Validation of Garmin Fenix 3 HR Fitness Tracker Biomechanics and Metabolics (VO2max)

Carrier, Bryson; Creer, Andrew; Williams, Lauren; Holmes, Timothy M.; Jolley, Brayden; Dahl, Siri; Weber, Ewald; Standifird, Tyler

doi:10.1123/jmpb.2019-0066

Cited by 13 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, none of the included articles reported whether the gas analyzer used both VO 2 and VCO 2 for VO 2max assessment, even though it is known that systems without CO 2 sensors decrease the precision and should be treated with caution [50]. Lastly, four studies [39,42,44,47] did not clarify whether the device was calibrated [45], and we recommend that a proper calibration process according to the manufacturer's instructions be performed before the VO 2max assessment. We urge…”

Section: Reference Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the included studies in this review, eight validated the VO 2max estimations of Polar ® devices (models: A300, S410, F11, FT40, F6, RS300X, and two V800) [27,28,31,37,39,40,47,51], five validated Garmin ® devices (models: Fenix 3, Fenix 5X, Forerunner 920 XT, and GF5) [29,30,39,42,44], and two validated Fitbit ® devices (models: two Charge 2) [25,46]. However, several other brands currently claim to provide VO 2max estimations, such as Apple, Tom-Tom, Huawei, Suunto, Withings, and Coros (Supplementary Material 8; see the electronic supplementary material).…”

Section: Index Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Index Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three out of the 14 included studies did not follow an ecological validity procedure [28,29,44], defined as a validation process that resembles the use of the device in the consumer's real life. Two of the studies introduced bias when including the setup information, an aspect that will be discussed in the "Testing Protocols and Conditions" section [28,44], while one study did not place the device in an ecological manner according to manufacture instructions [29]. Regarding the ecological placement, Anderson et al [29] fixed the device to the wrist with additional tape, and this is not recommended since it may artificially improve the precision of the HR readings through PPG, biasing the validity of the device in ecological settings.…”

Section: Index Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Validity of Estimating the Maximal Oxygen Consumption by Consumer Wearables: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Expert Statement of the INTERLIVE Network

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Technological advances have recently made possible the estimation of maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) by consumer wearables. However, the validity of such estimations has not been systematically summarized using meta-analytic methods and there are no standards guiding the validation protocols. Objective The aim was to (1) quantitatively summarize previous studies investigating the validity of the VO2max estimated by consumer wearables and (2) provide best-practice recommendations for future validation studies. Methods First, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies validating the estimation of VO2max by wearables. Second, based on the state of knowledge (derived from the systematic review) combined with the expert discussion between the members of the Towards Intelligent Health and Well-Being Network of Physical Activity Assessment (INTERLIVE) consortium, we provided a set of best-practice recommendations for validation protocols. Results Fourteen validation studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that wearables using resting condition information in their algorithms significantly overestimated VO2max (bias 2.17 ml·kg−1·min−1; limits of agreement − 13.07 to 17.41 ml·kg−1·min−1), while devices using exercise-based information in their algorithms showed a lower systematic and random error (bias − 0.09 ml·kg−1·min−1; limits of agreement − 9.92 to 9.74 ml·kg−1·min−1). The INTERLIVE consortium proposed six key domains to be considered for validating wearable devices estimating VO2max, concerning the following: the target population, reference standard, index measure, testing conditions, data processing, and statistical analysis. Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that the estimations of VO2max by wearables that use exercise-based algorithms provide higher accuracy than those based on resting conditions. The exercise-based estimation seems to be optimal for measuring VO2max at the population level, yet the estimation error at the individual level is large, and, therefore, for sport/clinical purposes these methods still need improvement. The INTERLIVE network hereby provides best-practice recommendations to be used in future protocols to move towards a more accurate, transparent and comparable validation of VO2max derived from wearables. PROSPERO ID CRD42021246192.

show abstract

Section: Reference Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Index Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Index Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Index Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validity of Estimating the Maximal Oxygen Consumption by Consumer Wearables: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Expert Statement of the INTERLIVE Network

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They claim to assess the same parameters, however, these are based for example on HR data, on acceleration data or on a combination of both obtained on the upper arm, on the chest, on the hip using each time different technology (Brage et al 2007, Wyss et al 2012, Burrell et al 2016, Buller et al 2021. The major limitation of these devices is the limited knowledge about data validity and reliability for measuring physical demands in a military setting or limited comparability (Crouter et al 2008, Dannecker et al 2013, Lee et al 2014, Sperlich and Holmberg 2017, Friedl 2018, Bent et al 2020, Carrier et al 2020. Yet, to adhere to and to benefit from data monitoring, a basic prerequisite is to validate technology against a criterion measure, ideally through a comparison of multiple systems simultaneously, in the environment and during activities of the user group (Sperlich and Holmberg, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of ambulatory monitoring devices to measure energy expenditure and heart rate in a military setting

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives.To investigate the validity of different devices and algorithms used in military organizations worldwide to assess physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) and heart rate (HR) among soldiers. Design. Device validation study. Methods. Twenty-three male participants serving their mandatory military service accomplished, firstly, nine different military specific activities indoors, and secondly, a normal military routine outdoors. Participants wore simultaneously an ActiHeart, Everion, MetaMax 3B, Garmin Fenix 3, Hidalgo EQ02, and PADIS 2.0 system. The PAEE and HR data of each system were compared to the criterion measures MetaMax 3B and Hidalgo EQ02, respectively. Results. Overall, the recorded systematic errors in PAEE estimation ranged from 0.1 (±1.8) kcal.min −1 to −1.7 (±1.8) kcal.min −1 for the systems PADIS 2.0 and Hidalgo EQ02 running the Royal Dutch Army algorithm, respectively, and in the HR assessment ranged from −0.1 (±2.1) b.min −1 to 0.8 (±3.0) b.min −1 for the PADIS 2.0 and ActiHeart systems, respectively. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) in PAEE estimation ranged from 29.9% to 75.1%, with only the Everion system showing an overall MAPE <30%, but all investigated devices reported overall MAPE <1.4% in the HR assessment.Conclusions. The present study demonstrated poor to moderate validity in terms of PAEE estimation, but excellent validity in all investigated devices in terms of HR assessment. Overall, the Everion performed among the best in both parameters and with a device placement on the upper arm, the Everion system is particularly useful during military service, as it does not interfere with other relevant equipment.

show abstract

Wearable activity trackers–advanced technology or advanced marketing?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearable devices represent one of the most popular trends in health and fitness. Rapid advances in wearable technology present a dizzying display of possible functions: from thermometers and barometers, magnetometers and accelerometers, to oximeters and calorimeters. Consumers and practitioners utilize wearable devices to track outcomes, such as energy expenditure, training load, step count, and heart rate. While some rely on these devices in tandem with more established tools, others lean on wearable technology for health-related outcomes, such as heart rhythm analysis, peripheral oxygen saturation, sleep quality, and caloric expenditure. Given the increasing popularity of wearable devices for both recreation and health initiatives, understanding the strengths and limitations of these technologies is increasingly relevant. Need exists for continued evaluation of the efficacy of wearable devices to accurately and reliably measure purported outcomes. The purposes of this review are (1) to assess the current state of wearable devices using recent research on validity and reliability, (2) to describe existing gaps between physiology and technology, and (3) to offer expert interpretation for the lay and professional audience on how best to approach wearable technology and employ it in the pursuit of health and fitness. Current literature demonstrates inconsistent validity and reliability for various metrics, with algorithms not publicly available or lacking high-quality validation studies. Advancements in wearable technology should consider standardizing validation metrics, providing transparency in used algorithms, and improving how technology can be tailored to individuals. Until then, it is prudent to exercise caution when interpreting metrics reported from consumer-wearable devices.

show abstract

Validation of Garmin Fenix 3 HR Fitness Tracker Biomechanics and Metabolics (VO2max)

Cited by 13 publications

References 20 publications

Validity of Estimating the Maximal Oxygen Consumption by Consumer Wearables: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Expert Statement of the INTERLIVE Network

Validity of Estimating the Maximal Oxygen Consumption by Consumer Wearables: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Expert Statement of the INTERLIVE Network

Validation of ambulatory monitoring devices to measure energy expenditure and heart rate in a military setting

Wearable activity trackers–advanced technology or advanced marketing?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About