Devrim-Lanpir Asli, Devenney Simon, Egan Brendan
School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.
J Sleep Res. 2025 Aug 25:e70177. doi: 10.1111/jsr.70177.
Sleep monitoring is a tool widely used to support recovery and performance in endurance athletes. This study aimed to assess agreement between research-grade actigraphy (ActiGraph GT9X), consumer-grade smartwatches (Garmin), and self-reported sleep diaries in masters endurance athletes. Seventy athletes (43 males, 46.3 ± 7.3 years; 27 females, 49.3 ± 8.3 years) wore ActiGraph and smartwatch devices on their non-dominant wrist while maintaining a self-reported sleep diary for seven consecutive nights. ActiGraph recorded the shortest total sleep time (332 ± 87 min), whereas the diary and smartwatch recorded longer sleep durations by 109 and 126 min, respectively (p < 0.001). Sleep efficiency (%) was also higher in the sleep diary and smartwatch compared to ActiGraph, with mean biases of -5.9% and -4.1%, respectively. Sleep diary values closely agreed with smartwatch values (ICC = 0.880, 95% CI: 0.624 to 0.946), while poor agreement was found between ActiGraph and the sleep diary (ICC = 0.190, 95% CI: -0.149 to 0.459). Proportional bias was evident in both the sleep diary and smartwatch, with greater differences in total sleep time and efficiency observed in athletes with shorter durations and lower sleep efficiency, respectively. Sex differences emerged, with stronger agreement between smartwatch and ActiGraph in sleep efficiency in females (ICC = 0.690, 95% CI: 0.336 to 0.857) than males (ICC = 0.481, 95% CI: -0.020 to 0.723). Findings suggest that both consumer-grade devices and self-reported sleep diaries report longer sleep durations and higher sleep efficiency relative to actigraphy. Sleep metrics from these methods should be interpreted with caution, particularly in athletes with shorter or more fragmented sleep.
睡眠监测是一种广泛用于支持耐力运动员恢复和表现的工具。本研究旨在评估研究级活动记录仪（ActiGraph GT9X）、消费级智能手表（佳明）和中老年耐力运动员自我报告的睡眠日记之间的一致性。70名运动员（43名男性，46.3±7.3岁；27名女性，49.3±8.3岁）在非优势手腕上佩戴ActiGraph和智能手表设备，同时连续七个晚上记录自我报告的睡眠日记。ActiGraph记录的总睡眠时间最短（332±87分钟），而日记和智能手表记录的睡眠时间分别长109分钟和126分钟（p<0.001）。与ActiGraph相比，睡眠日记和智能手表的睡眠效率（%）也更高，平均偏差分别为-5.9%和-4.1%。睡眠日记的值与智能手表的值密切一致（ICC=0.880，95%CI：0.624至0.946），而ActiGraph与睡眠日记之间的一致性较差（ICC=0.190，95%CI：-0.149至0.459）。比例偏差在睡眠日记和智能手表中均很明显，在睡眠时间较短和睡眠效率较低的运动员中，分别观察到总睡眠时间和效率的差异更大。出现了性别差异，女性智能手表和ActiGraph在睡眠效率方面的一致性（ICC=0.690，95%CI：0.336至0.857）强于男性（ICC=0.481，95%CI：-0.020至0.723）。研究结果表明，相对于活动记录仪，消费级设备和自我报告的睡眠日记都报告了更长的睡眠时间和更高的睡眠效率。这些方法的睡眠指标应谨慎解读，尤其是在睡眠时间较短或睡眠更碎片化的运动员中。
