IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0251975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive comparison of Apple Watch and Fitbit monitors in a free-living setting

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Bai
  • Connie Tompkins
  • Nancy Gell
  • Dakota Dione
  • Tao Zhang
  • Wonwoo Byun

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three consumer-based activity monitors, Fitbit Charge 2, Fitbit Alta, and the Apple Watch 2, all worn on the wrist, in estimating step counts, moderate-to-vigorous minutes (MVPA), and heart rate in a free-living setting. Methods: Forty-eight participants (31 females, 17 males; ages 18–59) were asked to wear the three consumer-based monitors mentioned above on the wrist, concurrently with a Yamax pedometer as the criterion for step count, an ActiGraph GT3X+ (ActiGraph) for MVPA, and a Polar H7 chest strap for heart rate. Participants wore the monitors for a 24-hour free-living condition without changing their usual active routine. MVPA was calculated in bouts of ≥10 minutes. Pearson correlation, mean absolute percent error (MAPE), and equivalence testing were used to evaluate the measurement agreement. Results: The average step counts recorded for each device were as follows: 11,734 (Charge2), 11,922 (Alta), 11,550 (Apple2), and 10,906 (Yamax). The correlations in steps for the above monitors ranged from 0.84 to 0.95 and MAPE ranged from 17.1% to 35.5%. For MVPA minutes, the average were 76.3 (Charge2), 63.3 (Alta), 49.5 (Apple2), and 47.8 (ActiGraph) minutes accumulated in bouts of 10 or greater minutes. The correlation from MVPA estimation for above monitors were 0.77, 0.91, and 0.66. MAPE from MVPA estimation ranged from 44.7% to 55.4% compared to ActiGraph. For heart rate, correlation for Charge2 and Apple2 was higher for sedentary behavior and lower for MVPA. The MAPE ranged from 4% to 16%. Conclusion: All three consumer monitors estimated step counts fairly accurately, and both the Charge2 and Apple2 reported reasonable heart rate estimation. However, all monitors substantially underestimated MVPA in free-living settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Bai & Connie Tompkins & Nancy Gell & Dakota Dione & Tao Zhang & Wonwoo Byun, 2021. "Comprehensive comparison of Apple Watch and Fitbit monitors in a free-living setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-12, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251975
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251975
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251975&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0251975?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jamie E Collins & Heidi Y Yang & Taylor P Trentadue & Yusi Gong & Elena Losina, 2019. "Validation of the Fitbit Charge 2 compared to the ActiGraph GT3X+ in older adults with knee osteoarthritis in free-living conditions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.