Assessment of Maximum Oxygen Uptake in Elite Youth Soccer Players: A Comparative Analysis of Smartwatch Technology, Yoyo Intermittent Recovery Test 2, and Respiratory Gas Analysis.

The maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) is a critical factor for endurance performance in soccer. Novel wearable technology may allow frequent assessment of V̇O2max during non-fatiguing warm-up runs of soccer players with minimal interference to soccer practice. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of VO2max provided by a consumer grade smartwatch (Garmin Forerunner 245, Garmin, Olathe, USA, Software:13.00) and the YoYo Intermittent Recovery Run 2 (YYIR2) by comparing it with respiratory gas analysis. 24 trained male youth soccer players performed different tests to assess VO2max: i) a treadmill test employing respiratory gas analysis, ii) YYIR2 and iii) during a non-fatiguing warm-up run of 10 min wearing a smartwatch as recommended by the device-manufacturer on 3 different days within 2 weeks. As the device-manufacturer indicates that validity of smartwatch-derived VO2max may differ with an increase in runs, 16 players performed a second run with the smartwatch to test this claim. The main evidence revealed that the smartwatch showed an ICC of 0.37 [95% CI: -0.25; 0.71] a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 5.58% after one run, as well as an ICC of 0.54 [95% CI: -0.3; 8.4] and a MAPE of 1.06% after the second run with the smartwatch. The YYIR2 showed an ICC of 0.17 [95% CI: -5.7; 0.6]; and MAPE of 4.2%. When using the smartwatch for VO2max assessment in a non-fatiguing run as a warm-up, as suggested by the device manufacturer before soccer practice, the MAPE diminishes after two runs. Therefore, for more accurate VO2max assessment with the smartwatch, we recommend to perform at least two runs to reduce the MAPE and enhance the validity of the findings.

Assessment of Peak Oxygen Uptake with a Smartwatch and its Usefulness for Training of Runners.

Peak oxygen uptake (˙VO2peak) is an important factor contributing to running performance. Wearable technology may allow the assessment of ˙VO2peak more frequently and on a larger scale. We aim to i) validate the ˙VO2peak assessed by a smartwatch (Garmin Forerunner 245), and ii) discuss how this parameter may assist to evaluate and guide training procedures. A total of 23 runners (12 female, 11 male; ˙VO2peak: 48.6±6.8 ml∙min-1∙kg-1) visited the laboratory twice to determine their ˙VO2peak during a treadmill ramp test. Between laboratory visits, participants wore a smartwatch and performed three outdoor runs to obtain ˙VO2peak values provided by the smartwatch. The ˙VO2peak obtained by the criterion measure ranged from 38 to 61 ml∙min-1∙kg-1. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) between the smartwatch and the criterion ˙VO2peak was 5.7%. The criterion measure revealed a coefficient of variation of 4.0% over the VO2peak range from 38-61 ml∙min-1∙kg-1. MAPE between the smartwatch and criterion measure was 7.1, 4.1 and -6.2% when analyzing ˙VO2peak ranging from 39-45 ml∙min-1∙kg-1, 45-55 ml∙min-1∙kg-1 or 55-61 ml∙min-1∙kg-1, respectively.

Behavior Change Techniques in Wrist-Worn Wearables to Promote Physical Activity: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Decreasing levels of physical activity (PA) increase the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality. To counteract these developments, interventions aiming to increase PA are urgently needed. Mobile health (mHealth) solutions such as wearable sensors (wearables) may assist with an improvement in PA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine which behavior change techniques (BCTs) are incorporated in currently available commercial high-end wearables that target users' PA behavior. METHODS: The BCTs incorporated in 5 different high-end wearables (Apple Watch Series 3, Garmin Vívoactive 3, Fitbit Versa, Xiaomi Amazfit Stratos 2, and Polar M600) were assessed by 2 researchers using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). Effectiveness of the incorporated BCTs in promoting PA behavior was assessed by a content analysis of the existing literature. RESULTS: The most common BCTs were goal setting (behavior), action planning, review behavior goal(s), discrepancy between current behavior and goal, feedback on behavior, self-monitoring of behavior, and biofeedback. Fitbit Versa, Garmin Vívoactive 3, Apple Watch Series 3, Polar M600, and Xiaomi Amazfit Stratos 2 incorporated 17, 16, 12, 11, and 11 BCTs, respectively, which are proven to effectively promote PA. CONCLUSIONS: Wearables employ different numbers and combinations of BCTs, which might impact their effectiveness in improving PA. To promote PA by employing wearables, we encourage researchers to develop a taxonomy specifically designed to assess BCTs incorporated in wearables. We also encourage manufacturers to customize BCTs based on the targeted populations.

Wrist-Worn Wearables for Monitoring Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure While Sitting or Performing Light-to-Vigorous Physical Activity: Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity reduces the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality, but an inactive lifestyle is becoming increasingly common. Innovative approaches to monitor and promote physical activity are warranted. While individual monitoring of physical activity aids in the design of effective interventions to enhance physical activity, a basic prerequisite is that the monitoring devices exhibit high validity. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to assess the validity of monitoring heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity with 4 popular wrist-worn wearables (Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa). METHODS: While wearing the 4 different wearables, 25 individuals performed 5 minutes each of sitting, walking, and running at different velocities (ie, 1.1 m/s, 1.9 m/s, 2.7 m/s, 3.6 m/s, and 4.1 m/s), as well as intermittent sprints. HR and EE were compared to common criterion measures: Polar-H7 chest belt for HR and indirect calorimetry for EE. RESULTS: While monitoring HR at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.09-0.62, 0.13-0.88, 0.62-1.24, and 0.47-1.94 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 0.9%-4.3%, 2.2%-6.7%, 2.9%-9.2%, and 4.1%-19.1%, respectively, for the 4 wearables. While monitoring EE at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.34-1.84, 0.32-1.33, 0.46-4.86, and 0.41-1.65 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 13.5%-27.1%, 16.3%-28.0%, 15.9%-34.5%, and 8.0%-32.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Apple Watch Series 4 provides the highest validity (ie, smallest error rates) when measuring HR while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity, followed by the Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, in that order. The Apple Watch Series 4 and Polar Vantage V are suitable for valid HR measurements at the intensities tested, but HR data provided by the Garmin Fenix 5 and Fitbit Versa should be interpreted with caution due to higher error rates at certain intensities. None of the 4 wrist-worn wearables should be employed to monitor EE at the intensities and durations tested.

Recommendations for Assessment of the Reliability, Sensitivity, and Validity of Data Provided by Wearable Sensors Designed for Monitoring Physical Activity.

Although it is becoming increasingly popular to monitor parameters related to training, recovery, and health with wearable sensor technology (wearables), scientific evaluation of the reliability, sensitivity, and validity of such data is limited and, where available, has involved a wide variety of approaches. To improve the trustworthiness of data collected by wearables and facilitate comparisons, we have outlined recommendations for standardized evaluation. We discuss the wearable devices themselves, as well as experimental and statistical considerations. Adherence to these recommendations should be beneficial not only for the individual, but also for regulatory organizations and insurance companies.

Criterion-Validity of Commercially Available Physical Activity Tracker to Estimate Step Count, Covered Distance and Energy Expenditure during Sports Conditions.

Background: In the past years, there was an increasing development of physical activity tracker (Wearables). For recreational people, testing of these devices under walking or light jogging conditions might be sufficient. For (elite) athletes, however, scientific trustworthiness needs to be given for a broad spectrum of velocities or even fast changes in velocities reflecting the demands of the sport. Therefore, the aim was to evaluate the validity of eleven Wearables for monitoring step count, covered distance and energy expenditure (EE) under laboratory conditions with different constant and varying velocities. Methods: Twenty healthy sport students (10 men, 10 women) performed a running protocol consisting of four 5 min stages of different constant velocities (4.3; 7.2; 10.1; 13.0 km·h-1), a 5 min period of intermittent velocity, and a 2.4 km outdoor run (10.1 km·h-1) while wearing eleven different Wearables (Bodymedia Sensewear, Beurer AS 80, Polar Loop, Garmin Vivofit, Garmin Vivosmart, Garmin Vivoactive, Garmin Forerunner 920XT, Fitbit Charge, Fitbit Charge HR, Xaomi MiBand, Withings Pulse Ox). Step count, covered distance, and EE were evaluated by comparing each Wearable with a criterion method (Optogait system and manual counting for step count, treadmill for covered distance and indirect calorimetry for EE). Results: All Wearables, except Bodymedia Sensewear, Polar Loop, and Beurer AS80, revealed good validity (small MAPE, good ICC) for all constant and varying velocities for monitoring step count. For covered distance, all Wearables showed a very low ICC (<0.1) and high MAPE (up to 50%), revealing no good validity. The measurement of EE was acceptable for the Garmin, Fitbit and Withings Wearables (small to moderate MAPE), while Bodymedia Sensewear, Polar Loop, and Beurer AS80 showed a high MAPE up to 56% for all test conditions. Conclusion: In our study, most Wearables provide an acceptable level of validity for step counts at different constant and intermittent running velocities reflecting sports conditions. However, the covered distance, as well as the EE could not be assessed validly with the investigated Wearables. Consequently, covered distance and EE should not be monitored with the presented Wearables, in sport specific conditions.

Comparison of Non-Invasive Individual Monitoring of the Training and Health of Athletes with Commercially Available Wearable Technologies.

Athletes adapt their training daily to optimize performance, as well as avoid fatigue, overtraining and other undesirable effects on their health. To optimize training load, each athlete must take his/her own personal objective and subjective characteristics into consideration and an increasing number of wearable technologies (wearables) provide convenient monitoring of various parameters. Accordingly, it is important to help athletes decide which parameters are of primary interest and which wearables can monitor these parameters most effectively. Here, we discuss the wearable technologies available for non-invasive monitoring of various parameters concerning an athlete's training and health. On the basis of these considerations, we suggest directions for future development. Furthermore, we propose that a combination of several wearables is most effective for accessing all relevant parameters, disturbing the athlete as little as possible, and optimizing performance and promoting health.