Validation of the SenseWear Armband in different ambient temperatures

Abstract

This study examines the validity of the SenseWear Armband in different temperatures using the old (SenseWear v2.2) and newest version of the algorithm (SenseWear v5.2) against indirect calorimetry (IC). Thirty-nine male and female students (21.1 ± 1.41 years) completed an exercise trial in 19°C, 26°C and 33°C consisting of 5 min standing followed by alternating walking/running at 35% and 65% of their maximal oxygen uptake. The accuracy of the algorithms was evaluated by comparing estimated energy expenditure (EE) to IC using a mixed-model design. No difference was reported in EE between the different temperatures for IC. Both algorithms estimated EE significantly higher when exercising at high intensity in 33°C compared to 19°C. Compared to IC, SenseWear v2.2 accurately estimated EE during standing and light intensity exercise but underestimated EE when exercising in a hot environment and at high intensity. SenseWear v5.2 showed a difference when exercising at high intensity in thermoneutral and warm conditions. The new algorithm improved EE estimation in hot environments and at high intensity compared to the old version. However, given the inherent inaccuracy of the EE estimates of SenseWear, greater weight should be given to direct monitor outputs rather than the ability of a monitor to estimate EE precisely.

Validity of SenseWear® Armband v5.2 and v2.2 for estimating energy expenditure

“…We are aware of only three published reports that compared the newest algorithm v5.2 with previous v2.2 for estimating energy expenditure during physical activity (Lee et al, 2014; Smith et al, 2012; Van Hoye et al, 2014). Van Hoye et al (Van Hoye et al, 2014) reported that SenseWear v5.2 did not improve energy expenditure estimation in young men and women while standing, walking, or running on a treadmill during indoor temperatures of 19° C and 26° C, but did improve energy expenditure estimation while walking and running at 33° C. Smith et al (Smith et al, 2012) studied pregnant women while they performed seven different activities (typing, folding laundry, sweeping, walking at 0.89, 1.12, and 1.34 m·s −1 and walking at 1.34 m·s −1 up a 3% incline).…”

“…Van Hoye et al (Van Hoye et al, 2014) reported that SenseWear v5.2 did not improve energy expenditure estimation in young men and women while standing, walking, or running on a treadmill during indoor temperatures of 19° C and 26° C, but did improve energy expenditure estimation while walking and running at 33° C. Smith et al (Smith et al, 2012) studied pregnant women while they performed seven different activities (typing, folding laundry, sweeping, walking at 0.89, 1.12, and 1.34 m·s −1 and walking at 1.34 m·s −1 up a 3% incline). This is comparable to our structured routine, albeit with a narrower range of indirect calorimetry-measured energy expenditure (≈1-5 kcal·min −1 vs. ≈1-9 kcal·min −1 ).…”

“…It combines data from a triaxial accelerometer and several heat sensors with demographic characteristics including gender, age, height, weight, and handedness in order to estimate energy expenditure utilizing proprietary algorithms developed by the manufacturer. The algorithms are periodically updated to improve energy expenditure estimation, which have been evaluated by a number of investigators (Benito et al, 2012; Berntsen et al, 2010; Brazeau et al, 2011; Drenowatz & Eisenmann, 2011; Erdogan, Cetin, Karatosun, & Baydar, 2010; Fruin & Rankin, 2004; King, Torres, Potter, Brooks, & Coleman, 2004; Lee, Kim, Bai, Gaesser, & Welk, 2014; Papazoglou et al, 2006; Smith, Lanningham-Foster, Welk, & Campbell, 2012; Van Hoye, Boen, & Lefevre, 2014; Welk, McClain, Eisenmann, & Wickel, 2007). The current commercially available software algorithm is the Innerview Research Software “SenseWear 8.1”, which uses algorithm version (v) 5.2.…”

“…At the time of our investigation, we were aware of only three studies (Lee et al, 2014; Smith et al, 2012; Van Hoye et al, 2014) that examined the validity of SenseWear v5.2 for estimating energy expenditure when compared with the previous algorithm v2.2. In these studies, SenseWear v5.2 improved energy expenditure predictions over a wide range of activities in children (Lee et al, 2014) and over a limited range of activities in pregnant women (Smith et al, 2012).…”

“…In these studies, SenseWear v5.2 improved energy expenditure predictions over a wide range of activities in children (Lee et al, 2014) and over a limited range of activities in pregnant women (Smith et al, 2012). In young men and women, SenseWear v5.2 improved energy expenditure estimation compared to SenseWear v2.2 during walking and running in a hot (33° C) laboratory condition, but not in cooler conditions (19° C and 26° C) (Van Hoye et al, 2014). No studies have examined the validity of the current SenseWear v5.2 for predicting energy expenditure and estimating physical activity intensity levels in healthy adults across a wide range of physical activity intensities, including both steady-state and non-steady-state conditions.…”