These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validity of SenseWear® Armband v5.2 and v2.2 for estimating energy expenditure.
    Author: Bhammar DM, Sawyer BJ, Tucker WJ, Lee JM, Gaesser GA.
    Journal: J Sports Sci; 2016 Oct; 34(19):1830-8. PubMed ID: 26854829.
    Abstract:
    We compared SenseWear Armband versions (v) 2.2 and 5.2 for estimating energy expenditure in healthy adults. Thirty-four adults (26 women), 30.1 ± 8.7 years old, performed two trials that included light-, moderate- and vigorous-intensity activities: (1) structured routine: seven activities performed for 8-min each, with 4-min of rest between activities; (2) semi-structured routine: 12 activities performed for 5-min each, with no rest between activities. Energy expenditure was measured by indirect calorimetry and predicted using SenseWear v2.2 and v5.2. Compared to indirect calorimetry (297.8 ± 54.2 kcal), the total energy expenditure was overestimated (P < 0.05) by both SenseWear v2.2 (355.6 ± 64.3 kcal) and v5.2 (342.6 ± 63.8 kcal) during the structured routine. During the semi-structured routine, the total energy expenditure for SenseWear v5.2 (275.2 ± 63.0 kcal) was not different than indirect calorimetry (262.8 ± 52.9 kcal), and both were lower (P < 0.05) than v2.2 (312.2 ± 74.5 kcal). The average mean absolute per cent error was lower for the SenseWear v5.2 than for v2.2 (P < 0.001). SenseWear v5.2 improved energy expenditure estimation for some activities (sweeping, loading/unloading boxes, walking), but produced larger errors for others (cycling, rowing). Although both algorithms overestimated energy expenditure as well as time spent in moderate-intensity physical activity (P < 0.05), v5.2 offered better estimates than v2.2.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]