Loading…
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...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Frontiers in physiology 2017-09, Vol.8, p.725-725 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| 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!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-463ff29b74cbc1b272d270e3ba944813dde1a15ab6af9fb40dde57cd2bbf3d363 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-463ff29b74cbc1b272d270e3ba944813dde1a15ab6af9fb40dde57cd2bbf3d363 |
| container_end_page | 725 |
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 725 |
| container_title | Frontiers in physiology |
| container_volume | 8 |
| creator | Wahl, Yvonne Düking, Peter Droszez, Anna Wahl, Patrick Mester, Joachim |
| description | 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 ( |
| doi_str_mv | 10.3389/fphys.2017.00725 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_f17631d623cc4c4399fb69d02316582a</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_f17631d623cc4c4399fb69d02316582a</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>1950182434</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-463ff29b74cbc1b272d270e3ba944813dde1a15ab6af9fb40dde57cd2bbf3d363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkk1v1DAQhiMEolXpnRPykQNZ_BVnc0FaLUupVAmkFsTNcuzJ1sWJg-2s2F_DX62zW6rWl7HGM887I79F8ZbgBWPL5mM33u7jgmJSLzCuafWiOCVC8BJz-uvlk_tJcR7jHc6HY4oxeV2c0AaTJauq0-LfOtgEwfqh_KmcNTbtke_Q2vc9BG2Vc3u02inrVOsAfc-KViuHVjrZ3Vx7E5T-DQEljzYx2V4lQNcJxkyYhvQhhx0EMOizjUkNGpAaDNoMELZ7tPk7wpAVpwDITMEOW3Q9-pBi7przeaj4pnjVKRfh_CGeFT--bG7WX8urbxeX69VVqbmgqeSCdR1t2prrVpOW1tTQGgNrVcP5kjBjgChSqVaorulajnOiqrWhbdsxwwQ7Ky6PXOPVnRxD3iTspVdWHhI-bKUKyWoHsiO1YMQIyrTmmrMmA0VjMGVEVEuqMuvTkTVObQ9Gw5CCcs-gz18Geyu3ficrQSqGeQa8fwAE_2eCmGRvowbn1AB-ipI0Vf4_ytlcio-lOvgYA3SPMgTL2SbyYBM520QebJJb3j0d77HhvynYPZEwvk8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1950182434</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Criterion-Validity of Commercially Available Physical Activity Tracker to Estimate Step Count, Covered Distance and Energy Expenditure during Sports Conditions</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><creator>Wahl, Yvonne ; Düking, Peter ; Droszez, Anna ; Wahl, Patrick ; Mester, Joachim</creator><creatorcontrib>Wahl, Yvonne ; Düking, Peter ; Droszez, Anna ; Wahl, Patrick ; Mester, Joachim</creatorcontrib><description>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 (<0.1) and high MAPE (up to 50%), revealing no good validity. The measurement of EE was acceptable for the Garmin, Fitbit and Withings Wearables (small to moderate MAPE), while Bodymedia Sensewear, Polar Loop, and Beurer AS80 showed a high MAPE up to 56% for all test conditions.
In our study, most Wearables provide an acceptable level of validity for step counts at different constant and intermittent running velocities reflecting sports conditions. However, the covered distance, as well as the EE could not be assessed validly with the investigated Wearables. Consequently, covered distance and EE should not be monitored with the presented Wearables, in sport specific conditions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1664-042X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1664-042X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00725</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29018355</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: Frontiers Media S.A</publisher><subject>athletes ; biofeedback ; monitoring ; Physiology ; validity ; wearables</subject><ispartof>Frontiers in physiology, 2017-09, Vol.8, p.725-725</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 Wahl, Düking, Droszez, Wahl and Mester. 2017 Wahl, Düking, Droszez, Wahl and Mester</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-463ff29b74cbc1b272d270e3ba944813dde1a15ab6af9fb40dde57cd2bbf3d363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-463ff29b74cbc1b272d270e3ba944813dde1a15ab6af9fb40dde57cd2bbf3d363</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615304/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615304/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29018355$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wahl, Yvonne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Düking, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Droszez, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wahl, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mester, Joachim</creatorcontrib><title>Criterion-Validity of Commercially Available Physical Activity Tracker to Estimate Step Count, Covered Distance and Energy Expenditure during Sports Conditions</title><title>Frontiers in physiology</title><addtitle>Front Physiol</addtitle><description>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 (<0.1) and high MAPE (up to 50%), revealing no good validity. The measurement of EE was acceptable for the Garmin, Fitbit and Withings Wearables (small to moderate MAPE), while Bodymedia Sensewear, Polar Loop, and Beurer AS80 showed a high MAPE up to 56% for all test conditions.
In our study, most Wearables provide an acceptable level of validity for step counts at different constant and intermittent running velocities reflecting sports conditions. However, the covered distance, as well as the EE could not be assessed validly with the investigated Wearables. Consequently, covered distance and EE should not be monitored with the presented Wearables, in sport specific conditions.</description><subject>athletes</subject><subject>biofeedback</subject><subject>monitoring</subject><subject>Physiology</subject><subject>validity</subject><subject>wearables</subject><issn>1664-042X</issn><issn>1664-042X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkk1v1DAQhiMEolXpnRPykQNZ_BVnc0FaLUupVAmkFsTNcuzJ1sWJg-2s2F_DX62zW6rWl7HGM887I79F8ZbgBWPL5mM33u7jgmJSLzCuafWiOCVC8BJz-uvlk_tJcR7jHc6HY4oxeV2c0AaTJauq0-LfOtgEwfqh_KmcNTbtke_Q2vc9BG2Vc3u02inrVOsAfc-KViuHVjrZ3Vx7E5T-DQEljzYx2V4lQNcJxkyYhvQhhx0EMOizjUkNGpAaDNoMELZ7tPk7wpAVpwDITMEOW3Q9-pBi7przeaj4pnjVKRfh_CGeFT--bG7WX8urbxeX69VVqbmgqeSCdR1t2prrVpOW1tTQGgNrVcP5kjBjgChSqVaorulajnOiqrWhbdsxwwQ7Ky6PXOPVnRxD3iTspVdWHhI-bKUKyWoHsiO1YMQIyrTmmrMmA0VjMGVEVEuqMuvTkTVObQ9Gw5CCcs-gz18Geyu3ficrQSqGeQa8fwAE_2eCmGRvowbn1AB-ipI0Vf4_ytlcio-lOvgYA3SPMgTL2SbyYBM520QebJJb3j0d77HhvynYPZEwvk8</recordid><startdate>20170922</startdate><enddate>20170922</enddate><creator>Wahl, Yvonne</creator><creator>Düking, Peter</creator><creator>Droszez, Anna</creator><creator>Wahl, Patrick</creator><creator>Mester, Joachim</creator><general>Frontiers Media S.A</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170922</creationdate><title>Criterion-Validity of Commercially Available Physical Activity Tracker to Estimate Step Count, Covered Distance and Energy Expenditure during Sports Conditions</title><author>Wahl, Yvonne ; Düking, Peter ; Droszez, Anna ; Wahl, Patrick ; Mester, Joachim</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-463ff29b74cbc1b272d270e3ba944813dde1a15ab6af9fb40dde57cd2bbf3d363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>athletes</topic><topic>biofeedback</topic><topic>monitoring</topic><topic>Physiology</topic><topic>validity</topic><topic>wearables</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wahl, Yvonne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Düking, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Droszez, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wahl, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mester, Joachim</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Frontiers in physiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wahl, Yvonne</au><au>Düking, Peter</au><au>Droszez, Anna</au><au>Wahl, Patrick</au><au>Mester, Joachim</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Criterion-Validity of Commercially Available Physical Activity Tracker to Estimate Step Count, Covered Distance and Energy Expenditure during Sports Conditions</atitle><jtitle>Frontiers in physiology</jtitle><addtitle>Front Physiol</addtitle><date>2017-09-22</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>8</volume><spage>725</spage><epage>725</epage><pages>725-725</pages><issn>1664-042X</issn><eissn>1664-042X</eissn><abstract>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 (<0.1) and high MAPE (up to 50%), revealing no good validity. The measurement of EE was acceptable for the Garmin, Fitbit and Withings Wearables (small to moderate MAPE), while Bodymedia Sensewear, Polar Loop, and Beurer AS80 showed a high MAPE up to 56% for all test conditions.
In our study, most Wearables provide an acceptable level of validity for step counts at different constant and intermittent running velocities reflecting sports conditions. However, the covered distance, as well as the EE could not be assessed validly with the investigated Wearables. Consequently, covered distance and EE should not be monitored with the presented Wearables, in sport specific conditions.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>Frontiers Media S.A</pub><pmid>29018355</pmid><doi>10.3389/fphys.2017.00725</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1664-042X |
| ispartof | Frontiers in physiology, 2017-09, Vol.8, p.725-725 |
| issn | 1664-042X 1664-042X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_f17631d623cc4c4399fb69d02316582a |
| source | Open Access: PubMed Central |
| subjects | athletes biofeedback monitoring Physiology validity wearables |
| title | Criterion-Validity of Commercially Available Physical Activity Tracker to Estimate Step Count, Covered Distance and Energy Expenditure during Sports Conditions |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T03%3A35%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Criterion-Validity%20of%20Commercially%20Available%20Physical%20Activity%20Tracker%20to%20Estimate%20Step%20Count,%20Covered%20Distance%20and%20Energy%20Expenditure%20during%20Sports%20Conditions&rft.jtitle=Frontiers%20in%20physiology&rft.au=Wahl,%20Yvonne&rft.date=2017-09-22&rft.volume=8&rft.spage=725&rft.epage=725&rft.pages=725-725&rft.issn=1664-042X&rft.eissn=1664-042X&rft_id=info:doi/10.3389/fphys.2017.00725&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E1950182434%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-463ff29b74cbc1b272d270e3ba944813dde1a15ab6af9fb40dde57cd2bbf3d363%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1950182434&rft_id=info:pmid/29018355&rfr_iscdi=true |