Wrist-Worn Wearables for Monitoring Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure While Sitting or Performing Light-to-Vigorous Physical Activity: Validation Study

Background Physical activity reduces the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality, but an inactive lifestyle is becoming increasingly common. Innovative approaches to monitor and promote physical activity are warranted. While individual monitoring of physical activity aids in the design of effective interventions to enhance physical activity, a basic prerequisite is that the monitoring devices exhibit high validity. Objective Our goal was to assess the validity of monitoring heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity with 4 popular wrist-worn wearables (Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa). Methods While wearing the 4 different wearables, 25 individuals performed 5 minutes each of sitting, walking, and running at different velocities (ie, 1.1 m/s, 1.9 m/s, 2.7 m/s, 3.6 m/s, and 4.1 m/s), as well as intermittent sprints. HR and EE were compared to common criterion measures: Polar-H7 chest belt for HR and indirect calorimetry for EE. Results While monitoring HR at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.09-0.62, 0.13-0.88, 0.62-1.24, and 0.47-1.94 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 0.9%-4.3%, 2.2%-6.7%, 2.9%-9.2%, and 4.1%-19.1%, respectively, for the 4 wearables. While monitoring EE at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.34-1.84, 0.32-1.33, 0.46-4.86, and 0.41-1.65 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 13.5%-27.1%, 16.3%-28.0%, 15.9%-34.5%, and 8.0%-32.3%, respectively. Conclusions The Apple Watch Series 4 provides the highest validity (ie, smallest error rates) when measuring HR while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity, followed by the Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, in that order. The Apple Watch Series 4 and Polar Vantage V are suitable for valid HR measurements at the intensities tested, but HR data provided by the Garmin Fenix 5 and Fitbit Versa should be interpreted with caution due to higher error rates at certain intensities. None of the 4 wrist-worn wearables should be employed to monitor EE at the intensities and durations tested.

[1]  Heikki Kyröläinen,et al.  Training-induced changes in daily energy expenditure: Methodological evaluation using wrist-worn accelerometer, heart rate monitor, and doubly labeled water technique , 2019, PloS one.

[2]  O. Hue,et al.  Validation of a Photoplethysmographic Heart Rate Monitor: Polar OH1 , 2019, International Journal of Sports Medicine.

[3]  Youngwon Kim,et al.  Concurrent validity of the Fitbit for assessing sedentary behavior and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity , 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[4]  Kaigang Li,et al.  Heart rate measures from the Apple Watch, Fitbit Charge HR 2, and electrocardiogram across different exercise intensities , 2019, Journal of sports sciences.

[5]  E. Jenkins,et al.  Do stair climbing exercise "snacks" improve cardiorespiratory fitness? , 2019, Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme.

[6]  Monique Simons,et al.  The Effect of Physical Activity Interventions Comprising Wearables and Smartphone Applications on Physical Activity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2018, Sports Medicine - Open.

[7]  Paul Hibbing,et al.  Comparative evaluation of heart rate-based monitors: Apple Watch vs Fitbit Charge HR , 2018, Journal of sports sciences.

[8]  Matthew M. Schubert,et al.  The Polar ® OH1 Optical Heart Rate Sensor is Valid during Moderate-Vigorous Exercise , 2018, Sports Medicine International Open.

[9]  Billy Sperlich,et al.  Integrated Framework of Load Monitoring by a Combination of Smartphone Applications, Wearables and Point-of-Care Testing Provides Feedback that Allows Individual Responsive Adjustments to Activities of Daily Living , 2018, Sensors.

[10]  Franz Konstantin Fuss,et al.  Recommendations for Assessment of the Reliability, Sensitivity, and Validity of Data Provided by Wearable Sensors Designed for Monitoring Physical Activity , 2018, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[11]  D. Hollander,et al.  Validity of Wearable Activity Monitors during Cycling and Resistance Exercise , 2017, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[12]  Grant Abt,et al.  Validity and Reliability of the Apple Watch for Measuring Heart Rate During Exercise , 2017, Sports Medicine International Open.

[13]  Patrick Wahl,et al.  Criterion-Validity of Commercially Available Physical Activity Tracker to Estimate Step Count, Covered Distance and Energy Expenditure during Sports Conditions , 2017, Front. Physiol..

[14]  E. Dooley,et al.  Estimating Accuracy at Exercise Intensities: A Comparative Study of Self-Monitoring Heart Rate and Physical Activity Wearable Devices , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[15]  Billy Sperlich,et al.  Wearable, yes, but able…?: it is time for evidence-based marketing claims! , 2016, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[16]  Franz Konstantin Fuss,et al.  Comparison of Non-Invasive Individual Monitoring of the Training and Health of Athletes with Commercially Available Wearable Technologies , 2016, Front. Physiol..

[17]  M. Mitchell Waldrop,et al.  The chips are down for Moore’s law , 2016, Nature.

[18]  R. Furberg,et al.  Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers , 2015, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[19]  Hans Braun,et al.  Assessing energy expenditure in male endurance athletes: validity of the SenseWear Armband. , 2011, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[20]  Walter R. Thompson,et al.  WORLDWIDE SURVEY OF FITNESS TRENDS FOR 2019 , 2018, ACSM'S Health & Fitness Journal.

[21]  Stephen Seiler,et al.  What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes? , 2010, International journal of sports physiology and performance.

[22]  C. Gore,et al.  Validity and reliability of the Cortex MetaMax3B portable metabolic system , 2010, Journal of sports sciences.

[23]  Bryan K. Smith,et al.  American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Appropriate physical activity intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults. , 2009, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[24]  T. Noakes,et al.  Prediction of energy expenditure from heart rate monitoring during submaximal exercise , 2005, Journal of sports sciences.

[25]  S G Trost,et al.  Objective Measurement of Physical Activity in Youth: Current Issues, Future Directions , 2001, Exercise and sport sciences reviews.

[26]  B E Ainsworth,et al.  Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. , 2000, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[27]  B. Sperlich,et al.  The SpeedCourt: Reliability, Usefulness, and Validity of a New Method to Determine Change-of-Direction Speed. , 2016, International journal of sports physiology and performance.

[28]  A. Batterham,et al.  Spreadsheets for Analysis of Validity and Reliability , 2015 .

[29]  D. J. van der Valk,et al.  How accurately can sitting and the intensity of walking and cycling be classified using an accelerometer on the waist for the purpose of the “Global recommendations on physical activity for health”? , 2015 .

[30]  C S Smith,et al.  Target heart rates for the development of cardiorespiratory fitness. , 1994, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.