Skin temperature is a fundamental variable in human thermo-physiology, and yet skin temperature measurement remains impractical in most free-living, exercise and clinical settings, using currently available hard-wired methods. The purpose of this study was to compare wireless iButtons and hard-wired thermistors for human skin temperature measurement. In the first of two investigations, iButtons and thermistors monitored temperature in a controlled water bath (range: 10-40 degrees C) and were referenced against a certified, mercury thermometer. In the second investigation, eight healthy males completed three randomized trials (ambient temperature = 10 degrees C, 20 degrees C and 30 degrees C) while both devices recorded skin temperature at rest (in low and high wind velocities) and during cycle-ergometry exercise. The results are as follows. Investigation 1: both devices displayed very high validity correlation with the reference thermometer (r > 0.999). Prior to correction, the mean bias was +0.121 degrees C for iButtons and +0.045 degrees C for thermistors. Upon calibration correction the mean bias for iButtons and thermistors was not significantly different from zero bias. Interestingly, a typical error of the estimate of iButtons (0.043 degrees C) was 1.5 times less than that of thermistors (0.062 degrees C), demonstrating iButtons' lower random error. Investigation 2: the offset between iButton and thermistor readings was generally consistent across conditions; however, thermistor responses gave readings that were always closer to ambient temperature than those given by iButtons, suggesting potential thermistor drift towards environmental conditions. Mean temperature differences between iButtons and thermistors during resting trials ranged from 0.261 degrees C to 1.356 degrees C. Mean temperature differences between iButtons and thermistors during exercise were 0.989 degrees C (ambient temperature = 10 degrees C), 0.415 degrees C (ambient temperature = 20 degrees C) and 0.318 degrees C (ambient temperature = 30 degrees C). Observed error estimates were within the acceptable limits for the skin temperature method comparison, with typical errors <0.3 degrees C, correlation coefficients >0.9 and CV <1% under all conditions. These findings indicate that wireless iButtons provide a valid alternative for human skin temperature measurement during laboratory and field investigations particularly when skin temperature measurement using other currently available methods may prove problematic.

Exercise increases neural responses in reward-related regions of the brain in response to images of low-calorie foods and suppresses activation during the viewing of high-calorie foods. These central responses are associated with exercise-induced changes in peripheral signals related to appetite-regulation and hydration status. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01926431.

These findings show that in overweight individuals, exercise in the cold stimulates postexercise EI to a greater extent than exercise in a neutral environment.

Background Accurate, continuous heart rate measurements are important for health assessment, physical activity, and sporting performance, and the integration of heart rate measurements into wearable devices has extended its accessibility. Although the use of photoplethysmography technology is not new, the available data relating to the validity of measurement are limited, and the range of activities being performed is often restricted to one exercise domain and/or limited intensities. Objective The primary objective of this study was to assess the validity of the Polar OH1 and Fitbit Charge 3 devices for measuring heart rate during rest, light, moderate, vigorous, and sprint-type exercise. Methods A total of 20 healthy adults (9 female; height: mean 1.73 [SD 0.1] m; body mass: mean 71.6 [SD 11.0] kg; and age: mean 40 [SD 10] years) volunteered and provided written informed consent to participate in the study consisting of 2 trials. Trial 1 was split into 3 components: 15-minute sedentary activities, 10-minute cycling on a bicycle ergometer, and incremental exercise test to exhaustion on a motorized treadmill (18-42 minutes). Trial 2 was split into 2 components: 4 × 15-second maximal sprints on a cycle ergometer and 4 × 30- to 50-m sprints on a nonmotorized resistance treadmill. Data from the 3 devices were time-aligned, and the validity of Polar OH1 and Fitbit Charge 3 was assessed against Polar H10 (criterion device). Validity was evaluated using the Bland and Altman analysis, Pearson moment correlation coefficient, and mean absolute percentage error. Results Overall, there was a very good correlation between the Polar OH1 and Polar H10 devices (r=0.95), with a mean bias of −1 beats·min-1 and limits of agreement of −20 to 19 beats·min-1. The Fitbit Charge 3 device underestimated heart rate by 7 beats·min-1 compared with Polar H10, with a limit of agreement of −46 to 33 beats·min-1 and poor correlation (r=0.8). The mean absolute percentage error for both devices was deemed acceptable (<5%). Polar OH1 performed well across each phase of trial 1; however, validity was worse for trial 2 activities. Fitbit Charge 3 performed well only during rest and nonsprint-based treadmill activities. Conclusions Compared with our criterion device, Polar OH1 was accurate at assessing heart rate, but the accuracy of Fitbit Charge 3 was generally poor. Polar OH1 performed worse during trial 2 compared with the activities in trial 1, and the validity of the Fitbit Charge 3 device was particularly poor during our cycling exercises.

This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.