Validity and Reliability of the Garmin Instinct in Measuring Heart Rate during Pickleball

Playing a racquet sport called pickleball is increasing in popularity every day in the United States. Garmin is a popular brand that manufactures wearable fitness trackers capable of measuring heart rate (HR). Because HR is a common way to determe exercise intensity, the validity and reliability of wearables to provide accurate HR during pickleball is important. PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze and assess the validity and reliability of HR from the Garmin Instinct vs. Polar H10 (criterion) during pickleball. METHODS: Eleven adults (2 female, 8 male, 1 prefer not to disclose; age = 28.1 ± 9.2 years; height = 176.0 ± 8.0 cm; mass = 73.2 ± 13.4 kg) were recruited to participate via convenience sampling. Participants were asked to play alternating intervals of five minutes of pickleball interspersed with five minutes of rest while wearing two Garmin Instinct watches on the same wrist and a Polar H10 chest strap. Outcome measures were average and maximum HR, recorded in beats per minute (bpm). Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) and Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) were used to assess validity; MAPE ≤ 5% and CCC ≥ 0.90. Coefficient of Variation (CV) were used to assess reliability; CV ≤ 10% and ICC ≥ 0.70. RESULTS: The Garmin Instinct did not meet the CCC threshold for validity of average or maximum HR but met the thresholds for both reliability tests for average and maximum HR (see Table 1). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that, in the present study, the Garmin Instinct was only reliable for measuring average and maximum HR. This is challenging for those who wish to track their HR while playing racquet sports such as pickleball because the Garmin Instinct did not provide accurate average or maximum HR

Does Hand Use Affect Metabolic Measures During Pickleball

Pickleball is one of the fastest up and coming sports in the United States today. This low impact sport has the combined elements of Ping-Pong, tennis, and badminton. Pickleball can be played with the dominant hand (DH) or non-dominant (NDH). Though many people enjoy the sport, it is under-researched. The metabolic demands of pickleball are not clear, nor is whether the demands differ by the hand used. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the differences in metabolic measures while playing pickleball with the DH and NDH. METHODS: Eleven people were recruited via convenience sampling and participated (2 female, 8 males, 1 prefer not to disclose; age = 28.1 ± 9.2 years; height = 176.0 ± 8.0 cm; mass = 73.2 ± 13.4 kg). Participants were connected to a COSMED K5 portable metabolic analysis system. Outcome measures were VO2 (ml/kg/min), Metabolic Equivalents (METS), Percent of Calories from Fat (FAT%), Percent of Calories from Carbohydrate (CHO%), and Respiratory Quotient (RQ). Participants played for five minutes with one hand, rested, and played for five minutes with the other hand. The hand order was counterbalanced. Data were analyzed using a paired t-test with significance accepted at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed for VO2 (DH = 27.3 ± 4.2, NDH = 24.7± 4.4, p = 0.03) and METS (DH = 7.8 ± 1.2, NDH = 7.1 ± 1.3, p = 0.03). No difference was noted for RQ (DH = 0.84 ± 0.07, NDH = 0.82 ± 0.07, p = 0.2), FAT% (DH = 54.9 ± 22.1%, NDH = 62.4 ± 20.9%, p = 0.2), or CHO% (DH = 45.1 ± 22.1%, NDH = 37.6 ± 20.9% p = 0.2) CONCLUSION: Pickleball players consume more oxygen while playing with their dominant hand, but the difference is not reflected in other metabolic measures associated with substrate utilization. While playing pickleball with the dominant hand may confer an advantage from a skill and intensity perspective, there is no statistical advantage when considering the fuels used during the activity. The practical implications, however, should be further explored

Evaluation of Caloric Expenditure Metrics of Garmin Instinct Wearable Technology Devices During Pickleball

While tennis and badminton may present a moderate learning curve for beginners, pickleball, a similar racquet sport that has become increasingly popular in recent years, offers a notably simpler play-style that can be more easily adapted for new players. This sport has emerged during a time when wearable technology devices, such as the Garmin Instinct, have become commonly used to estimate physiological measures among individuals engaging in physical activity. Yet, there is little research that examines the validity and reliability of this technology during pickleball. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of caloric expenditure estimates generated by Garmin Instinct devices during pickleball. METHODS: Eleven participants (2 females, 8 males, and 1 prefer not to disclose) with an average age of 28.1 ± 9.2 years, average height of 176 ± 8.0 cm, and average mass of 73 ± 13.4 kg consented and were selected for this study through convenience sampling. Participants were equipped with two Garmin Instinct devices on their right wrists. A COSMED K5 wearable metabolic system was secured to their backs and provided the criterion measure. Participants played pickleball for a total of 10 minutes and switched hands after 5 minutes of play. The starting hand was counterbalanced. Total Kcals were measured during each trial. Data were analyzed for validity (Lin\u27s Concordance [CCC] and Mean Absolute Percent Error [MAPE]) and reliability (Coefficient of Variation [CV]). Predetermined thresholds were: MAPE0.90, CVRESULTS: The Garmin Instinct did not meet the threshold for either validity test (CCC=0.375, MAPE=31.08%). The Garmin Instinct did not meet the threshold for the reliability test (CV=12.90%).CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the Garmin Instinct is not valid nor reliable for measuring caloric expenditure during pickleball. Caloric metrics were statistically different between the two devices and between the devices and the K5. Players cannot be confident that the Garmin Instinct provides an accurate measure of caloric expenditure during pickleball

Does Handedness Impact Pulmonary Measures during Pickleball?

Pickleball is a racquet sport that originated in the 1960s. Due to its beginner-friendly nature, it attracts players of all ages and fitness levels. Despite becoming the most quickly growing sport in the nation, it is still underresearched. The sport’s physiological demands based on pulmonary measures, and whether the demands differ by handedness, are not fully understood. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze and assess whether differences were evident in performance and physiological responses in players when using the dominant (DH) and nondominant hand (NDH) during pickleball. METHODS: Participants were selected through convenience sampling and consisted of 11 (2 female, 8 male, 1 prefer not to disclose; age = 28.1 ± 9.2 years; height = 176 ± 8.0 cm; mass = 73 ± 13.4 kg). Participants were all equipped with a COSMED K5 wearable metabolic system attached through a harness securely worn on their back. Outcome measures included Ventilation (VE [L/min]), Ventilatory Equivalent for Oxygen (VE/VO2), Ventilatory Equivalent for Carbon Dioxide (VE/VCO2), Tidal Volume (VT), and Respiratory Frequency (Rf). Alternating intervals of five minutes of play followed by five minutes of rest were consistent throughout. The order of using the DH or NDH was counterbalanced. Data were analyzed using a paired t-test with significance accepted at p £ 0.05. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed for VT (DH = 1.4 ± 0.3 vs. NDH = 1.3 ± 0.2, p = 0.05) and VE/VCO2 (DH = 30.9 ± 2.5 vs. NDH = 32 ± 2.9, p = 0.04). However, there were no significant differences found for VE in L/min (DH = 57.5 ± 9.7 ; NDH = 52.5 ± 11.6, p = 0.08), VE/VO2 (DH = 25.9 ± 2.1 vs. NDH = 26 ± 2.9, p = 0.43), or Rf (DH = 40.9 ± 4.1 vs. NDH = 41.3 ± 5.4, p = 0.36). CONCLUSION: The greater mean VE/VCO2 during NDH play compared to DH play suggests that the use of the NDH presents more difficulty performing pickleball-related tasks. Switching to the NDH is reflected in expiring more CO₂, indicating that players exert more effort when using their NDH. Although the respiration measures were similar in terms of exhalation, the use of DH caused a greater mean VT than NDH

Perceived Fatigue and Physical Activity Enjoyment Following Indoor and Outdoor Moderately Heavy Superset Resistance Training

ACSM has again determined that resistance training (RT) and outdoor activities are two of the top ten worldwide fitness trends for 2023. We previously found that RT outdoors had a significantly lower perception of effort (RPE) compared to indoor RT, despite no physiological differences in heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE). However, no study has examined other feelings during RT in indoor or outdoor settings. PURPOSE: To determine how indoor or outdoor environments effect perceptions of fatigue and physical activity enjoyment following RT in recreationally resistance trained adults. METHODS: Twenty-three adult participants (n=10 female, n=13 male) completed this study. The Visual Analog Scale Fatigue (VAS-F) measured perceived fatigue and the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale – Short Version (PACES-S) measured PA enjoyment, and both were measured at baseline and then immediately following an acute session of indoor or outdoor RT. HR was obtained from a chest strap (Polar H10) and EE from a Portable Metabolic Cart (COSMED K5). Randomly in indoor and outdoor settings, participants completed 4 supersets of the reverse lunge and shoulder press exercises using dumbbells at a light (2 sets) and moderately heavy (2 sets) intensity with 1 superset of 6 repetitions per exercise and 1 min rest between supersets. A paired T-test (for HR & EE comparisons) or one-way repeated measures ANOVA with Sidak post-hoc test (for VAS-F & PACES-S comparisons) were used to determine differences (p\u3c0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between indoor and outdoor RT for the physiological variables of average HR (129.4±17.2 and 127.75±23.3 bpm, respectively, p=0.66) and EE (30.6±11.5 and 28.3±9.9 kcals, respectively, p=0.06). Perceived fatigue significantly (p\u3c0.0001) increased from baseline (1.13±0.94 arbitrary units, AU’s) following indoor (4.54±1.91 AU’s) and outdoor (3.99±1.54 AU’s) RT, but no environmental differences (p=0.36) were observed. PA enjoyment was not significantly (p range: 0.27-0.93) different between baseline (18.73±1.83 AU’s) and following indoor (18.18±1.99 AU’s) or outdoor (18.36±1.99 AU’s) RT. CONCLUSION: In recreationally resistance trained adults, moderately heavy superset RT in indoor or outdoor settings does not alter perceived fatigue or physical activity enjoyment

Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure Concurrent Validity of Identical Garmin Wrist Watches During Moderately Heavy Resistance Training

Consistent with previous years, ACSM has found that wearable technology and resistance training (RT) are two of the top 5 fitness trends in 2023. Our lab recently found that wrist-worn devices, such as Garmin Instinct, are neither valid nor reliable at measuring average or maximal heart rate (HR) or estimating energy expenditure (EE) following light intensity circuit RT. We postulated that the errors may have been due to the device’s algorithms assuming higher intensity during RT. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of identical Garmin Instinct wrist-watches to record valid measures of average and maximal HR as well as estimated EE following moderately heavy RT. METHODS: Twenty-one adult participants completed this study (n=10 female, n=11 male). Two Garmin Instinct wrist-watches were evaluated, along with the Polar H10 chest strap and Cosmed K5 portable metabolic unit as the criterion devices for average/maximal HR and EE, respectively. Participants completed 8 supersets of the reverse lunge and shoulder press exercises using dumbbells at a light (4 sets) and moderately heavy (4 sets) intensity with 1 superset of 6 repetitions per exercise (12 repetitions per superset) and 1 min rest between supersets. Data were analyzed for validity (Mean Absolute Percent Error [MAPE] and Lin’s Concordance Coefficient [CCC]), with predetermined thresholds of MAPE\u3c10% and CCC\u3e0.70. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA with Sidak post-hoc test was used to determine differences (p\u3c0.05). RESULTS: The identical Garmin Instinct devices were not considered valid for average HR (MAPE range: 36.5-81.6%; CCC range: 0.07-0.18), maximal HR (MAPE range: 18.6-18.8%; CCC range: 0.15-0.31), or estimated EE (MAPE range: 14.0-16.4%; CCC range: 0.08-0.32) compared to the criterion references. The devices were significantly different than each other for average HR (p=0.005), maximal HR (p\u3c0.001), and estimated EE (p\u3c0.0001). CONCLUSION: The wearable wrist-worn devices tested herein should not be utilized for accurate measurements of HR or EE during RT, and there are even differences between identical devices. People who RT while using these devices should do so with caution if wishing to utilize them for physiological measures

Rating of Perceived Exertion, Average Heart Rate, and Energy Expenditure Following Indoor and Outdoor Moderately Heavy Superset Resistance Training

Our lab recently found that light intensity circuit resistance training outdoors had a significantly lower perception of effort (RPE) compared to indoor resistance training, despite no physiological differences in heart rate and energy expenditure. However, no study has examined other intensities or set schemes in differing environmental settings. PURPOSE: To determine how indoor or outdoor environments effect rating of perceived exertion (RPE) following light and moderately heavy intensity superset resistance training in recreationally resistance trained adults. METHODS: Twenty-three adult participants completed this study (n=10 female, n=13 male; age: 26.1±8.8 yrs; height: 172.2±9.5 cm; mass: 73.4±18.7 kg; RT experience: 5.3±4.8 yrs). Participants wore devices to measure heart rate (Polar H10 chest strap) and energy expenditure (Cosmed K5 Portable Metabolic Cart). Randomly in indoor and outdoor settings, participants completed 4 supersets of the reverse lunge and shoulder press exercises using dumbbells at a light (2 sets) and moderately heavy (2 sets) intensity with 1 superset of 6 repetitions per exercise (12 repetitions per superset) and 1 min rest between supersets. The OMNI Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale for Resistance Exercise 0-10 RPE scale was used following each superset. A paired T-test was used to determine differences between environmental setting (pRESULTS: No significant differences were observed between indoor and outdoor environments for average heart rate (129.4±17.2 and 127.8±23.3 bpm, p=0.67), energy expenditure (30.6±11.5 and 28.3±9.9 kcals; p=0.06), as well as RPE during light intensity (2.9±0.9 and 2.9±0.8 arbitrary units/AU’s, p=0.70) and moderately heavy intensity (6.5±1.7 and 6.3±1.5 AU’s, p=0.27) supersets. CONCLUSION: In recreationally resistance trained adults, light intensity and moderately heavy intensity superset resistance training in indoor or outdoor settings does not alter heart rate, energy expenditure, or perceived effort