Validation of Garmin Fenix 3 HR Fitness Tracker Biomechanics and Metabolics (VO2max)

Abstract

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.

Validity of Estimating the Maximal Oxygen Consumption by Consumer Wearables: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Expert Statement of the INTERLIVE Network

“…Furthermore, none of the included articles reported whether the gas analyzer used both VO 2 and VCO 2 for VO 2max assessment, even though it is known that systems without CO 2 sensors decrease the precision and should be treated with caution [50]. Lastly, four studies [39,42,44,47] did not clarify whether the device was calibrated [45], and we recommend that a proper calibration process according to the manufacturer's instructions be performed before the VO 2max assessment. We urge…”

“…Within the included studies in this review, eight validated the VO 2max estimations of Polar ® devices (models: A300, S410, F11, FT40, F6, RS300X, and two V800) [27,28,31,37,39,40,47,51], five validated Garmin ® devices (models: Fenix 3, Fenix 5X, Forerunner 920 XT, and GF5) [29,30,39,42,44], and two validated Fitbit ® devices (models: two Charge 2) [25,46]. However, several other brands currently claim to provide VO 2max estimations, such as Apple, Tom-Tom, Huawei, Suunto, Withings, and Coros (Supplementary Material 8; see the electronic supplementary material).…”

“…Three out of the 14 included studies did not follow an ecological validity procedure [28,29,44], defined as a validation process that resembles the use of the device in the consumer's real life. Two of the studies introduced bias when including the setup information, an aspect that will be discussed in the "Testing Protocols and Conditions" section [28,44], while one study did not place the device in an ecological manner according to manufacture instructions [29].…”

“…Three out of the 14 included studies did not follow an ecological validity procedure [28,29,44], defined as a validation process that resembles the use of the device in the consumer's real life. Two of the studies introduced bias when including the setup information, an aspect that will be discussed in the "Testing Protocols and Conditions" section [28,44], while one study did not place the device in an ecological manner according to manufacture instructions [29]. Regarding the ecological placement, Anderson et al [29] fixed the device to the wrist with additional tape, and this is not recommended since it may artificially improve the precision of the HR readings through PPG, biasing the validity of the device in ecological settings.…”

Validation of ambulatory monitoring devices to measure energy expenditure and heart rate in a military setting

“…They claim to assess the same parameters, however, these are based for example on HR data, on acceleration data or on a combination of both obtained on the upper arm, on the chest, on the hip using each time different technology (Brage et al 2007, Wyss et al 2012, Burrell et al 2016, Buller et al 2021. The major limitation of these devices is the limited knowledge about data validity and reliability for measuring physical demands in a military setting or limited comparability (Crouter et al 2008, Dannecker et al 2013, Lee et al 2014, Sperlich and Holmberg 2017, Friedl 2018, Bent et al 2020, Carrier et al 2020. Yet, to adhere to and to benefit from data monitoring, a basic prerequisite is to validate technology against a criterion measure, ideally through a comparison of multiple systems simultaneously, in the environment and during activities of the user group (Sperlich and Holmberg, 2017).…”