Estimating Accuracy at Exercise Intensities: A Comparative Study of Self-Monitoring Heart Rate and Physical Activity Wearable Devices.
Estimating Accuracy at Exercise Intensities: A Comparative Study of Self-Monitoring Heart Rate and Physical Activity Wearable Devices.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/mhealth.7043
复制
发表时间：
2017-03-16
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Bartholomew JB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dooley EE;Golaszewski NM;Bartholomew JB
身体活动跟踪可穿戴设备已经成为消费者评估其日常活动和消耗的卡路里的越来越受欢迎的方法。然而，这些可穿戴设备是否在不同的运动强度水平下有效尚不清楚。摘要本研究旨在探讨三种常用腕式活动监测器在不同运动强度下对心率与能量消耗的有效性。共有62名参与者（女性：58%，36/62;非白人：47% [13/62西班牙裔，8/62亚裔，7/62黑人/非裔美国人，1/62其他]）佩戴Apple Watch，Fitbit Charge HR和Garmin Forerunner 225。使用2种标准设备评估有效性：HR胸带和代谢推车。参与者完成了10分钟的坐姿基线评估;单独的4分钟阶段的轻，中度和高强度跑步机运动;和10分钟的坐姿恢复期。通过双向重复测量方差分析和Bland-Altman分析将器械数据与每个标准进行比较。差异以平均绝对百分比误差（MAPE）表示。对于Apple Watch，HR MAPE在1.14%到6.70%之间。HR在开始（P=.78）、基线（P=.76）或剧烈强度（P=.84）时无显著差异;在轻度强度（P=.03）、中度强度（P=.001）和恢复期（P=.004）测得较低的HR读数。EE MAPE在14.07%~ 210.84%之间。该装置在所有阶段测量到更高的EE（P<0.01）。对于Fitbit器械，HR MAPE介于2.38%和16.99%之间。HR在开始时（P= 0.67）或中等强度（P= 0.34）没有显著差异;在基线、剧烈强度和恢复期间测得较低的HR读数（P<0.001），而在轻度强度期间测得较高的HR读数（P<0.001）。EE MAPE在16.85%~ 84.98%之间。该设备在基线（P= 0.003）、光强度（P<0.001）和中等强度（P= 0.001）时测量到更高的EE。EE在活力（P=.70）或恢复期（P=.10）无显著差异。对于Garmin Forerunner 225，HR MAPE在7.87%和24.38%之间。心率在剧烈运动强度下无显著差异（P= 0.35）。该装置在开始、基线、光强度、中等强度（P<0.001）和恢复（P= 0.04）时测量到更高的HR读数。EE MAPE在30.77%~ 155.05%之间。该装置在所有阶段测量到更高的EE（P<0.001）。这项研究为Fitbit Charge HR、Apple Watch和Garmin Forerunner 225提供了首批验证评估。该研究的一个优点和新方法是在特定的体力活动强度下检查HR和EE。建立可穿戴设备的有效性是特别感兴趣的，因为这些设备正在用于减肥干预，并可能影响结果。未来的研究应该调查为什么运动强度和设备之间存在差异。
Physical activity tracking wearable devices have emerged as an increasingly popular method for consumers to assess their daily activity and calories expended. However, whether these wearable devices are valid at different levels of exercise intensity is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) validity of 3 popular wrist-worn activity monitors at different exercise intensities. A total of 62 participants (females: 58%, 36/62; nonwhite: 47% [13/62 Hispanic, 8/62 Asian, 7/62 black/ African American, 1/62 other]) wore the Apple Watch, Fitbit Charge HR, and Garmin Forerunner 225. Validity was assessed using 2 criterion devices: HR chest strap and a metabolic cart. Participants completed a 10-minute seated baseline assessment; separate 4-minute stages of light-, moderate-, and vigorous-intensity treadmill exercises; and a 10-minute seated recovery period. Data from devices were compared with each criterion via two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis. Differences are expressed in mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). For the Apple Watch, HR MAPE was between 1.14% and 6.70%. HR was not significantly different at the start (P=.78), during baseline (P=.76), or vigorous intensity (P=.84); lower HR readings were measured during light intensity (P=.03), moderate intensity (P=.001), and recovery (P=.004). EE MAPE was between 14.07% and 210.84%. The device measured higher EE at all stages (P<.01). For the Fitbit device, the HR MAPE was between 2.38% and 16.99%. HR was not significantly different at the start (P=.67) or during moderate intensity (P=.34); lower HR readings were measured during baseline, vigorous intensity, and recovery (P<.001) and higher HR during light intensity (P<.001). EE MAPE was between 16.85% and 84.98%. The device measured higher EE at baseline (P=.003), light intensity (P<.001), and moderate intensity (P=.001). EE was not significantly different at vigorous (P=.70) or recovery (P=.10). For Garmin Forerunner 225, HR MAPE was between 7.87% and 24.38%. HR was not significantly different at vigorous intensity (P=.35). The device measured higher HR readings at start, baseline, light intensity, moderate intensity (P<.001), and recovery (P=.04). EE MAPE was between 30.77% and 155.05%. The device measured higher EE at all stages (P<.001). This study provides one of the first validation assessments for the Fitbit Charge HR, Apple Watch, and Garmin Forerunner 225. An advantage and novel approach of the study is the examination of HR and EE at specific physical activity intensities. Establishing validity of wearable devices is of particular interest as these devices are being used in weight loss interventions and could impact findings. Future research should investigate why differences between exercise intensities and the devices exist.