Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Ann Transl Med. 2017 Mar;5(5):97. doi: 10.21037/atm.2017.02.31.

Is the SenseWear Armband accurate enough to quantify and estimate energy expenditure in healthy adults?

Author information

1
Department of Health Sciences, GIDFYS, European University Miguel de Cervantes, Valladolid, Spain;; Research Institute of Hospital 12 de Octubre ("i+12"), Madrid, Spain.
2
Faculty of Health and Sport Science (FCSD), Department of Physiatry and Nursing, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
3
Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of León, León, Spain.
4
IRyS Group, Physical Education School, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile.
5
Faculty of Health and Sport Science (FCSD), Department of Physiatry and Nursing, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain;; GENUD research group, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain;; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERObn), Spain;; Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón (IA2), Universidad de Zaragoza-CITA, Zaragoza, Spain.
6
Research Institute of Hospital 12 de Octubre ("i+12"), Madrid, Spain;; Faculty of Health and Sport Science (FCSD), Department of Physiatry and Nursing, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain;; GENUD research group, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain;; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERObn), Spain;; Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón (IA2), Universidad de Zaragoza-CITA, Zaragoza, Spain.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The SenseWear Armband (SWA) is a monitor that can be used to estimate energy expenditure (EE); however, it has not been validated in healthy adults. The objective of this paper was to study the validity of the SWA for quantifying EE levels.

METHODS:

Twenty-three healthy adults (age 40-55 years, mean: 48±3.42 years) performed different types of standardized physical activity (PA) for 10 minutes (rest, walking at 3 and 5 km·h-1, running at 7 and 9 km·h-1, and sitting/standing at a rate of 30 cycle·min-1). Participants wore the SWA on their right arm, and their EE was measured by indirect calorimetry (IC) the gold standard.

RESULTS:

There were significant differences between the SWA and IC, except in the group that ran at 9 km·h-1 (>9 METs). Bland-Altman analysis showed a BIAS of 1.56 METs (±1.83 METs) and limits of agreement (LOA) at 95% of -2.03 to 5.16 METs. There were indications of heteroscedasticity (R2 =0.03; P<0.05). Analysis of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves showed that the SWA seems to be not sensitive enough to estimate the level of EE at highest intensities.

CONCLUSIONS:

The SWA is not as precise in estimating EE as IC, but it could be a useful tool to determine levels of EE at low intensities.

KEYWORDS:

Energy expenditure (EE); accelerometry; indirect calorimetry (IC); metabolic equivalent; validation studies

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for AME Publishing Company Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center