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.
Keywords: activity monitor; assessment; physical activity.