Comparison of Four Fitbit and Jawbone Activity Monitors with a Research-Grade ActiGraph Accelerometer for Estimating Physical Activity and Energy Expenditure

Background/aim Consumer-based physical activity (PA) monitors have become popular tools to track PA behaviours. Currently, little is known about the validity of the measurements provided by consumer monitors. We aimed to compare measures of steps, energy expenditure (EE) and active minutes of four consumer monitors with one research-grade accelerometer within a semistructured protocol. Methods Thirty men and women (18–80 years old) wore Fitbit One (worn at the waist), Fitbit Zip (waist), Fitbit Flex (wrist), Jawbone UP24 (wrist) and one waist-worn research-grade accelerometer (ActiGraph) while participating in an 80 min protocol. A validated EE prediction equation and active minute cut-points were applied to ActiGraph data. Criterion measures were assessed using direct observation (step count) and portable metabolic analyser (EE, active minutes). A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare differences between consumer monitors, ActiGraph, and criterion measures. Similarly, a repeated measures ANOVA was applied to a subgroup of subjects who didn’t cycle. Results Participants took 3321±571 steps, had 28±6 active min and expended 294±56 kcal based on criterion measures. Comparatively, all monitors underestimated steps and EE by 13%–32% (p\u3c0.01); additionally the Fitbit Flex, UP24, and ActiGraph underestimated active minutes by 35%–65% (p\u3c0.05). Underestimations of PA and EE variables were found to be similar in the subgroup analysis. Conclusion Consumer monitors had similar accuracy for PA assessment as the ActiGraph, which suggests that consumer monitors may serve to track personal PA behaviours and EE. However, due to discrepancies among monitors, individuals should be cautious when comparing relative and absolute differences in PA values obtained using different monitors

Ischemic Preconditioning Does Not Improve Time Trial Performance in Recreational Runners

International Journal of Exercise Science 13(6): 1402-1417, 2020. Some evidence indicates that ischemic preconditioning (IPC) may positively affect endurance exercise performance, but IPC’s effect on running performance is unclear. This study’s purpose was to examine the effect of IPC on running performance in recreational runners. Participants (n=12) completed IPC, a sham (SH) condition, and a leg elevation without blood restriction (LE) control condition on separate days (order randomized). For IPC, blood was restricted using blood pressure cuffs inflated to 220 mmHg at the thigh. For SH, the cuffs were inflated to only 20 mmHg. For LE, participants positioned their legs at 90 degrees against a wall while laying supine. The duration of each protocol was 30 minutes (three 5-minute bouts with 5-minute breaks). Following each protocol, participants ran 2.4 kilometers as fast as possible on a motorized treadmill. Run time, heart rate, and perceived exertion were measured and statistically compared, using repeated-measures ANOVA, each 0.8 kilometers. There were no differences in heart rate or time trial performance across protocols (p\u3e0.05; IPC, 612.5±61.2 sec; SH, 608.1±57.9 sec; LE, 612.7±59.1 sec). Rating of perceived exertion at 0.8 kilometers was significantly lower for the IPC protocol than SH in females only (~5.7%, or ~0.8 points on a 6-20 scale; p\u3c0.05). Our IPC protocol did not improve running performance or physiological parameters during a time trial run in recreational runners. The performance benefit seen in this study’s most fit individuals suggests that fitness level may influence IPC’s efficacy for improving endurance running performance

Validity and Reliability of the VO2 Master Pro for Oxygen Consumption and Ventilation Assessment

International Journal of Exercise Science 13(4): 1382-1401, 2020. This study assessed validity and reliability of the VO2 Master Pro portable metabolic analyzer for assessment of oxygen consumption (VO2) and minute ventilation (VE). In Protocol 1, eight male participants (height: 182.6 ± 5.8 cm, weight: 79.6 ± 8.3 kg, age: 41.0 ± 12.3 years) with previous competitive cycling experience completed an hour-long stationary cycling protocol twice, progressing from 100-300 Watts every 10 minutes while wearing the VO2 Master and a criterion measure (Parvomedics) for five minutes each, at each stage. In Protocol 2, 16 recreationally active male participants (height: 168.2 ± 8.4 cm, weight: 76.5 ± 13.3 kg, age: 23.0 ± 9.4 years) completed three incremental, maximal stationary cycling tests wearing one of three analyzers for each test (VO2 Master version 1.1.1, VO2 Master version 1.2.1, Parvomedics). For Protocol 1 and convergent validity, the VO2Master had mean absolute differences from the Parvomedics of \u3c0.3 L/min for absolute VO2 and \u3c5 L/min for VE overall and at each exercise stage. Mean absolute percent differences (MAPD) for VO2 and VE were \u3c9% overall and \u3c12% at each stage. Test-retest reliability of the VO2 Master (MAPD: 8.9-10.9%) was somewhat poorer than the Parvomedics (MAPD: 5.3-7.6%). For Protocol 2, validity was similar for both VO2 Master models (MAPD ~12% overall) compared to the Parvomedics for VO2 and VE. The VO2 Master had an acceptable validity and test-retest reliability for most intensities tested and may be an appealing option for field-based VO2 and VE analysis