OBJECTIVE: To validate total energy expenditure (TEE) and activity energy expenditure (AEE) from the portable SenseWear armband (SWA) Pro 2 (TEESWA and AEESWA ; InnerView software versions SWA 5.1 and SWA 6.1) against TEE from doubly labeled water (DLW) and AEE from DLW and indirect calorimetry (TEEDLW and AEEDLW ) in overweight/obese lactating women at 10 weeks postpartum. DESIGN AND METHODS: TEE was measured simultaneously with DLW (14 days) and SWA (first 7 days). Lactating women (n = 62), non-smoking, with a BMI > 25 kg/m(2) and wearing time SWA ≥ 90% were included. RESULTS: Mean TEESWA5.1 was overestimated with 85 kcal/day compared to TEEDLW (P = 0.040), while mean TEESWA6.1 was underestimated with 241 kcal/day compared to TEEDLW (P < 0.001). Mean AEESWA5.1 was similar to mean AEEDLW (P = 0.818), while mean AEESWA6.1 was underestimated with 581 kcal/day compared to AEEDLW (P < 0.001). TEESWA6.1 and AEESWA6.1 were systematically underestimated at higher levels of energy expenditure and BMI while only AEESWA5.1 was systematically overestimated at higher levels of energy expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: TEESWA5.1 and AEESWA5.1 were fairly estimated on a group level while TEESWA6.1 and AEESWA6.1 were significantly and systematically underestimated. Both SWA software versions showed large individual variation in agreement with TEEDLW and AEEDLW , limiting the validity on individual level.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To validate total energy expenditure (TEE) and activity energy expenditure (AEE) from the portable SenseWear armband (SWA) Pro 2 (TEESWA and AEESWA ; InnerView software versions SWA 5.1 and SWA 6.1) against TEE from doubly labeled water (DLW) and AEE from DLW and indirect calorimetry (TEEDLW and AEEDLW ) in overweight/obese lactating women at 10 weeks postpartum. DESIGN AND METHODS: TEE was measured simultaneously with DLW (14 days) and SWA (first 7 days). Lactating women (n = 62), non-smoking, with a BMI > 25 kg/m(2) and wearing time SWA ≥ 90% were included. RESULTS: Mean TEESWA5.1 was overestimated with 85 kcal/day compared to TEEDLW (P = 0.040), while mean TEESWA6.1 was underestimated with 241 kcal/day compared to TEEDLW (P < 0.001). Mean AEESWA5.1 was similar to mean AEEDLW (P = 0.818), while mean AEESWA6.1 was underestimated with 581 kcal/day compared to AEEDLW (P < 0.001). TEESWA6.1 and AEESWA6.1 were systematically underestimated at higher levels of energy expenditure and BMI while only AEESWA5.1 was systematically overestimated at higher levels of energy expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: TEESWA5.1 and AEESWA5.1 were fairly estimated on a group level while TEESWA6.1 and AEESWA6.1 were significantly and systematically underestimated. Both SWA software versions showed large individual variation in agreement with TEEDLW and AEEDLW , limiting the validity on individual level.
Authors: Frank M Schmidt; Julia Weschenfelder; Christian Sander; Juliane Minkwitz; Julia Thormann; Tobias Chittka; Roland Mergl; Kenneth C Kirkby; Mathias Faßhauer; Michael Stumvoll; Lesca M Holdt; Daniel Teupser; Ulrich Hegerl; Hubertus Himmerich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 3.240