These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative evaluation of heart rate-based monitors: Apple Watch vs Fitbit Charge HR.
    Author: Bai Y, Hibbing P, Mantis C, Welk GJ.
    Journal: J Sports Sci; 2018 Aug; 36(15):1734-1741. PubMed ID: 29210326.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this investigation was to examine the validity of energy expenditure (EE), steps, and heart rate measured with the Apple Watch 1 and Fitbit Charge HR. Thirty-nine healthy adults wore the two monitors while completing a semi-structured activity protocol consisting of 20 minutes of sedentary activity, 25 minutes of aerobic exercise, and 25 minutes of light intensity physical activity. Criterion measures were obtained from an Oxycon Mobile for EE, a pedometer for steps, and a Polar heart rate strap worn on the chest for heart rate. For estimating whole-trial EE, the mean absolute percent error (MAPE) from Fitbit Charge HR (32.9%) was more than twice that of Apple Watch 1 (15.2%). This trend was consistent for the individual conditions. Both monitors accurately assessed steps during aerobic activity (MAPEApple: 6.2%; MAPEFitbit: 9.4%) but overestimated steps in light physical activity. For heart rate, Fitbit Charge HR produced its smallest MAPE in sedentary behaviors (7.2%), followed by aerobic exercise (8.4%), and light activity (10.1%). The Apple Watch 1 had stronger validity than the Fitbit Charge HR for assessing overall EE and steps during aerobic exercise. The Fitbit Charge HR provided heart rate estimates that were statistically equivalent to Polar monitor.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]