Cargando…

Validity of three smartwatches in estimating energy expenditure during outdoor walking and running

Commercially wrist-worn devices often present inaccurate estimations of energy expenditure (EE), with large between-device differences. We aimed to assess the validity of the Apple Watch Series 6 (AW), Garmin FENIX 6 (GF) and Huawei Watch GT 2e (HW) in estimating EE during outdoor walking and runnin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Le, Shenglong, Wang, Xiuqiang, Zhang, Tao, Lei, Si Man, Cheng, Sulin, Yao, Wu, Schumann, Moritz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9549133/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36225296
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.995575
_version_ 1784805599749341184
author Le, Shenglong
Wang, Xiuqiang
Zhang, Tao
Lei, Si Man
Cheng, Sulin
Yao, Wu
Schumann, Moritz
author_facet Le, Shenglong
Wang, Xiuqiang
Zhang, Tao
Lei, Si Man
Cheng, Sulin
Yao, Wu
Schumann, Moritz
author_sort Le, Shenglong
collection PubMed
description Commercially wrist-worn devices often present inaccurate estimations of energy expenditure (EE), with large between-device differences. We aimed to assess the validity of the Apple Watch Series 6 (AW), Garmin FENIX 6 (GF) and Huawei Watch GT 2e (HW) in estimating EE during outdoor walking and running. Twenty young normal-weight Chinese adults concurrently wore three index devices randomly positioned at both wrists during walking at 6 km/h and running at 10 km/h for 2 km on a 400- meter track. As a criterion, EE was assessed by indirect calorimetry (COSMED K5). For walking, EE from AW and GF was significantly higher than that obtained by the K5 (p < 0.001 and 0.002, respectively), but not for HW (p = 0.491). The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was 19.8% for AW, 32.0% for GF, and 9.9% for HW, respectively. The limits of agreement (LoA) were 44.1, 150.1 and 48.6 kcal for AW, GF, and HW respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.821, 0.216 and 0.760 for AW, GF, and HW, respectively. For running, EE from AW and GF were significantly higher than the K5 (p < 0.001 and 0.001, respectively), but not for HW (p = 0.946). The MAPE was 24.4%, 21.8% and 11.9% for AW, GF and HW, respectively. LoA were 62.8, 89.4 and 65.6 kcal for AW, GF and HW, respectively. The ICC was 0.741, 0.594, and 0.698 for AW, GF and HW, respectively. The results indicate that the tested smartwatches show a moderate validity in EE estimations for outdoor walking and running.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9549133
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95491332022-10-11 Validity of three smartwatches in estimating energy expenditure during outdoor walking and running Le, Shenglong Wang, Xiuqiang Zhang, Tao Lei, Si Man Cheng, Sulin Yao, Wu Schumann, Moritz Front Physiol Physiology Commercially wrist-worn devices often present inaccurate estimations of energy expenditure (EE), with large between-device differences. We aimed to assess the validity of the Apple Watch Series 6 (AW), Garmin FENIX 6 (GF) and Huawei Watch GT 2e (HW) in estimating EE during outdoor walking and running. Twenty young normal-weight Chinese adults concurrently wore three index devices randomly positioned at both wrists during walking at 6 km/h and running at 10 km/h for 2 km on a 400- meter track. As a criterion, EE was assessed by indirect calorimetry (COSMED K5). For walking, EE from AW and GF was significantly higher than that obtained by the K5 (p < 0.001 and 0.002, respectively), but not for HW (p = 0.491). The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was 19.8% for AW, 32.0% for GF, and 9.9% for HW, respectively. The limits of agreement (LoA) were 44.1, 150.1 and 48.6 kcal for AW, GF, and HW respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.821, 0.216 and 0.760 for AW, GF, and HW, respectively. For running, EE from AW and GF were significantly higher than the K5 (p < 0.001 and 0.001, respectively), but not for HW (p = 0.946). The MAPE was 24.4%, 21.8% and 11.9% for AW, GF and HW, respectively. LoA were 62.8, 89.4 and 65.6 kcal for AW, GF and HW, respectively. The ICC was 0.741, 0.594, and 0.698 for AW, GF and HW, respectively. The results indicate that the tested smartwatches show a moderate validity in EE estimations for outdoor walking and running. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9549133/ /pubmed/36225296 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.995575 Text en Copyright © 2022 Le, Wang, Zhang, Lei, Cheng, Yao and Schumann. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Physiology
Le, Shenglong
Wang, Xiuqiang
Zhang, Tao
Lei, Si Man
Cheng, Sulin
Yao, Wu
Schumann, Moritz
Validity of three smartwatches in estimating energy expenditure during outdoor walking and running
title Validity of three smartwatches in estimating energy expenditure during outdoor walking and running
title_full Validity of three smartwatches in estimating energy expenditure during outdoor walking and running
title_fullStr Validity of three smartwatches in estimating energy expenditure during outdoor walking and running
title_full_unstemmed Validity of three smartwatches in estimating energy expenditure during outdoor walking and running
title_short Validity of three smartwatches in estimating energy expenditure during outdoor walking and running
title_sort validity of three smartwatches in estimating energy expenditure during outdoor walking and running
topic Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9549133/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36225296
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.995575
work_keys_str_mv AT leshenglong validityofthreesmartwatchesinestimatingenergyexpenditureduringoutdoorwalkingandrunning
AT wangxiuqiang validityofthreesmartwatchesinestimatingenergyexpenditureduringoutdoorwalkingandrunning
AT zhangtao validityofthreesmartwatchesinestimatingenergyexpenditureduringoutdoorwalkingandrunning
AT leisiman validityofthreesmartwatchesinestimatingenergyexpenditureduringoutdoorwalkingandrunning
AT chengsulin validityofthreesmartwatchesinestimatingenergyexpenditureduringoutdoorwalkingandrunning
AT yaowu validityofthreesmartwatchesinestimatingenergyexpenditureduringoutdoorwalkingandrunning
AT schumannmoritz validityofthreesmartwatchesinestimatingenergyexpenditureduringoutdoorwalkingandrunning