Validity of Cardiorespiratory Fitness Measured with Fitbit Compared to V˙O(2max)

PURPOSE: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), broadly defined as the body’s ability to utilize oxygen, is a well-established prognostic marker of health, but it is not routinely measured. This may be due to the difficulty of acquiring high-quality CRF measures. The purpose of this study was to independently determine the validity of the Fitbit Charge 2’s measure of CRF (Fitbit CRF). METHODS: Sixty-five healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 45 yr (55% female, 45% male) were recruited to undergo gold standard V˙O(2max) testing and wear a Fitbit Charge 2 continuously for 1 wk during which they were instructed to complete a qualifying outdoor run to derive the Fitbit CRF (units: mL·kg(−1)·min(−1)). This measure was compared with V˙O(2max) measures (units: mL·kg(−1)·min(−1)) epoched at 15 and 60 s. RESULTS: Bland–Altman analyses revealed that Fitbit CRF had a positive bias of 1.59 mL·kg(−1)·min(−1) compared with laboratory data epoched at 15 s and 0.30 mL·kg(−1)·min(−1) compared with data epoched at 60 s (n = 60). F statistics (2.09; 0.08) and P values (0.133; 0.926) from Bradley–Blackwood tests for the concordance of Fitbit CRF with 15- and 60-s laboratory data, respectively, support the null hypothesis of equal means and variances, indicating there is concordance between the two measures. Mean absolute percentage error was less than 10% for each comparison. CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbit Charge 2 provides an acceptable level of validity when measuring CRF in young, healthy, and fit adults who are able to run. Further research is required to determine if it is a potentially useful tool in clinical practice and epidemiological research to quantify, categorize, and longitudinally track risk for adverse outcomes.