Repetition Count Concurrent Validity of Various Garmin Wrist Watches During Light Circuit Resistance Training

Wearable technology and strength training with free weights are two of the top 5 fitness trends worldwide. However, minimal physiological research has been conducted on the two together and none have measured the accuracy of devices measuring repetition counts across exercises. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of four wrist-worn Garmin devices, Instinct (x2), Fenix 6 Pro, and Vivoactive 3, to record repetition counts while performing 4 different exercises during circuit resistance training. METHODS: Twenty participants (n=10 female, n=10 male; age: 23.2 ± 7.7 years) completed this study. Participants completed 4 circuits of 4 exercises (front squat, reverse lunge, push-ups, and shoulder press) using dumbbells at a light intensity with 1 set of 10 repetitions per exercise and 30 seconds rest between exercises and 1-1.5 min rest between circuits. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE, ≤10%) and Lin’s Concordance Coefficient (CCC, ρ≥0.7) were used to validate the device’s repetitions counts in all exercises compared to the criterion reference manual count. Dependent T-tests determined differences (p≤0.05). RESULTS: No devices were considered valid (meeting both the threshold for MAPE and CCC) for measuring repetition counts during front squats (MAPE range: 3.0-18.5% and CCC range: 0.27-0.68, p value range: 0.00-0.94), reverse lunge (MAPE range: 44.5-67.0% and CCC range: 0.19-0.31, p value range: 0.00-0.28), push-ups (MAPE range: 12.5-67.5% and CCC range: 0.10-0.34, p value range: 0.07-0.83), and shoulder press (MAPE range: 18.0-51.0% and CCC range: 0.11-0.43, p value range: 0.00-0.79) exercises. CONCLUSION: The wearable wrist-worn devices were not considered accurate for repetition counts and thus manual counting should be utilized. People who strength train using free weights will need to wait for either improved repetition counting algorithms or increased sensitivity of devices before this measure can be obtained with confidence

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

The Effects of Meditative and Mindful Walking on Mental and Cardiovascular Health

Poor mental and cardiovascular health are major problems that are alleviated by novel non-pharmacological modalities such as mindful exercise. The effects of two modalities, meditative and mindful walking, are inconclusive. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of the present study was to synthesize the primary literature on meditative and mindful walking to determine their effects on mental and cardiovascular health. The secondary purpose was to assess the quality of the relevant, published research studies. METHODS: A rigorous systematic review was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The full protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021241180) and is under peer-review for publication. Peer-reviewed journal articles were identified online in Academic Search Premier, APA PsycInfo, Google Scholar, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus. The study reported in each article was assessed via the appropriate Cochrane risk of bias tool. The studies were clinically heterogeneous, so a meta-analysis was not conducted. RESULTS: Our systematic review is apparently the first synthesis of the meditative and mindful walking literature. The 14 articles in the systematic review were published in seven countries between 2013 and 2021. All the articles report studies of adults aged at least 18 years. Meditative and mindful walking were evaluated by six and eight studies, respectively. The study populations and intervention frequency, intensity, time, and type varied considerably. Four short-term and eight long-term studies reported significant improvements in mental health outcomes (e.g., affect, anxiety, and mindfulness). No short-term study reported effects on cardiovascular health outcomes, but four long-term studies reported significant improvements (e.g., aerobic capacity, blood pressure, cholesterol, and six-minute walk distance). In all but one of the studies, risk of bias was a moderate or serious concern. CONCLUSION: Meditative and mindful walking are two promising, novel non-pharmacological modalities of improving mental and cardiovascular health. Rigorous randomized controlled trials that have a low risk of bias will reveal the efficacy of meditative and mindful walking relative to conventional modalities such as traditional, non-mindful walking