The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of the Garmin fēnix® 3 HR fitness tracker. Methods: A total of 34 healthy recreational runners participated in biomechanical or metabolic testing. Biomechanics participants completed three running conditions (flat, incline, and decline) at a self-selected running pace, on an instrumented treadmill while running biomechanics were tracked using a motion capture system. Variables extracted were compared with data collected by the Garmin fēnix 3 HR (worn on the wrist) that was paired with a chest heart rate monitor and a Garmin Foot Pod (worn on the shoe). Metabolic testing involved two separate tests; a graded exercise test to exhaustion utilizing a metabolic cart and treadmill, and a 15-min submaximal outdoor track session while wearing the Garmin. 2 × 3 analysis of variances with post hoc t tests, mean absolute percentage errors, Pearson’s correlation (R), and a t test were used to determine validity. Results: The fēnix kinematics had a mean absolute percentage errors of 9.44%, 0.21%, 26.38%, and 5.77% for stride length, run cadence, vertical oscillation, and ground contact time, respectively. The fēnix overestimated (p < .05) VO2max with a mean absolute percentage error of 8.05% and an R value of .917. Conclusion: The Garmin fēnix 3 HR appears to produce a valid measure of run cadence and ground contact time during running, while it overestimated vertical oscillation in every condition (p < .05) and should be used with caution when determining stride length. The fēnix appears to produce a valid VO2max estimate and may be used when more accurate methods are not available.
The purpose of this review was to evaluate the current state of the literature and to identify the types of study designs, wearable devices, statistical tests, and exercise modes used in validation and reliability studies conducted in applied settings/outdoor environments. This was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We identified nine articles that fit our inclusion criteria, eight of which tested for validity and one tested for reliability. The studies tested 28 different devices with exercise modalities of running, walking, cycling, and hiking. While there were no universally common analytical techniques used to measure accuracy or validity, correlative measures were used in 88% of studies, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) in 75%, and Bland–Altman plots in 63%. Intra-class correlation was used to determine reliability. There were not any universally common thresholds to determine validity, however, of the studies that used MAPE and correlation, there were only five devices that had a MAPE of < 10% and a correlation value of > 0.7. Overall, the current review establishes the need for greater testing in applied settings when validating wearables. Researchers should seek to incorporate multiple intensities, populations, and modalities into their study designs while utilizing appropriate analytical techniques to measure and determine validity and reliability.
Injuries that occurred on Sunday were classified as last day of the week, while injuries that occurred any other day were classified as middle of the week. Averages of all healthy athletes' data were compared to the injured athlete's data every week injury was recorded, with higher differences found in the middle of the week versus the end of the week.
To our knowledge, no published systematic review has described the effects of mindful walking on mental and cardiovascular health. We have aimed to fill this gap by first establishing our systematic review protocol. Our protocol was adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and is registered in PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42021241180). The protocol is described step-by-step in this paper, which we wrote to achieve three objectives: to adhere to the best practices stated in the PRISMA guidelines, to ensure procedural transparency, and to enable readers to co-opt our protocol for future systematic reviews on mindful walking and related topics. To achieve our third objective, we provide and explain a novel tool we created to track the sources we will find and screen for our review. Ultimately, the protocol and novel tool will lead to the first published systematic review about mindful walking and will also facilitate future systematic reviews.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.