Comparison of steps and energy expenditure assessment in adults of Fitbit Tracker and Ultra to the Actical and indirect calorimetry

Noah, J. Adam; Spierer, David K.; J, Gu; Bronner, Shaw

doi:10.3109/03091902.2013.831135

Cited by 174 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results extend the findings from other populations, including young adults,10 11 23 middle-aged adults10 12 and people with stroke and traumatic brain injury,15 showing that step counts measured by the Fitbit tracker are highly correlated with step counts from other validated accelerometers and pedometers commonly used in research settings. Consistent with previous findings,10 23 the strong agreement and low absolute discrepancy (<10% error) between Fitbit and visually counted steps verifies the clinical utility of the Fitbit tracker for monitoring physical activity in older adults.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Recent validation studies have demonstrated that the Fitbit is accurate in tracking steps in young10 11 and middle-aged12 adults; however, no study to date has investigated the accuracy of the Fitbit for tracking physical activity in older adults. Older adults frequently present with a wide range of physical disabilities and evidence suggests that activity monitors are less accurate in measuring activity in people who walk with slower gait speeds,13 use walking aids14 or have gait impairments 15…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validity of theFitbitactivity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults

Paul

Tiedemann

Hassett

et al. 2015

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCommercially available activity monitors, such as the Fitbit, may encourage physical activity. However, the accuracy of the Fitbit in older adults remains unknown. This study aimed to determine (1) the criterion validity of Fitbit step counts compared to visual count and ActiGraph accelerometer step counts and (2) the accuracy of ActiGraph step counts compared to visual count in community-dwelling older people.MethodsThirty-two community-dwelling adults aged over 60 wore Fitbit and ActiGraph devices simultaneously during a 2 min walk test (2MWT) and then during waking hours over a 7-day period. A physiotherapist counted the steps taken during the 2MWT.ResultsThere was excellent agreement between Fitbit and visually counted steps (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1)=0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94) from the 2MWT, and good agreement between Fitbit and ActiGraph (ICC2,1=0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.82), and between ActiGraph and visually counted steps (ICC2,1=0.60, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79). There was excellent agreement between the Fitbit and ActiGraph in average steps/day over 7 days (ICC2,1=0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Percentage agreement was closest for Fitbit steps compared to visual count (mean 0%, SD 4%) and least for Fitbit average steps/day compared to the ActiGraph (mean 13%, SD 25%).ConclusionsThe Fitbit accurately tracked steps during the 2MWT, but the ActiGraph appeared to underestimate steps. There was strong agreement between Fitbit and ActiGraph counted steps. The Fitbit tracker is sufficiently accurate to be used among community-dwelling older adults to monitor and give feedback on step counts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of theFitbitactivity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults

Paul

Tiedemann

Hassett

et al. 2015

BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was a pilot, 12-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two groups; (1) Intervention (mobile phone application developed by a research team and Fitbit Ultra [8] (accelerometer) based PA intervention) and (2) Control (Fitbit Ultra only). The study protocol was approved by the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Institutional Review Board prior to participant enrollment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mHealth Physical Activity Intervention: A Randomized Pilot Study in Physically Inactive Pregnant Women

Choi

Lee

Vittinghoff

et al. 2015

Matern Child Health J

167

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Physical inactivity is prevalent in pregnant women, and innovative strategies to promote physical activity are strongly needed. The purpose of the study was to test a 12-week mobile health (mHealth) physical activity intervention for feasibility and potential efficacy. Methods Participants were recruited between December 2012 and February 2014 using diverse recruitment methods. Thirty pregnant women between 10 and 20 weeks of gestation were randomized to an intervention (mobile phone app plus Fitbit) or a control (Fitbit) group. Both conditions targeted gradual increases in physical activity. The mHealth intervention included daily messages and a mobile phone activity diary with automated feedback and self-monitoring systems. Results On monthly average, 4 women were screened for initial eligibility by telephone and 2.5 were randomized. Intervention participants had a 1096 ± 1898 step increase in daily steps compared to an increase of 259 ± 1604 steps in control participants at 12 weeks. The change between groups in weekly mean steps per day during the 12-week study period was not statistically significant (p = 0.38). The intervention group reported lower perceived barrier to being active, lack of energy, than the control group at 12-week visit (p = 0.02). The rates of responding to daily messages and using the daily diary through the mobile app declined during the 12 week study period. Discussion It was difficult to recruit and randomize inactive women who wanted to increase physical activity during pregnancy. Pregnant women who were motivated to increase physical activity might find using mobile technologies in assessing and promoting PA acceptable. Possible reasons for the non-significant treatment effect of the mHealth intervention on physical activity are discussed. Public awareness of safety and benefits of physical activity during pregnancy should be promoted. Clinicaltrials.Gov Identifier NCT01461707.

show abstract

“…Adam Noah et al 8 concluded that waist clipped FITBIT devices are accurate for activity monitoring and step counting (for activities where no incline is incorporated).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambulatory physical activity during the initial training phase in a Naval Commando Unit

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of steps and energy expenditure assessment in adults of Fitbit Tracker and Ultra to the Actical and indirect calorimetry

Cited by 174 publications

References 35 publications

Validity of theFitbitactivity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults

Validity of theFitbitactivity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults

mHealth Physical Activity Intervention: A Randomized Pilot Study in Physically Inactive Pregnant Women

Ambulatory physical activity during the initial training phase in a Naval Commando Unit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About