PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 27, 2021European Journal of Sport Science83 citations

Wrist‐worn devices for the measurement of heart rate and energy expenditure: A validation study for the Apple Watch 6, Polar Vantage V and Fitbit Sense

View Full Paper
GHGuy Hajj‐BoutrosMLMarie-Anne Landry-DuvalACAlain Steve Comtois

Key Result

The Apple Watch 6 was the most accurate for measuring heart rate (CV <5%), whereas all three devices showed poor accuracy for energy expenditure (CVs 13.44-29.66%) across 5 physical activities.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=60)

Structured PICO

Do wrist-worn devices (Apple Watch 6, Polar Vantage V, Fitbit Sense) accurately measure heart rate and energy expenditure compared to reference devices in young healthy individuals?

P
Population
60 young healthy individuals (mean age 24.9 years, 50% female) evaluated for heart rate and energy expenditure accuracy during 5 different physical activities.
E
Exposure
Measurement using 3 wrist-worn devices (Apple Watch 6, Polar Vantage V, and Fitbit Sense) during 5 activities (sitting, walking, running, resistance exercises, and cycling)
C
Comparator
Reference measures (Polar H10 for heart rate and Metamax 3B for energy expenditure)
O
Outcome
Accuracy of heart rate and energy expenditure measurement (assessed by coefficient of variation)surrogate

The Apple Watch 6 provides accurate heart rate measurements across various physical activities, but current wrist-worn devices are inaccurate for estimating energy expenditure.

Abstract

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of 3 recently released wrist‐worn devices (Apple Watch 6, Polar Vantage V and Fitbit Sense) for heart rate and energy expenditure during various activities. The study population consisted of 60 young healthy individuals (30 men and 30 women; age: 24.9 ± 3.0 years, BMI: 23.1 ± 2.7 kg/m2). Heart rate and energy expenditure were measured using the Polar H10 and Metamax 3B, respectively (reference measures) as well as with the 3 wrist‐worn devices during 5 different activities (sitting, walking, running, resistance exercises and cycling). The Apple Watch 6 displayed the highest level of accuracy for heart rate measurement with a coefficient of variation (CV) (%) of less than 5% for all 5 activities, whereas the Polar Vantage V and the Fitbit Sense presented various degrees of accuracy (from high to poor accuracy) dependent on the activity (CVs between 2.44‐8.80% and 4.14‐10.76%, respectively). As for energy expenditure, all 3 devices displayed poor accuracy for all 5 physical activities (CVs between 14.68‐24.85% for Apple Watch 6, 16.54‐25.78% for Polar Vantage V and 13.44‐29.66% for Fitbit Sense). Results of the present study indicate that the Apple Watch 6 was the most accurate for measuring heart rate across all 5 activities, whereas variable levels of accuracy for heart rate measurement for the Polar Vantage V and the Fitbit Sense were observed depending on the activity. As for energy expenditure, all 3 devices showed poor accuracy during all activities. Highlights The Apple Watch 6 was the most accurate for measuring heart rate, whereas the Polar Vantage V and Fitbit Sense showed variable results dependent on the activity The Apple Watch 6, Polar Vantage V and Fitbit Sense showed poor accuracy for energy expenditure during 5 different physical activities Healthcare care professionals, athletes/coaches and the general population may want to proceed with caution on the clinical utility of energy expenditure of these devices during the implementation of an exercise training or nutritional programme.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hajj‐Boutros et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=60). Wrist-worn devices (Apple Watch 6, Polar Vantage V, Fitbit Sense) vs. Polar H10 and Metamax 3B (reference measures) was evaluated on Accuracy of heart rate and energy expenditure measurement (coefficient of variation). The Apple Watch 6 was the most accurate for measuring heart rate (CV <5%), whereas all three devices showed poor accuracy for energy expenditure (CVs 13.44-29.66%) across 5 physical activities.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a32c0e5aa3ef5b669e49837https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.2023656
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Validity of Wearable Activity Monitors during Cycling and Resistance Exercise2017 · 222 citations
  2. 2The Validity and Practicality of Sun-Reactive Skin Types I Through VI1988 · 3,393 citations
  3. 3Assessment of Physical Activity and Energy Expenditure: An Overview of Objective Measures2014 · 582 citations
  4. 4Validity and reliability of the Cortex MetaMax3B portable metabolic system2010 · 136 citations
  5. 5Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers2015 · 1,326 citations