Vol 8 No 4 (2019): Volume 8, Issue 4, Year 2019
Articles

Physical activity monitoring devices: energy expenditure comparison in a setting of free-living activities

Matteo Vandoni
Laboratory of Adapted Motor Activity (LAMA), Department of Public Health, Experimental Medicine and Forensic Science, University of Pavia, via Forlanini 2, 27100, Pavia, Italy
Vittoria Carnevale Pellino
Laboratory of Adapted Motor Activity (LAMA), Department of Public Health, Experimental Medicine and Forensic Science, University of Pavia, via Forlanini 2, 27100, Pavia, Italy
Stefano Dell'Anna
Laboratory of Adapted Motor Activity (LAMA), Department of Public Health, Experimental Medicine and Forensic Science, University of Pavia, via Forlanini 2, 27100, Pavia, Italy
Elena Ricagno
Laboratory of Adapted Motor Activity (LAMA), Department of Public Health, Experimental Medicine and Forensic Science, University of Pavia, via Forlanini 2, 27100, Pavia, Italy
Giulia Liberali
Laboratory of Adapted Motor Activity (LAMA), Department of Public Health, Experimental Medicine and Forensic Science, University of Pavia, via Forlanini 2, 27100, Pavia, Italy
Claudia Bonfanti
Laboratory of Adapted Motor Activity (LAMA), Department of Public Health, Experimental Medicine and Forensic Science, University of Pavia, via Forlanini 2, 27100, Pavia, Italy
Luca Correale
Laboratory of Adapted Motor Activity (LAMA), Department of Public Health, Experimental Medicine and Forensic Science, University of Pavia, via Forlanini 2, 27100, Pavia, Italy
Published October 29, 2019
Keywords
  • Energy Expenditure,
  • Physical Activity,
  • Devices,
  • Accuracy,
  • Wearables
How to Cite
Vandoni, M., Carnevale Pellino, V., Dell’Anna, S., Ricagno, E., Liberali, G., Bonfanti, C., & Correale, L. (2019). Physical activity monitoring devices: energy expenditure comparison in a setting of free-living activities. International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports, 8(4), 45-54. Retrieved from https://ijpefs.com/index.php/ijpefs/article/view/302

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of Energy Expenditure (EE) estimation provided by 3 wearable devices [Fitbit-One (FO), Sensewear Armband (AR) and Actiheart (AC)] in a setting of free-living activities. 43 participants (24 females; 23.4±.4,5yrs) performed 9 activities: sedentary (watching video, reading), walking (on treadmill and outdoor), running (on treadmill and outdoor) and moderate-to-vigorous activities (Wii gaming, taking the stairs and playing football). Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Pearson’s correlation were calculated to assess the validity of each instrument in comparison to a portable metabolic analyser (PMA). In overall comparison MAPE’s were 7,7% for AR (r=.86; p<.0001), 8,6% for FO (r=.69; P<.001), and 11.6% for AC (r=.81; p<.0001). These findings support the accuracy of the wearables. The AR was the most accurate in the whole protocol. However, MAPE results suggest that devices algorithms should be improved for better measure of EE during moderate-to-vigorous activities.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. S.N. Blair and J.C. Connelly, How much physical activity should we do? The case for moderate amounts and intensities of physical activity, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67 (1996) 193–205.
  2. S. J. Petruzzello, D.M. Landers, B.D. Hatfield, K. A. Kubitz, and W. Salazar, A meta-analysis on the anxiety-reducing effects of acute and chronic exercise. Outcomes and mechanisms, Sports Medicine, 11 (1991) 143–182.
  3. S.R. Gomersall, N. Ng, N.W. Burton, T.G. Pavey, N.D. Gilson, and W.J. Brown, Estimating Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in a Free-Living Context: A Pragmatic Comparison of Consumer-Based Activity Trackers and ActiGraph Accelerometry, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18 (2016) e239.
  4. K.R. Evenson, M.M. Goto, and R.D. Furberg, Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12 (2015) 159.
  5. M. Vandoni, L. Correale, M. Del Bianco, L. Marin, and E. Codrons, Does reactivity to accelerometers occur in a single trial? Brief report in a sample of young adults, Journal of Health Psychology, 22 (2017) 1458–1462.
  6. B. P. Giroir and D. Wright, Physical Activity Guidelines for Health and Prosperity in the United States, JAMA, 320 (2018) 1971.
  7. K. L. Piercy et al., The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, JAMA, 320 (2018) 2020.
  8. T. Ferguson, A. V Rowlands, T. Olds, and C. Maher, The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12 (2015) 42.
  9. B. K. Clark, T. Sugiyama, G. N. Healy, J. Salmon, D. W. Dunstan, and N. Owen, Validity and reliability of measures of television viewing time and other non-occupational sedentary behaviour of adults: a review, Obesity Reviews, 10 (2009) 7–16.
  10. J.-M. Lee, Y. Kim, and G.J. Welk, Validity of Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46 (2014) 1840–1848.
  11. R.K. Reddy, R. Pooni, D.P. Zaharieva, B. Senf, J. El Youssef, E. Dassau, F.J. Doyle Iii, M.A. Clements, M.R. Rickels, S.R. Patton, J.R. Castle, M.C. Riddell, P.G. Jacobs, Accuracy of Wrist-Worn Activity Monitors During Common Daily Physical Activities and Types of Structured Exercise: Evaluation Study, JMIR mHealth uHealth, 6 (2018) e10338.
  12. M.B. Nelson, L.A. Kaminsky, D.C. Dickin, and A.H.K. Montoye, Validity of Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors for Specific Activity Types, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 48 (2016) 1619–1628.
  13. M. McCarthy and M. Grey, Motion Sensor Use for Physical Activity Data: Methodological Considerations, Nursing Research, 64 (2015) 320–327.