Anne-Sophie Brazeau1, Nadia Beaudoin2, Virginie Bélisle1, Virginie Messier1, Antony D Karelis3, Rémi Rabasa-Lhoret4. 1. Montreal Clinical Research Institute (IRCM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Montreal Clinical Research Institute (IRCM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Department of Kinanthropology, University of Quebec in Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Montreal Clinical Research Institute (IRCM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Nutrition, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Montreal Diabetes Research Center (MDRC) of the Université de Montréal Hospital Research Center (CR-CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: remi.rabasa-lhoret@ircm.qc.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study explores the reliability and validity of the SenseWear Armband (SWA) and Actical (ACT) for free-living total energy expenditure, and energy expenditure during rest and light-to-moderate exercises (walking, ergocycling). DESIGN: Participants wore the 2 devices during 7 days (free-living) and then participated to 3 days of testing in our laboratory. METHODS: SWA and ACT estimates of total energy expenditure was compared to the doubly labeled water technique (7 days), and energy expenditure during rest (60min), treadmill (45min; intensities ∼22% to ∼41% VO2peak) and ergocycling (45min; ∼50% VO2peak) were compared to indirect calorimetry over the following 3 days. Paired T-tests and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence interval (CI95) were computed. RESULTS: Twenty adults were recruited (BMI 23.1±2.3kg/m(2)). Compared to doubly labelled water, SWA overestimated energy expenditure by 94kcal/d (±319; P=0.2) and ACT underestimated by -244kcal/d (±258; P=0.001). Energy expenditure during rest (SWA 210±116, ACT 124±133kcal/d; p<0.05) and treadmill (according on intensity: SWA 54±46 to 67±38, ACT 68±25 to 84±40kcal; p<0.05) were overestimated and underestimated during ergocycling (SWA -93±65, ACT -269±111kcal; p<0.05) compared to indirect calorimetry. High ICC were observed at rest (SWA 0.994 CI95 0.987-0.997; ACT 0.998 CI95 0.996-0.999) and during ergocycling (SWA 0.941 CI95 0.873-0.975; ACT 0.854 CI95 0.687-0.939). CONCLUSION: Acceptable estimation of total energy expenditure was observed with the SWA. Both devices were reliable but not accurate for energy expenditure's estimations during rest and for specific exercises.
OBJECTIVES: This study explores the reliability and validity of the SenseWear Armband (SWA) and Actical (ACT) for free-living total energy expenditure, and energy expenditure during rest and light-to-moderate exercises (walking, ergocycling). DESIGN:Participants wore the 2 devices during 7 days (free-living) and then participated to 3 days of testing in our laboratory. METHODS:SWA and ACT estimates of total energy expenditure was compared to the doubly labeled water technique (7 days), and energy expenditure during rest (60min), treadmill (45min; intensities ∼22% to ∼41% VO2peak) and ergocycling (45min; ∼50% VO2peak) were compared to indirect calorimetry over the following 3 days. Paired T-tests and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence interval (CI95) were computed. RESULTS: Twenty adults were recruited (BMI 23.1±2.3kg/m(2)). Compared to doubly labelled water, SWA overestimated energy expenditure by 94kcal/d (±319; P=0.2) and ACT underestimated by -244kcal/d (±258; P=0.001). Energy expenditure during rest (SWA 210±116, ACT 124±133kcal/d; p<0.05) and treadmill (according on intensity: SWA 54±46 to 67±38, ACT 68±25 to 84±40kcal; p<0.05) were overestimated and underestimated during ergocycling (SWA -93±65, ACT -269±111kcal; p<0.05) compared to indirect calorimetry. High ICC were observed at rest (SWA 0.994 CI95 0.987-0.997; ACT 0.998 CI95 0.996-0.999) and during ergocycling (SWA 0.941 CI95 0.873-0.975; ACT 0.854 CI95 0.687-0.939). CONCLUSION: Acceptable estimation of total energy expenditure was observed with the SWA. Both devices were reliable but not accurate for energy expenditure's estimations during rest and for specific exercises.
Authors: T Amorim; C Durães; J C Machado; G S Metsios; M Wyon; J Maia; A D Flouris; F Marques; L Nogueira; N Adubeiro; Y Koutedakis Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sanchit Kumar; Angela M Victoria-Castro; Hannah Melchinger; Kyle D O'Connor; Mitchell Psotka; Nihar R Desai; Tariq Ahmad; F Perry Wilson Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2022-09-09 Impact factor: 3.216
Authors: A Tanriverdi; B Ozcan Kahraman; I Ozsoy; F Bayraktar; B Ozgen Saydam; S Acar; E Ozpelit; B Akdeniz; S Savci Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Tânia Amorim; Laura Freitas; George S Metsios; Thayse Natacha Gomes; Matthew Wyon; Andreas D Flouris; José Maia; Franklim Marques; Luísa Nogueira; Nuno Adubeiro; Yiannis Koutedakis Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Michelle Laeremans; Evi Dons; Ione Avila-Palencia; Glòria Carrasco-Turigas; Juan Pablo Orjuela; Esther Anaya; Christian Brand; Tom Cole-Hunter; Audrey de Nazelle; Thomas Götschi; Sonja Kahlmeier; Mark Nieuwenhuijsen; Arnout Standaert; Patrick De Boever; Luc Int Panis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 3.240