correlation analyses and Bland-Altman plots.

Results:

There was no significant difference in EE between the 2 armbands in any of the conditions examined. Significant main effects for device and condition, as well as a consistent bias, were observed during positive and negative graded walking with a greater over- and under-estimation at higher slope.

Conclusions:

Both the armbands produced similar EE values and seem to be not accurate in estimation of EE during activities involving uphill and downhill walking. Additional work is needed to understand factors contributing to this discrepancy and to improve the ability of these monitors to accurately measure EE during graded walking.

Restricted access

Joel D. Reece, Vaughn Barry, Dana K. Fuller and Jennifer Caputo

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.

Restricted access

Tessa M. Pollard and Cornelia Guell

Background:

We assessed the quality of data on physical activity obtained by recall from Muslim women of South Asian origin, and the feasibility of using accelerometer-based physical activity monitors to provide more objective measures of physical activity in this group.

Methods:

In this largely qualitative study, 22 British Pakistani women were asked to wear accelerometers (the GT1M Actigraph and/or the Sensewear Armband) for 4 days, provided 2 24-hour recalls of activities, and were interviewed about their experiences with the monitors.

Results:

Women reported spending most of their time in housework and childcare, activities which generated the majority of recorded bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity. However, women had difficulty in recalling the timing, and assessing the intensity, of these usually unstructured activities. A significant minority of accelerometer datasets were incomplete and some women reported either forgetting to wear the acceler-ometer or finding it intrusive.

Conclusions:

Questionnaires are unlikely to provide an accurate assessment of physical activity in this group of women. This suggests that accelerometer data will be preferable. However, collecting sufficient data for large-scale studies using activity monitors in this population will be challenging.

Restricted access

Ricardo A. Tanhoffer, Aldre I.P. Tanhoffer, Jacqueline Raymond, Nathan A. Johnson, Andrew P. Hills and Glen M. Davis

Background:

The objective of this study was to determine whether doubly labeled water (DLW) and a multi-sensor armband (SWA) could detect the variation in energy expenditure incurred by a period of increased exercise (EXE) versus a period of high sedentary activity (SED), in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).

Methods:

Eight participants with SCI were submitted to 2 testing periods of energy expenditure assessment: 1) a 14-day phase during which sedentary living conditions were imposed and 2) a 14-day phase during which an exercise training intervention was employed. For each phase, total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) and physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) were measured by DLW and SWA.

Results:

Mean TDEE assessed by DLW, was significantly higher during EXE versus SED (11,605 ± 2151 kJ·day-1 and 10,069 ± 2310 kJ·day-1). PAEE predicted by DLW was also significantly higher during EXE versus SED (5422 ± 2240 kJ·day-1 and 3855 ± 2496 kJ·day-1). SWA-predicted PAEE significantly underestimated PAEE measured by the DLW during SED and EXE.

Conclusion:

DLW is sensitive to detect variation in within-individual energy expenditure during voluntary increase in physical activity in individuals with SCI. SWA failed to detect statistically significant variations in energy expenditure between periods of high versus low activity in SCI.

Restricted access

Nicola D. Ridgers, Karen E. Lamb, Anna Timperio, Helen Brown and Jo Salmon

rate) returned informed written parental consent to participate in the primary components of the data collection (accelerometry, survey, and log book). A subsample (72 boys and 77 girls) provided written informed parental consent to wear an additional monitor (SenseWear Armband; BodyMedia Inc

Restricted access

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

physical activity was obtained with a multisensor SenseWear Pro 3 Armband ® (BodyMedia Inc, Pittsburgh, PA), which generates valid results for daily energy expenditure under free-living conditions. 15 – 17 Estimates of sleep and wake parameters were extracted from multiple sensors (ie, 2-axis

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

Brittney S. Lange-Maia, Jane A. Cauley, Anne B. Newman, Robert M. Boudreau, John M. Jakicic, Nancy W. Glynn, Sasa Zivkovic, Thuy-Tien L. Dam, Paolo Caserotti, Peggy M. Cawthon, Eric S. Orwoll, Elsa S. Strotmeyer and for the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study Group

We determined whether sensorimotor peripheral nerve (PN) function was associated with physical activity (PA) in older men. The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study Pittsburgh, PA, site (n = 328, age 78.8 ± 4.7 years) conducted PN testing, including: peroneal motor and sural sensory nerve conduction (latencies, amplitudes: CMAP and SNAP for motor and sensory amplitude, respectively), 1.4g/10g monofilament (dorsum of the great toe), and neuropathy symptoms. ANOVA and multivariate linear regression modeled PN associations with PA (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly [PASE] and SenseWear Armband). After multivariable adjustment, better motor latency was associated with higher PASE scores (160.5 ± 4.8 vs. 135.6 ± 6.7, p < .01). Those without versus with neuropathy symptoms had higher PASE scores (157.6 ± 5.3 vs. 132.9 ± 7.1, p < .01). Better versus worse SNAP was associated with slightly more daily vigorous activity (9.5 ± 0.8 vs. 7.3 ± 0.7, p = .05). Other PN measures were not associated with PA. Certain PN measures were associated with lower PA, suggesting a potential pathway for disability.