Estimating Accuracy at Exercise Intensities: A Comparative Study of Self-Monitoring Heart Rate and Physical Activity Wearable Devices
Physical activity tracking wearable devices have emerged as an increasingly popular method for consumers to assess their daily activity and calories expended. However, whether these wearable devices are valid at different levels of exercise intensity is unknown. The objective of this study was to ex...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2017-03, Vol.5 (3), p.e34-e34 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Physical activity tracking wearable devices have emerged as an increasingly popular method for consumers to assess their daily activity and calories expended. However, whether these wearable devices are valid at different levels of exercise intensity is unknown.
The objective of this study was to examine heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) validity of 3 popular wrist-worn activity monitors at different exercise intensities.
A total of 62 participants (females: 58%, 36/62; nonwhite: 47% [13/62 Hispanic, 8/62 Asian, 7/62 black/ African American, 1/62 other]) wore the Apple Watch, Fitbit Charge HR, and Garmin Forerunner 225. Validity was assessed using 2 criterion devices: HR chest strap and a metabolic cart. Participants completed a 10-minute seated baseline assessment; separate 4-minute stages of light-, moderate-, and vigorous-intensity treadmill exercises; and a 10-minute seated recovery period. Data from devices were compared with each criterion via two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis. Differences are expressed in mean absolute percentage error (MAPE).
For the Apple Watch, HR MAPE was between 1.14% and 6.70%. HR was not significantly different at the start (P=.78), during baseline (P=.76), or vigorous intensity (P=.84); lower HR readings were measured during light intensity (P=.03), moderate intensity (P=.001), and recovery (P=.004). EE MAPE was between 14.07% and 210.84%. The device measured higher EE at all stages (P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2291-5222 2291-5222 |
DOI: | 10.2196/mhealth.7043 |