Next Article in Journal
Social Exclusion, Surveillance Use, and Facebook Addiction: The Moderating Role of Narcissistic Grandiosity
Previous Article in Journal
Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of an m-Health Intervention Targeting Physical Activity, Diet, and Sleep Quality in Shift-Workers
Open AccessArticle

Agreement between the Apple Series 1, LifeTrak Core C200, and Fitbit Charge HR with Indirect Calorimetry for Assessing Treadmill Energy Expenditure

1
Department of Physical Education, East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301 USA
2
Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
3
School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV 89557, USA
4
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(20), 3812; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203812
Received: 30 August 2019 / Revised: 3 October 2019 / Accepted: 8 October 2019 / Published: 10 October 2019
The purpose of this study was to examine agreement in energy expenditure between the Apple Series 1 Watch, LifeTrak Core C200, and Fitbit Charge HR with indirect calorimetry during various treadmill speeds in young adults. Participants were a sample of college-aged students (mean age = 20.1 (1.7) years; 13 females, 17 males). Participants completed six structured 10-minute exercise sessions on a treadmill with speeds ranging from 53.6 m·min−1 to 187.7 m·min−1. Indirect calorimetry was used as the criterion. Participants wore the Apple Watch, LifeTrak, and Fitbit activity monitors on their wrists. Group-level agreement was examined using equivalence testing, relative agreement was examined using Spearman’s rho, and individual-level agreement was examined using Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) and Bland-Altman Plots. Activity monitor agreement with indirect calorimetry was supported using the Apple Watch at 160.9 m·min−1 (Mean difference = −2.7 kcals, 90% C.I.: −8.3 kcals, 2.8 kcals; MAPE = 11.9%; rs = 0.64) and 187.7 m·min−1 (Mean difference = 3.7 kcals, 90% C.I.: −2.2 kcals, 9.7 kcals; MAPE = 10.7%; rs = 0.72) and the Fitbit at 187.7 m·min−1 (Mean difference = −0.2 kcals, 90% C.I.: −8.8 kcals, 8.5 kcals; MAPE = 20.1%; rs = 0.44). No evidence for statistical equivalence was seen for the LifeTrak at any speed. Bland-Altman Plot Limits of Agreement were narrower for the Apple Series 1 Watch compared to other monitors, especially at slower treadmill speeds. The results support the utility of the Apple Series 1 Watch and Fitbit Charge HR for assessing energy expenditure during specific treadmill running speeds in young adults. View Full-Text
Keywords: activity trackers; physical activity; wearable technology activity trackers; physical activity; wearable technology
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, P.; Burns, R.D.; Fu, Y.; Godin, S.; Byun, W. Agreement between the Apple Series 1, LifeTrak Core C200, and Fitbit Charge HR with Indirect Calorimetry for Assessing Treadmill Energy Expenditure. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3812.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop