The variation in measurement of the number of steps was the highest (Apple Watch 2: 0.42 Dongdong: 0.01), whereas it was the lowest for heart rate (Samsung Gear S3: 0.34 Xiaomi Mi Band 2: 0.12). The measurements varied for the same indicator measured by different fitness trackers. Wearable devices had a rather high measurement accuracy with respect to heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep duration, with a MAPE of approximately 0.10, whereas poor measurement accuracy was observed for energy consumption (calories), indicated by a MAPE of up to 0.44.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a host of latest wearable devices in measuring fitness-related indicators under various seminatural activities.Ī total of 44 healthy subjects were recruited, and each subject was asked to simultaneously wear 6 devices (Apple Watch 2, Samsung Gear S3, Jawbone Up3, Fitbit Surge, Huawei Talk Band B3, and Xiaomi Mi Band 2) and 2 smartphone apps (Dongdong and Ledongli) to measure five major health indicators (heart rate, number of steps, distance, energy consumption, and sleep duration) under various activity states (resting, walking, running, cycling, and sleeping), which were then compared with the gold standard (manual measurements of the heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep, and energy consumption through oxygen consumption) and calculated to determine their respective mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs). Wearable devices have attracted much attention from the market in recent years for their fitness monitoring and other health-related metrics however, the accuracy of fitness tracking results still plays a major role in health promotion. Measurement should be used on a limited basis, while distance/ speed control can be GPS measurementsĪlso showed significant differences, but MAPEs were negligible. (MAPE) showed < 2.75% for biking and running and < 4.50% for swimming.ĭiscussion: This study showed significant inaccuracies in optical HR measurementsĭuring rapidly changing HRs in real field-testing for the first time. Showed significant differences in biking p=0.000 and running tests p0.72, respectively. Results: T-test analysis of HR measurement showed significant differences during theġ.6 km of interval- running p0.67 RestHR d>1.12. Measured HR/ GPS- distance data and the criterion measurement were calculated Measurement via map/ 400 m stadium/ 50 m pool. Measurements consisted of HR- measurement via chest strap and distance Swimming for 500/ 1000 m, biking for 4.3/ 36.7 km, stadium-running for 3 km, walkingĪnd running for 1.6 km interval and off-road- running for 3/7.1 km. The distance measurement test- battery consisted of Methods: Thirty moderate endurance-trained adults (15 males/ 15 females) completedĪ running test- battery, 3 km of walking and running, and 1.6 km of interval- running The aim of this study was to validate the optical heart rate (HR)Īnd GPS distance measurements under real conditions. Fitness trackers are common devices used forĬollecting training data. Introduction: The possibilities of continuously monitoring everyday training haveīecome more varied and precise.

Goldencheetah withings