Criterion-Validity of Commercially Available Physical Activity Tracker to Estimate Step Count, Covered Distance and Energy Expenditure during Sports Conditions

In the past years, there was an increasing development of physical activity tracker (Wearables). For recreational people, testing of these devices under walking or light jogging conditions might be sufficient. For (elite) athletes, however, scientific trustworthiness needs to be given for a broad sp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Frontiers in physiology 2017-09, Vol.8, p.725-725
Main Authors: Wahl, Yvonne, Düking, Peter, Droszez, Anna, Wahl, Patrick, Mester, Joachim
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
athletes
biofeedback
monitoring
Physiology
validity
wearables
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the past years, there was an increasing development of physical activity tracker (Wearables). For recreational people, testing of these devices under walking or light jogging conditions might be sufficient. For (elite) athletes, however, scientific trustworthiness needs to be given for a broad spectrum of velocities or even fast changes in velocities reflecting the demands of the sport. Therefore, the aim was to evaluate the validity of eleven Wearables for monitoring step count, covered distance and energy expenditure (EE) under laboratory conditions with different constant and varying velocities. Twenty healthy sport students (10 men, 10 women) performed a running protocol consisting of four 5 min stages of different constant velocities (4.3; 7.2; 10.1; 13.0 km·h ), a 5 min period of intermittent velocity, and a 2.4 km outdoor run (10.1 km·h ) while wearing eleven different Wearables (Bodymedia Sensewear, Beurer AS 80, Polar Loop, Garmin Vivofit, Garmin Vivosmart, Garmin Vivoactive, Garmin Forerunner 920XT, Fitbit Charge, Fitbit Charge HR, Xaomi MiBand, Withings Pulse O ). Step count, covered distance, and EE were evaluated by comparing each Wearable with a criterion method (Optogait system and manual counting for step count, treadmill for covered distance and indirect calorimetry for EE). All Wearables, except Bodymedia Sensewear, Polar Loop, and Beurer AS80, revealed good validity (small MAPE, good ICC) for all constant and varying velocities for monitoring step count. For covered distance, all Wearables showed a very low ICC (
ISSN:1664-042X
1664-042X
DOI:10.3389/fphys.2017.00725