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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |