Accuracy of Consumer Monitors for Estimating Energy Expenditure and Activity Type. Issue 2 (February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: WOODMAN, JAMES A.; CROUTER, SCOTT E.; BASSETT, DAVID R.; FITZHUGH, EUGENE C.; BOYER, WILLIAM R.
• Is Part Of: Medicine and science in sports and exercise. Volume 49:Issue 2(2017)
• Publication Date: 2017-02
• Subjects: ACCELEROMETRY -- PUBLIC HEALTH -- OXYGEN CONSUMPTION -- INDIRECT CALORIMETRY -- VALIDATION -- ACTIVITY RECOGNITION; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Exercise -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Exercise -- Health aspects -- Periodicals; 612.044
• DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001090
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-9131

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Increasing use of consumer-based physical activity (PA) monitors necessitates that they are validated against criterion measures. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of three consumer-based PA monitors for estimating energy expenditure (EE) and PA type during simulated free-living activities. Methods: Twenty-eight participants (mean ± SD: age, 25.5 ± 3.7 yr; body mass index, 24.9 ± 2.6 kg·m −2 ) completed 11 activities ranging from sedentary behaviors to vigorous intensities. Simultaneous measurements were made with an Oxycon portable calorimeter (criterion), a Basis Peak and Garmin Vivofit on the nondominant wrist, and three Withings Pulse devices (right hip, shirt collar, dominant wrist). Repeated-measures ANOVA were used to examine differences between measured and predicted EE. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to determine reliability of EE predictions between Withings placements. Paired samples t tests were used to determine mean differences between observed minutes and Basis Peak predictions during walking, running, and cycling. Results: On average, the Basis Peak was within 8% of measured EE for the entire PA routine ( P > 0.05); however, there were large individual errors (95% prediction interval, −290.4 to +233.1 kcal). All other devices were significantly different from measured EE for the entire PA routine ( P < 0.05). For activity types, Basis Peak correctly identified ≥92% of actual minutes spent walking and running ( P > 0.05), and 40.4% and 0% of overground and stationary cycling minutes, respectively ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: The Basis Peak was the only device that did not significantly differ from measured EE; however, it also had the largest individual errors. Additionally, the Basis Peak accurately predicted minutes spent walking and running, but not cycling.