What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cross-Sectional. Population: Exercise monitoring (n=50). Intervention: Wearable activity monitors vs. ECG and metabolic analyzer. Primary outcome: Validity of heart rate and energy expenditure (mean absolute percent error ≤10%).

What does this research mean for the field?

Wearable activity monitors exhibit varying validity for heart rate measurement during cycling and resistance exercise, with accuracy decreasing at higher intensities, and no device provides valid estimates for energy expenditure. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To determine the validity of commercial wearable activity monitors for measuring heart rate against electrocardiography and energy expenditure against a metabolic analyzer during graded cycling and resistance exercise.

November 17, 2017Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Validity of Wearable Activity Monitors during Cycling and Resistance Exercise

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Wearable activity monitors showed varying heart rate validity during exercise (Apple Watch Series 2 cycling MAPE 4.14%), but no device was valid for energy expenditure.

Why the study?

Are wearable activity monitors valid for measuring heart rate and energy expenditure compared to ECG and metabolic analyzer during cycling and resistance exercise?

Population

50 subjects (28 women, 22 men)

Comparison

Wearable activity monitors vs ECG for heart rate and metabolic analyzer for…

Design

Cross-sectional

Authors

BBBenjamin D. BoudreauxUniversity of Alabama EHEdward HébertSoutheastern Louisiana University DHDaniel HollanderRutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Wearables warrant caution for energy expenditure estimates during exercise; leaves open need for device-specific prospective validation.

Key Points

To determine the validity of commercial wearable activity monitors for measuring heart rate against electrocardiography and energy expenditure against a metabolic analyzer during graded cycling and resistance exercise.
Fifty subjects (28 women, 22 men) completed graded cycling protocols and three sets of four resistance exercises at a 10-repetition-maximum load.
Evaluated eight wearable devices against electrocardiography for heart rate and seven devices against indirect calorimetry for energy expenditure, defining validity as a mean absolute percent error (MAPE) of 10% or less.
Polar H7 and Bose SoundSport Pulse were valid for heart rate across both exercise types, with Apple Watch Series 2 demonstrating highest accuracy during cycling (MAPE = 4.14%, R = 0.80) and Bose SoundSport Pulse highest during resistance exercise (MAPE = 6.24%, R = 0.86).
Heart rate underestimation increased across all devices as exercise intensity rose, and no device met validity criteria for energy expenditure during cycling or resistance training.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=50)

Structured PICO

Are wearable activity monitors valid for measuring heart rate and energy expenditure compared to ECG and metabolic analyzer during cycling and resistance exercise?

Population

50 subjects (28 women, 22 men)

Intervention

Wearable activity monitors (Apple Watch Series 2, Fitbit Blaze, Fitbit Charge 2, Polar H7, Polar A360, Garmin Vivosmart HR, TomTom Touch, and Bose SoundSport Pulse headphones)

Comparator

ECG for heart rate and metabolic analyzer for energy expenditure

Outcome

Validity of heart rate (HR) and caloric (energy) expenditure (EE) readings (defined as mean absolute percent error ≤10%)surrogate

Wearable devices show variable accuracy for heart rate monitoring depending on exercise intensity and mode, and are inaccurate for energy expenditure estimation.

Cite This Study

Boudreaux et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Exercise monitoring (n=50). Wearable activity monitors vs. ECG and metabolic analyzer was evaluated on Validity of heart rate and energy expenditure (mean absolute percent error ≤10%). Wearable activity monitors showed varying heart rate validity during exercise (Apple Watch Series 2 cycling MAPE 4.14%), but no device was valid for energy expenditure.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a17054bb13aec50ea6bc4b9 https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000001471

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Validity of Wearable Activity Monitors during Cycling and Resistance Exercise

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Validity of Wearable Activity Monitors during Cycling and Resistance Exercise

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider