Cited by 401Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Validity of Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors

LEE, JUNG-MIN, KIM, YOUNGWON, WELK, GREGORY J.·2014·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many consumer-based monitors are marketed to provide personal information on the levels of physical activity and daily energy expenditure (EE), but little or no information is available to substantiate their validity. PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the validity of EE estimates from a variety of consumer-based, physical activity monitors under free-living conditions. METHODS: Sixty (26.4 ± 5.7 yr) healthy males (n = 30) and females (n = 30) wore eight different types of activity monitors simultaneously while completing a 69-min protocol. The monitors included the BodyMedia FIT armband worn on the left arm, the DirectLife monitor around the neck, the Fitbit One, the Fitbit Zip, and the ActiGraph worn on the belt, as well as the Jawbone Up and Basis B1 Band monitor on the wrist. The validity of the EE estimates from each monitor was evaluated relative to criterion values concurrently obtained from a portable metabolic system (i.e., Oxycon Mobile). Differences from criterion measures were expressed as a mean absolute percent error and were evaluated using 95% equivalence testing. RESULTS: For overall group comparisons, the mean absolute percent error values (computed as the average absolute value of the group-level errors) were 9.3%, 10.1%, 10.4%, 12.2%, 12.6%, 12.8%, 13.0%, and 23.5% for the BodyMedia FIT, Fitbit Zip, Fitbit One, Jawbone Up, ActiGraph, DirectLife, NikeFuel Band, and Basis B1 Band, respectively. The results from the equivalence testing showed that the estimates from the BodyMedia FIT, Fitbit Zip, and NikeFuel Band (90% confidence interval = 341.1-359.4) were each within the 10% equivalence zone around the indirect calorimetry estimate. CONCLUSIONS: The indicators of the agreement clearly favored the BodyMedia FIT armband, but promising preliminary findings were also observed with the Fitbit Zip.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/mss.0000000000000287

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LEE, J.-M., KIM, Y., & WELK, G. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska at Omaha (US)
  • Iowa State University (US)
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2014-09
Volume
46
Issue
9
Pages
1840-1848
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095561638
Cited by
401
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 9
FWCI
39.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
wearable activity trackers, daily energy expenditure, free-living conditions, Fitbit, ActiGraph, indirect calorimetry, equivalence testing
MeSH terms
Adult, Basketball, Energy Metabolism, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Activity, Oxygen Consumption, Running, Walking, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Young Adult, Accelerometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review