The validity of two widely used commercial and research-grade activity monitors, during resting, household and activity behaviours

Abstract

AbstractWearable devices are increasingly prevalent in research environments for the estimation of energy expenditure (EE) and heart rate (HR). The aim of this study was to validate the HR and EE estimates of the Fitbit charge 2 (FC2), and the EE estimates of the Sensewear armband mini (SWA). We recruited 59 healthy adults to participate in walking, running, cycling, sedentary and household tasks. Estimates of HR from the FC2 were compared to a HR chest strap (Polar) and EE to a stationary metabolic cart (Vyntus CPX). The SWA overestimated overall EE by 0.03 kcal/min−1 and was statistically equivalent to the criterion measure, with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 29%. In contrast, the FC2 was not equivalent overall (MAPE = 44%). In household tasks, MAPE values of 93% and 83% were observed for the FC2 and SWA, respectively. The FC2 HR estimates were equivalent to the criterion measure overall. The SWA is more accurate than the commercial-grade FC2. Neither device is consistently accurate across the range of activities used in this study. The HR data obtained from the FC2 is more accurate than its EE estimates and future research may focus more on this variable.