Validation of Garmin Fitness Tracker Biomechanics

Carrier, Bryson; Holmes, Tim; Williams, Lauren; Dahl, Siri; Weber, Libby; Creer, Andrew; Standifird, Tyler

doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000560601.33284.3c

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Garmin Fenix series is relatively new PPG-based device and as such has limited available literature. In fact, we were only able to find two conference abstracts for the Fenix 3 [ 45 , 46 ], and one recent laboratory-based investigation on the Fenix 5 [ 47 ]. The Garmin Fenix 3 estimation of maximal aerobic capacity was not different compared to laboratory-based metabolic analysis (p>0.05) [ 46 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Garmin Fenix 3 estimation of maximal aerobic capacity was not different compared to laboratory-based metabolic analysis (p>0.05) [ 46 ]. Biomechanical running parameters of stride length and run cadence were not different compared to laboratory measurements (p>0.05), but significant differences were observed for vertical oscillation and ground contact time (p<0.05) [ 45 ]. Düking et al reported moderate heart rate validity for the Garmin Fenix 5 during sitting and walking (standardized typical error of the estimate [sTEE] = 0.63, 0.62)to be poor with increased intensities of exercise (9.9 MET level sTEE = 1.24, 13.8 MET level = 1.44) and recommend caution due to the higher rates of error [ 47 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Concurrent heart rate validity of wearable technology devices during trail running

Navalta¹,

Montes²,

Bodell³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validation of heart rate responses in wearable technology devices is generally composed of laboratory-based protocols that are steady state in nature and as a result, high accuracy measures are returned. However, there is a need to understand device validity in applied settings that include varied intensities of exercise. The purpose was to determine concurrent heart rate validity during trail running. Twenty-one healthy participants volunteered (female n = 10, [mean (SD)]: age = 31 [ 11 ] years, height = 173.0 [ 7 ] cm, mass = 75.6 [ 13 ] kg). Participants were outfitted with wearable technology devices (Garmin Fenix 5 wristwatch, Jabra Elite Sport earbuds, Motiv ring, Scosche Rhythm+ forearm band, Suunto Spartan Sport watch with accompanying chest strap) and completed a self-paced 3.22 km trail run while concurrently wearing a criterion heart rate strap (Polar H7 heart rate monitor). The trail runs were out-and-back with the first 1.61 km in an uphill direction, and the 1.61 return being downhill in nature. Validity was determined through three methods: Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE), Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LOA), and Lin’s Concordance Coefficient (r C ). Validity measures overall are as follows: Garmin Fenix 5 (MAPE = 13%, LOA = -32 to 162, r C = 0.32), Jabra Elite Sport (MAPE = 23%, LOA = -464 to 503, r C = 0.38), Motiv ring (MAPE = 16%, LOA = -52 to 96, r C = 0.29), Scosche Rhythm+ (MAPE = 6%, LOA = -114 to 120, r C = 0.79), Suunto Spartan Sport (MAPE = 2%, LOA = -62 to 61, r C = 0.96). All photoplethysmography-based (PPG) devices displayed poor heart rate agreement during variable intensity trail running. Until technological advances occur in PPG-based devices allowing for acceptable agreement, heart rate in outdoor environments should be obtained using an ECG-based chest strap that can be connected to a wristwatch or other comparable receiver.

show abstract