Cargando…

Validation of the Fitbit One(®) for physical activity measurement at an upper torso attachment site

BACKGROUND: The upper torso is recommended as an attachment site for the Fitbit One(®), one of the most common wireless physical activity trackers in the consumer market, and could represent a viable alternative to wrist- and hip-attachment sites. The objective of this study was to provide evidence...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Diaz, Keith M., Krupka, David J., Chang, Melinda J., Shaffer, Jonathan A., Ma, Yao, Goldsmith, Jeff, Schwartz, Joseph E., Davidson, Karina W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4828816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27068022
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2020-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The upper torso is recommended as an attachment site for the Fitbit One(®), one of the most common wireless physical activity trackers in the consumer market, and could represent a viable alternative to wrist- and hip-attachment sites. The objective of this study was to provide evidence concerning the validity of the Fitbit One(®) attached to the upper torso for measuring step counts and energy expenditure among female adults. RESULTS: Thirteen female adults completed a four-phase treadmill exercise protocol (1.9, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.2 mph). Participants were fitted with three Fitbit(®) trackers (two Fitbit One(®) trackers: one on the upper torso, one on the hip; and a wrist-based Fitbit Flex(®)). Steps were assessed by manual counting of a video recording. Energy expenditure was measured by gas exchange indirect calorimetry. Concordance correlation coefficients of Fitbit-estimated step counts to observed step counts for the upper torso-attached Fitbit One(®), hip-attached Fitbit One(®) and wrist-attached Fitbit Flex(®) were 0.98 (95 % CI 0.97–0.99), 0.99 (95 % CI 0.99–0.99), and 0.75 (95 % CI 0.70–0.79), respectively. The percent error for step count estimates from the upper torso attachment site was ≤3 % for all walking and running speeds. Upper torso step count estimates showed similar accuracy relative to hip attachment of the Fitbit One(®) and were more accurate than the wrist-based Fitbit Flex(®). Similar results were obtained for energy expenditure estimates. Energy expenditure estimates for the upper torso attachment site yielded relative percent errors that ranged from 9 to 19 % and were more accurate than the wrist-based Fitbit Flex(®), but less accurate than hip attachment of the Fitbit One(®). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that physical activity measures obtained from the upper torso attachment site of the Fitbit One(®) are accurate across different walking and running speeds in female adults. The upper torso attachment site of the Fitbit One(®) outperformed the wrist-based Fitbit Flex(®) and yielded similar step count estimates to hip-attachment. These data support the upper torso as an alternative attachment site for the Fitbit One(®).