4.5 Article

Agreement of the Apple Watch (R) and Fitbit Charge (R) for recording step count and heart rate when exercising in water

Journal

MEDICAL & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING & COMPUTING
Volume 60, Issue 5, Pages 1323-1331

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11517-022-02536-w

Keywords

Physical activity; Biofeedback; Wearable technology; Clinical exercise physiology; Rehabilitation

Funding

  1. St. Lawrence College

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the association and level of agreement between criterion methods and the Apple Watch 4 and Fitbit Charge 3 for recording step count and heart rate when exercising in water. The results showed significant associations between these devices and the criterion methods, indicating a reasonable level of agreement.
This study examined the association and level of agreement between criterion methods and the Apple Watch 4 (R) and Fitbit Charge 3 (R) for recording step count and heart rate when exercising in water on an aquatic treadmill (ATM). Sixteen healthy participants (13 females and 3 males) volunteered to take part in this study. Participants were submerged in an ATM pool to the level of their xiphoid process and completed 3-min exercise bouts at intensities that corresponded to a comfortable walk, brisk walk, jog, and running. A Polar (R) T31 chest strap recorded heart rate (HR) and a high-definition digital camera was utilized for recording step count (SC). Significant associations (p < 0.001) were observed between criterion methods and the Apple (R) (HR: R-2 = 0.99 and SC: R-2 = 0.87) and Fitbit (R) (HR: R-2 = 0.72 and SC: R-2 = 0.83) devices. The mean absolute error and relative error (%) for recording step count were 19.8 (7.4%) in the Apple Watch and 21.4 (8.5%) in the Fitbit and 0.90 (0.76%) in the Apple Watch and 4.2 (3.0%) in the Fitbit for recording heart rate. Both devices displayed a reasonable level of agreement for recording step count and heart rate when exercising in water.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available