a Division of Kinesiology, Health and Sport Studies , Wayne State University , Detroit , MI , USA.
b Department of Health, Exercise and Sports Sciences , University of New Mexico , Albuquerque , NM , USA.
J Sports Sci. 2019 Jan;37(1):42-49. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1481723. Epub 2018 Jun 4.
The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of energy expenditure (EE) estimation and step tracking abilities of six activity monitors (AMs) in relation to indirect calorimetry and hand counted steps and assess the accuracy of the AMs between high and low fit individuals in order to assess the impact of exercise intensity. Fifty participants wore the Basis watch, Fitbit Flex, Polar FT7, Jawbone, Omron pedometer, and Actigraph during a maximal graded treadmill test. Correlations, intra-class correlations, and t-tests determined accuracy and agreement between AMs and criterions. The results indicate that the Omron, Fitbit, and Actigraph were accurate for measuring steps while the Basis and Jawbone significantly underestimated steps. All AMs were significantly correlated with indirect calorimetry, however, no devices showed agreement (p < .05). When comparing low and high fit groups, correlations between AMs and indirect calorimetry improved for the low fit group, suggesting AMs may be better at measuring EE at lower intensity exercise.
本研究旨在评估六种活动监测器（AMs）在与间接测热法和手动计数步数相关的能量消耗（EE）估计和步数跟踪能力方面的准确性，并评估 AMs 在高、低适应个体之间的准确性，以评估运动强度的影响。五十名参与者在最大坡度跑步机测试期间佩戴 Basis 手表、Fitbit Flex、Polar FT7、Jawbone、Omron 计步器和 Actigraph。相关性、组内相关系数和 t 检验确定了 AMs 与标准之间的准确性和一致性。结果表明，Omron、Fitbit 和 Actigraph 可准确测量步数，而 Basis 和 Jawbone 则显著低估了步数。所有 AMs 与间接测热法均呈显著相关，但没有设备显示出一致性（p<.05）。当比较低适应和高适应组时，低适应组 AMs 与间接测热法之间的相关性有所提高，这表明 AMs 可能更擅长测量低强度运动时的 EE。
