Agreement between the Apple Series 1, LifeTrak Core C200, and Fitbit Charge HR with Indirect Calorimetry for Assessing Treadmill Energy Expenditure

The purpose of this study was to examine agreement in energy expenditure between the Apple Series 1 Watch, LifeTrak Core C200, and Fitbit Charge HR with indirect calorimetry during various treadmill speeds in young adults. Participants were a sample of college-aged students (mean age = 20.1 (1.7) years; 13 females, 17 males). Participants completed six structured 10-minute exercise sessions on a treadmill with speeds ranging from 53.6 m·min(−1) to 187.7 m·min(−1). Indirect calorimetry was used as the criterion. Participants wore the Apple Watch, LifeTrak, and Fitbit activity monitors on their wrists. Group-level agreement was examined using equivalence testing, relative agreement was examined using Spearman’s rho, and individual-level agreement was examined using Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) and Bland-Altman Plots. Activity monitor agreement with indirect calorimetry was supported using the Apple Watch at 160.9 m·min(−1) (Mean difference = −2.7 kcals, 90% C.I.: −8.3 kcals, 2.8 kcals; MAPE = 11.9%; r(s) = 0.64) and 187.7 m·min(−1) (Mean difference = 3.7 kcals, 90% C.I.: −2.2 kcals, 9.7 kcals; MAPE = 10.7%; r(s) = 0.72) and the Fitbit at 187.7 m·min(−1) (Mean difference = −0.2 kcals, 90% C.I.: −8.8 kcals, 8.5 kcals; MAPE = 20.1%; r(s) = 0.44). No evidence for statistical equivalence was seen for the LifeTrak at any speed. Bland-Altman Plot Limits of Agreement were narrower for the Apple Series 1 Watch compared to other monitors, especially at slower treadmill speeds. The results support the utility of the Apple Series 1 Watch and Fitbit Charge HR for assessing energy expenditure during specific treadmill running speeds in young adults.