Wearable activity trackers-advanced technology or advanced marketing?

Ren-Jay Shei, Ian G Holder, Alicia S Oumsang, Brittni A Paris, Hunter L Paris, Ren-Jay Shei, Ian G Holder, Alicia S Oumsang, Brittni A Paris, Hunter L Paris

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Energy expenditure; Fitness; Health monitoring; Physical activity; Step count; VO2max; Wearable technology.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Ren-Jay Shei is an employee of Coherus BioSciences. The work described herein is solely reflective of the author’s (R-JS) personal views and is unrelated to his job duties with Coherus BioScience. These views do not constitute an endorsement by Coherus BioSciences, do not represent the views of Coherus BioSciences, and Coherus BioSciences had no role in the conception, writing, revision, or final approval of the manuscript. Brittni Paris is co-owner of Smart Fit Womxn LLC, a wellness coaching company. The work described here is BAP's personal view and does not reflect the view of Smart Fit Womxn.

© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Web of variables assessed by wearable devices and factors that must be considered in accurately reporting these variables. Variables directly connected to the athlete are those recorded by technologies. Outer variables are factors that influence the inner measure. For example, “training load” must consider both “external load” and “internal load,” which themselves must consider “work,” “distance,” “duration,” etc
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Normalized representation of average metric acceptance. Consensus is taken from expert opinion and other literature. ✔ = not generally accepted. ✔✔✔✔ = widely accepted
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) for various physiological variables recorded by wearable devices from recent investigations. MAPE indicates the predictive accuracy of devices. Although no standardized thresholds exist for high or low error, MAPE > 3% has been considered high for laboratory-based studies and > 10% has been considered high for studies in free-living conditions. Note: studies normally found a range for MAPE. Therefore, “X” indicates the approximate average of various devices and scenarios tested. 1, Passler (2019); 2, Henriksen (2020); 3, Nelson (2016); 4, Montoye (2017); 5, Wallen (2016); 6, Navalta (2020); 7, LeBoeuf (2014); 8, Carrier (2020); 9, Henriksen (2021)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison between how users are relying upon wearable devices with expert recommendation and 5-star rating on how best to rely upon wearable devices. 5-star, excellent reliability; 4-star, good reliability; 3-star, moderate reliability; 2-star, poor reliability; 1-star, very poor reliability. 1, Evenson (2015); 2, Global Web Index (2020); 3, Canhoto (2017); 4, Rose (2019); 5, Li (2017); 6, McDonough (2021); 7, Kerner (2017); 8, Montgomery-Downs (2012)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison between how users are relying upon wearable devices with expert recommendation and 5-star rating on how best to rely upon wearable devices. 5-star, excellent reliability; 4-star, good reliability; 3-star, moderate reliability; 2-star, poor reliability; 1-star, very poor reliability. 1, Evenson (2015); 2, Global Web Index (2020); 3, Canhoto (2017); 4, Rose (2019); 5, Li (2017); 6, McDonough (2021); 7, Kerner (2017); 8, Montgomery-Downs (2012)

References

    1. Accenture Interactive Consumer Privacy Concerns for Wearable Tech
    1. Acheson K, Campbell I, Edholm O, et al. The measurement of daily energy expenditure—an evaluation of some techniques. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980;33:1155–1164. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/33.5.1155.
    1. Ainslie PN, Reilly T, Westerterp KR. Estimating human energy expenditure. Sports Med. 2003;33:683–698. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200333090-00004.
    1. Alavi A, Bogu GK, Wang M et al (2022) Real-time alerting system for COVID-19 and other stress events using wearable data. Nat Med 28:175–184
    1. Argent R, Hetherington-Rauth M, Stang J, et al. Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearables and smartphones for the estimation of energy expenditure: expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE network. Sports Med. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s40279-022-01665-4.
    1. Ash GI, Stults-Kolehmainen M, Busa MA, et al. Establishing a global standard for wearable devices in sport and fitness: perspectives from the New England chapter of the American college of sports medicine members. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2020;19:45–49. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0000000000000680.
    1. Bassett DR, Toth LP, LaMunion SR, Crouter SE. Step counting: a review of measurement considerations and health-related applications. Sports Med. 2017;47:1303–1315. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0663-1.
    1. Black MI, Jones AM, Blackwell JR, et al. Muscle metabolic and neuromuscular determinants of fatigue during cycling in different exercise intensity domains. J Appl Physiol. 2017;122:446–459. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00942.2016.
    1. Bonomi AG, Plasqui G, Goris AH, Westerterp KR. Improving assessment of daily energy expenditure by identifying types of physical activity with a single accelerometer. J Appl Physiol. 2009;107:655–661. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00150.2009.
    1. Bonomi AG, Ten Hoor GA, De Morree HM, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness estimation from heart rate and body movement in daily life. J Appl Physiol. 2020;128:493–500. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00631.2019.
    1. Boudreaux BD, Hebert EP, Hollander DB, et al. Validity of wearable activity monitors during cycling and resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50:624–633. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001471.
    1. Brage S, Wedderkopp N, Franks PW, et al. Reexamination of validity and reliability of the CSA monitor in walking and running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1447–1454. doi: 10.1249/.
    1. Canhoto AI, Arp S. Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearables. J Mark Manag. 2017;33:32–60. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2016.1234505.
    1. Cardinale M, Varley MC. Wearable training-monitoring technology: applications, challenges, and opportunities. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12:S2–55. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0423.
    1. Carrier B, Creer A, Williams LR, et al. Validation of garmin fenix 3 HR fitness tracker biomechanics and metabolics (VO2max) J Meas Phys Behav. 2020;3:331–337. doi: 10.1123/jmpb.2019-0066.
    1. Chen M-D, Kuo C-C, Pellegrini CA, Hsu M-J. Accuracy of wristband activity monitors during ambulation and activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48:1942–1949. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000984.
    1. Chiauzzi E, Rodarte C, DasMahapatra P. Patient-centered activity monitoring in the self-management of chronic health conditions. BMC Med. 2015;13:1–6. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0319-2.
    1. Choi BC, Pak AW, Choi JC. Daily step goal of 10,000 steps: a literature review. Clin Invest Med. 2007;30:E146–E151. doi: 10.25011/cim.v30i3.1083.
    1. Chow H-W, Yang C-C. Accuracy of optical heart rate sensing technology in wearable fitness trackers for young and older adults: validation and comparison study. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2020;8:e14707. doi: 10.2196/14707.
    1. Clark IE, Vanhatalo A, Bailey SJ, et al. Effects of two hours of heavy-intensity exercise on the power-duration relationship. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50:1658–1668. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001601.
    1. De Zambotti M, Cellini N, Goldstone A, et al. Wearable sleep technology in clinical and research settings. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51:1538. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001947.
    1. Dijkstra B, Zijlstra W, Scherder E, Kamsma Y. Detection of walking periods and number of steps in older adults and patients with Parkinson’s disease: accuracy of a pedometer and an accelerometry-based method. Age Ageing. 2008;37:436–441. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afn097.
    1. Düking P, Fuss FK, Holmberg H-C, et al. Recommendations for assessment of the reliability, sensitivity, and validity of data provided by wearable sensors designed for monitoring physical activity. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2018;6:e9341. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9341.
    1. Düking P, Giessing L, Frenkel MO, et al. Wrist-worn wearables for monitoring heart rate and energy expenditure while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity: validation study. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2020;8:e16716. doi: 10.2196/16716.
    1. El-Amrawy F, Nounou MI. Are currently available wearable devices for activity tracking and heart rate monitoring accurate, precise, and medically beneficial? Healthc Inform Res. 2015;21:315–320. doi: 10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.315.
    1. Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:1–22. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1.
    1. Firstbeat Technologies Ltd. Firstbeat Technologies White Paper: Automated Fitness Estimation
    1. Firstbeat Technologies Ltd. Firstbeat Technologies White Paper: VO2 estimation
    1. Fothergill E, Guo J, Howard L, et al. Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “the biggest loser” competition. Obesity. 2016;24:1612–1619. doi: 10.1002/oby.21538.
    1. Fudge BW, Wilson J, Easton C, et al. Estimation of oxygen uptake during fast running using accelerometry and heart rate. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:192–198. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000235884.71487.21.
    1. Fuller D, Colwell E, Low J, et al. Reliability and validity of commercially available wearable devices for measuring steps, energy expenditure, and heart rate: systematic review. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2020;8:e18694. doi: 10.2196/18694.
    1. Georgiou K, Larentzakis AV, Khamis NN, et al. Can wearable devices accurately measure heart rate variability? a systematic review. Folia Med (plovdiv) 2018;60:7–20.
    1. Giles D, Draper N, Neil W. Validity of the Polar V800 heart rate monitor to measure RR intervals at rest. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016;116:563–571. doi: 10.1007/s00421-015-3303-9.
    1. Gillinov S, Etiwy M, Wang R, et al. Variable accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors during aerobic exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:1697–1703. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001284.
    1. Global web index (2020) Digital healthcare report: understanding the evolution and digitization of healthcare
    1. Goodie JL, Larkin KT, Schauss S. Validation of polar heart rate monitor for assessing heart rate during physical and mental stress. J Psychophysiol. 2000;14:159. doi: 10.1027//0269-8803.14.3.159.
    1. Guk K, Han G, Lim J, et al. Evolution of wearable devices with real-time disease monitoring for personalized healthcare. Nanomaterials. 2019;9:813. doi: 10.3390/nano9060813.
    1. Hamlin MJ, Wilkes D, Elliot CA, et al. Monitoring training loads and perceived stress in young elite university athletes. Front Physiol. 2019;10:34. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00034.
    1. Haskell WL, Yee MC, Evans A, Irby PJ. Simultaneous measurement of heart rate and body motion to quantitate physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25:109–115. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199301000-00015.
    1. Hatano Y. Use of the pedometer for promoting daily walking exercise. ICHPER. 1993;29:4–8.
    1. Helm MM, Carrier B, Davis DW, et al. Validation of the garmin fenix 6S maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) estimate. Int J Exerc Sci: Conf Proceed. 2021;14:29.
    1. Henriksen A, Johansson J, Hartvigsen G, et al. Measuring physical activity using triaxial wrist worn polar activity trackers: a systematic review. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13:438.
    1. Hinde K, White G, Armstrong N. Wearable Devices suitable for monitoring twenty four hour heart rate variability in military populations. Sensors. 2021;21:1061. doi: 10.3390/s21041061.
    1. Johnston W, Judice PB, García PM, et al. Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearable and smartphone step count: expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE network. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55:780–793. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103147.
    1. Johnstone AM, Murison SD, Duncan JS, et al. Factors influencing variation in basal metabolic rate include fat-free mass, fat mass, age, and circulating thyroxine but not sex, circulating leptin, or triiodothyronine. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82:941–948. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/82.5.941.
    1. Kendall B, Bellovary B, Gothe NP. Validity of wearable activity monitors for tracking steps and estimating energy expenditure during a graded maximal treadmill test. J Sports Sci. 2019;37:42–49. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1481723.
    1. Kenny GP, Notley SR, Gagnon D. Direct calorimetry: a brief historical review of its use in the study of human metabolism and thermoregulation. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117:1765–1785. doi: 10.1007/s00421-017-3670-5.
    1. Leger L, Thivierge M. Heart rate monitors: validity, stability, and functionality. Phys Sportsmed. 1988;16:143–151. doi: 10.1080/00913847.1988.11709511.
    1. Li X, Dunn J, Salins D, et al. Digital health: tracking physiomes and activity using wearable biosensors reveals useful health-related information. PLoS Biol. 2017;15:e2001402. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001402.
    1. Lown M, Brown M, Brown C, et al. Machine learning detection of Atrial Fibrillation using wearable technology. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0227401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227401.
    1. Malik M, Bigger JT, Camm AJ, et al. Heart rate variability: Standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Eur Heart J. 1996;17:354–381. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a014868.
    1. Mandigout S, Lacroix J, Perrochon A, et al. Comparison of step count assessed using wrist-and hip-worn Actigraph GT3X in free-living conditions in young and older adults. Front Med. 2019 doi: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00252.
    1. Market research future heart rate monitor market overview
    1. Menghini L, Cellini N, Goldstone A, et al. A standardized framework for testing the performance of sleep-tracking technology: step-by-step guidelines and open-source code. Sleep. 2021;44:zsaa170. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa170.
    1. Molina-Garcia P, Notbohm HL, Schumann M, et al. Validity of estimating the maximal oxygen consumption by consumer wearables: a systematic review with meta-analysis and expert statement of the INTERLIVE network. Sports Med. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01639-y.
    1. Montes J, Tandy R, Young J, et al. Step count reliability and validity of five wearable technology devices while walking and jogging in both a free motion setting and on a treadmill. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13:410.
    1. Moore IS, Willy RW. Use of wearables: tracking and retraining in endurance runners. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2019;18:437–444. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0000000000000667.
    1. Mühlen JM, Stang J, Skovgaard EL, et al. Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearable heart rate devices: expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE network. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55:767–779. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103148.
    1. Müller AM, Wang NX, Yao J, et al. Heart rate measures from wrist-worn activity trackers in a laboratory and free-living setting: validation study. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2019;7:e14120. doi: 10.2196/14120.
    1. Murakami H, Kawakami R, Nakae S, et al. Accuracy of 12 wearable devices for estimating physical activity energy expenditure using a metabolic chamber and the doubly labeled water method: validation study. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2019;7:e13938. doi: 10.2196/13938.
    1. Navalta JW, Montes J, Bodell NG, et al. Concurrent heart rate validity of wearable technology devices during trail running. Plos One. 2020;15:e0238569. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238569.
    1. O’Driscoll R, Turicchi J, Beaulieu K, et al. How well do activity monitors estimate energy expenditure? a systematic review and meta-analysis of the validity of current technologies. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:332–340.
    1. Omura JD, Carlson SA, Paul P, et al. National physical activity surveillance: users of wearable activity monitors as a potential data source. Prev Med Rep. 2017;5:124–126. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.10.014.
    1. Orendurff MS, Schoen JA, Bernatz GC, et al. How humans walk: bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45:1077–1090. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2007.11.0197.
    1. Paquette MR, Napier C, Willy RW, Stellingwerff T. Moving beyond weekly “distance”: optimizing quantification of training load in runners. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020;50:564–569. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2020.9533.
    1. Passfield L, Murias JM, Sacchetti M, Nicolò A. Validity of the training-load concept. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2022;17:507–514. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2021-0536.
    1. Passler S, Bohrer J, Blöchinger L, Senner V. Validity of wrist-worn activity trackers for estimating VO2max and energy expenditure. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2019;16:3037. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16173037.
    1. Peake JM, Kerr G, Sullivan JP. A critical review of consumer wearables, mobile applications, and equipment for providing biofeedback, monitoring stress, and sleep in physically active populations. Front Physiol. 2018;9:743. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00743.
    1. Pew research center about one-in-five Americans use a smart watch or fitness tracker
    1. Plasqui G, Westerterp KR. Physical activity assessment with accelerometers: an evaluation against doubly labeled water. Obesity. 2007;15:2371–2379. doi: 10.1038/oby.2007.281.
    1. Plasqui G, Bonomi AG, Westerterp KR. Daily physical activity assessment with accelerometers: new insights and validation studies. Obes Rev. 2013;14:451–462. doi: 10.1111/obr.12021.
    1. Polar tech support
    1. Riel H, Rathleff CR, Kalstrup PM, et al. Comparison between Mother, ACTIGRAPH wGT3X-BT, and a hand tally for measuring steps at various walking speeds under controlled conditions. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2799. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2799.
    1. Roos L, Taube W, Beeler N, Wyss T. Validity of sports watches when estimating energy expenditure during running. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2017;9:1–8. doi: 10.1186/s13102-017-0089-6.
    1. Rose SMS-F, Contrepois K, Moneghetti KJ, et al. A longitudinal big data approach for precision health. Nat Med. 2019;25:792–804. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0414-6.
    1. Sanders D, Abt G, Hesselink MK, et al. Methods of monitoring training load and their relationships to changes in fitness and performance in competitive road cyclists. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12:668–675. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0454.
    1. Shaffer F, Ginsberg JP. An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms. Front Public Health. 2017;5:258. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00258.
    1. Shaffer F, McCraty R, Zerr CL. A healthy heart is not a metronome: an integrative review of the heart’s anatomy and heart rate variability. Front Psychol. 2014;5:1040. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01040.
    1. Shcherbina A, Mattsson CM, Waggott D, et al. Accuracy in wrist-worn, sensor-based measurements of heart rate and energy expenditure in a diverse cohort. J Pers Med. 2017;7:3. doi: 10.3390/jpm7020003.
    1. Snyder NC, Willoughby CA, Smith BK. Comparison of the polar V800 and the garmin forerunner 230 to predict ˙VO2max. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35:1403–1409. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002931.
    1. Spierer DK, Rosen Z, Litman LL, Fujii K. Validation of photoplethysmography as a method to detect heart rate during rest and exercise. J Med Eng Technol. 2015;39:264–271. doi: 10.3109/03091902.2015.1047536.
    1. Støve MP, Haucke E, Nymann ML, et al. Accuracy of the wearable activity tracker garmin forerunner 235 for the assessment of heart rate during rest and activity. J Sports Sci. 2019;37:895–901. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1535563.
    1. Strain T, Wijndaele K, Dempsey PC, et al. Wearable-device-measured physical activity and future health risk. Nat Med. 2020;26:1385–1391. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1012-3.
    1. SurveyMonkey consumer health and wellness: What it means to brands in 2021
    1. Sunny JS, Patro CPK, Karnani K, et al. Anomaly Detection framework for wearables data: a perspective review on data concepts. Data Anal Algorithms Prospects Sens. 2022;22:756.
    1. Tamura T, Maeda Y, Sekine M, Yoshida M. Wearable photoplethysmographic sensors—past and present. Electronics. 2014;3:282–302. doi: 10.3390/electronics3020282.
    1. The Harris poll trends in wearable fitness
    1. Thiebaud RS, Funk MD, Patton JC, et al. Validity of wrist-worn consumer products to measure heart rate and energy expenditure. Digit Health. 2018;4:2055207618770322.
    1. Thompson WR. Worldwide survey of fitness trends for 2019. Acsms Health Fit J. 2018;22:10–17. doi: 10.1249/FIT.0000000000000438.
    1. Thompson WR worldwide survey of fitness trends for 2021. ACSM’s health and fitness journal. (2021)
    1. Thomson EA, Nuss K, Comstock A, et al. Heart rate measures from the apple watch, fitbit charge HR 2, and electrocardiogram across different exercise intensities. J Sports Sci. 2019;37:1411–1419. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1560644.
    1. US patent application publication firstbeat technologies US. Patent
    1. Wahl Y, Düking P, Droszez A, et al. Criterion-validity of commercially available physical activity tracker to estimate step count, covered distance and energy expenditure during sports conditions. Front Physiol. 2017;8:725. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00725.
    1. Winter S, Gordon S, Watt K. Effects of fatigue on kinematics and kinetics during overground running: a systematic review. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2016;57:887–899.
    1. Zhang Z, Khatami R. Can we trust the oxygen saturation measured by consumer smartwatches? Lancet Respir Med. 2022 doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00103-5.

Source: PubMed

3