Cited by 29Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Accuracy of Consumer Monitors for Estimating Energy Expenditure and Activity Type

WOODMAN, JAMES A., CROUTER, SCOTT E., BASSETT, DAVID R., FITZHUGH, EUGENE C., BOYER, WILLIAM R.·2017·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Increasing use of consumer-based physical activity (PA) monitors necessitates that they are validated against criterion measures. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of three consumer-based PA monitors for estimating energy expenditure (EE) and PA type during simulated free-living activities. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants (mean ± SD: age, 25.5 ± 3.7 yr; body mass index, 24.9 ± 2.6 kg·m) completed 11 activities ranging from sedentary behaviors to vigorous intensities. Simultaneous measurements were made with an Oxycon portable calorimeter (criterion), a Basis Peak and Garmin Vivofit on the nondominant wrist, and three Withings Pulse devices (right hip, shirt collar, dominant wrist). Repeated-measures ANOVA were used to examine differences between measured and predicted EE. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to determine reliability of EE predictions between Withings placements. Paired samples t tests were used to determine mean differences between observed minutes and Basis Peak predictions during walking, running, and cycling. RESULTS: On average, the Basis Peak was within 8% of measured EE for the entire PA routine (P > 0.05); however, there were large individual errors (95% prediction interval, -290.4 to +233.1 kcal). All other devices were significantly different from measured EE for the entire PA routine (P < 0.05). For activity types, Basis Peak correctly identified ≥92% of actual minutes spent walking and running (P > 0.05), and 40.4% and 0% of overground and stationary cycling minutes, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Basis Peak was the only device that did not significantly differ from measured EE; however, it also had the largest individual errors. Additionally, the Basis Peak accurately predicted minutes spent walking and running, but not cycling.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/mss.0000000000001090

Cites

26 of 26 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
WOODMAN, J. A., CROUTER, S. E., BASSETT, D. R., FITZHUGH, E. C., & BOYER, W. R.
Affiliations
University of Vermont (US)
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2017-02
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
371-377
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2517084908
Cited by
29
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.02
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 › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
energy expenditure estimation, activity classification, wearable device validation, walking, running, cycling, sedentary behavior, device placement, measurement accuracy
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Calorimetry, Indirect, Energy Metabolism, Humans, Exercise, 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