Cargando…

Validity of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers for Estimating VO(2max) and Energy Expenditure

Activity trackers are a simple and mostly low-priced method to capture physiological parameters. Despite the high number of wrist-worn devices, there is a lack of scientific validation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the activity trackers represent a valid alternative to gold-standa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Passler, Stefanie, Bohrer, Julian, Blöchinger, Lukas, Senner, Veit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31443347
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173037
_version_ 1783451830640967680
author Passler, Stefanie
Bohrer, Julian
Blöchinger, Lukas
Senner, Veit
author_facet Passler, Stefanie
Bohrer, Julian
Blöchinger, Lukas
Senner, Veit
author_sort Passler, Stefanie
collection PubMed
description Activity trackers are a simple and mostly low-priced method to capture physiological parameters. Despite the high number of wrist-worn devices, there is a lack of scientific validation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the activity trackers represent a valid alternative to gold-standard methods in terms of estimating energy expenditure (EE) and maximum oxygen uptake (VO(2max)). Twenty-four healthy subjects participated in this study. In total, five commercially available wrist-worn devices were tested with regard to their validity of EE and/or VO(2max). Estimated values were compared with indirect calorimetry. Validity of the activity trackers was determined by paired sample t-tests, mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE), Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots. Within the tested devices, differences in scattering in VO(2max) and EE could be observed. This results in a MAPE > 10% for all evaluations, except for the VO(2max)-estimation of the Garmin Forerunner 920XT (7.3%). The latter significantly underestimates the VO(2max) (t(23) = –2.37, p = 0.027), whereas the Garmin Vivosmart HR significantly overestimates the EE (t(23) = 2.44, p = 0.023). The tested devices did not show valid results concerning the estimation of VO(2max) and EE. Hence, the current wrist-worn activity trackers are most likely not accurate enough to be used for neither purposes in sports, nor in health care applications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6747132
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67471322019-09-27 Validity of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers for Estimating VO(2max) and Energy Expenditure Passler, Stefanie Bohrer, Julian Blöchinger, Lukas Senner, Veit Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Activity trackers are a simple and mostly low-priced method to capture physiological parameters. Despite the high number of wrist-worn devices, there is a lack of scientific validation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the activity trackers represent a valid alternative to gold-standard methods in terms of estimating energy expenditure (EE) and maximum oxygen uptake (VO(2max)). Twenty-four healthy subjects participated in this study. In total, five commercially available wrist-worn devices were tested with regard to their validity of EE and/or VO(2max). Estimated values were compared with indirect calorimetry. Validity of the activity trackers was determined by paired sample t-tests, mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE), Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots. Within the tested devices, differences in scattering in VO(2max) and EE could be observed. This results in a MAPE > 10% for all evaluations, except for the VO(2max)-estimation of the Garmin Forerunner 920XT (7.3%). The latter significantly underestimates the VO(2max) (t(23) = –2.37, p = 0.027), whereas the Garmin Vivosmart HR significantly overestimates the EE (t(23) = 2.44, p = 0.023). The tested devices did not show valid results concerning the estimation of VO(2max) and EE. Hence, the current wrist-worn activity trackers are most likely not accurate enough to be used for neither purposes in sports, nor in health care applications. MDPI 2019-08-22 2019-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6747132/ /pubmed/31443347 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173037 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Passler, Stefanie
Bohrer, Julian
Blöchinger, Lukas
Senner, Veit
Validity of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers for Estimating VO(2max) and Energy Expenditure
title Validity of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers for Estimating VO(2max) and Energy Expenditure
title_full Validity of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers for Estimating VO(2max) and Energy Expenditure
title_fullStr Validity of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers for Estimating VO(2max) and Energy Expenditure
title_full_unstemmed Validity of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers for Estimating VO(2max) and Energy Expenditure
title_short Validity of Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers for Estimating VO(2max) and Energy Expenditure
title_sort validity of wrist-worn activity trackers for estimating vo(2max) and energy expenditure
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31443347
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173037
work_keys_str_mv AT passlerstefanie validityofwristwornactivitytrackersforestimatingvo2maxandenergyexpenditure
AT bohrerjulian validityofwristwornactivitytrackersforestimatingvo2maxandenergyexpenditure
AT blochingerlukas validityofwristwornactivitytrackersforestimatingvo2maxandenergyexpenditure
AT sennerveit validityofwristwornactivitytrackersforestimatingvo2maxandenergyexpenditure