Data on energy expenditure was not available for the Samsung device. However, errors on energy expenditure were far greater, ranging from the lowest at 27.4% for the FitBit Surge to the highest error of 92.6% for the PulseOn device. For all forms of exercise compared to the lab tests the most accurate readings were from the Apple Watch, which had a median error rate of 2%, while the Samsung Gear S2 came bottom of the pile with a median error in heart rate of 6.8%.
The results, published in the Journal of Personalised Medicine, reveal that overall the fitness trackers performed well at measuring heart rate. The resulting heart rate data and energy expenditure estimates for each device were then extracted and compared to data that had been collected simultaneously by “gold standard” laboratory-based measures: electrocardiograph (ECG) to measure heart rate, and indirect calorimetry – a measure of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the breath – to measure calories burned.
Calorie counter device skin#
“There were diversity of ages, male and female, and then also we looked at diversity of skin tone, and then size and weight to try and represent the population generally,” said Ashley.
The team tested seven wrist-worn wearable devices – the Apple Watch, Basis Peak, Fitbit Surge, Microsoft Band, Mio Alpha 2, PulseOn, and Samsung Gear S2 – with 31 women and 29 men each wearing multiple devices at a time while using treadmills to walk or run, cycling on exercise bikes or simply sitting. “At the same time we were unpleasantly surprised at how poor the calorie estimates were for the devices – they were really all over the map.”
0 kommentar(er)
