Accepted for/Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Date Submitted: Mar 7, 2019
Date Accepted: Jun 9, 2019
Accuracy of 12 Wearable Devices for Estimating Physical Activity Energy Expenditure Using a Metabolic Chamber and the Doubly Labeled Water Method
ABSTRACT
Background:
Self-monitoring using pedometers and accelerometers has been considered effective for promoting and maintaining physical activity (PA). However, the validity of estimating the amount of PA or PA energy expenditure (PAEE) using wearable devices has not been sufficiently established.
Objective:
We examined the validity of 12 wearable devices for determining PAEE during 1 standardized day in a metabolic chamber and during 15 free-living days using the doubly labeled water (DLW) method.
Methods:
Nineteen healthy adults aged 21–50 years participated in this study. They followed a standardized protocol in a metabolic chamber for an entire day by wearing 12 wearable devices simultaneously. In addition, they spent their daily lives wearing 12 wearable devices under free-living conditions while subjected to DLW method for 15 days. The PAEE criterion was calculated by subtracting the basal metabolic rate measured by the metabolic chamber and the product of 0.1 × total energy expenditure (TEE) from TEE. The TEE was obtained by the metabolic chamber and DLW methods. The PAEE values of wearable devices were also extracted or calculated from each application or web site. The Dunnett test and Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients were used to examine the variables estimated by wearable devices.
Results:
On the standardized day, the PAEE estimated using the metabolic chamber (PAEEcha) was 528.8 ± 149.4 kcal/day. The PAEEs of all devices except the TANITA AM-160 (513.8 ±135.0 kcal/day; P > .05), SUZUKEN Lifecorder EX (519.3 ±89.3 kcal/day; P > .05), and Panasonic Actimarker (545.9 ± 141.7 kcal/day; P > .05) were significantly different from the PAEEcha. None of the devices was significantly correlated with PAEEcha according to both Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation tests. During the 15 free-living days, the PAEE estimated by DLW (PAEEdlw) was 728.0 ± 162.7 kcal/day. PAEE values of all devices except the Omron Active style Pro (716.2 ± 159.0 kcal/day; P > .05) and Omron CaloriScan (707.5 ± 172.7 kcal/day; P > .05) were significantly underestimated. Only two devices, the Omron Active style Pro (r = 0.46; P = .045) and Panasonic Actimarker (r = 0.48; P = .04), had significant positive correlations with PAEEdlw according to Pearson’s tests. Three devices, the TANITA AM-160 (ρ = 0.50; P = .03), Omron CaloriScan (ρ = 0.48; P = .04), and Omron Active style Pro (ρ = 0.48; P = .04), can be ranked in PAEEdlw.
Conclusions:
Most wearable devices do not provide comparable PAEE estimates when using gold standard methods during 1 standardized day or 15 free-living days. Continuous development and evaluations of these wearable devices are needed for better estimations of PAEE.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.