Comparing Exercise Intensity as a Percentage of the Age-Estimated Heart Rate Max Among Walking, Jogging, and Skipping

BACKGROUND: Heart rate (HR) intensity in walking and running has been extensively studied. However, exploring the intensities of other activities such as skipping has been skipped over. Skipping is a playful activity usually performed in short bouts. The intensity and feasibility of skipping for several minutes is unclear. Studying HR during skipping may reveal that it is a novel and useful form of aerobic exercise. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare HR intensity among walking, running, and skipping. METHODS: Ten participants gave verbal and written consent and self-reported biological sex, age, height, and mass (5 male, 5 female; 26.90 ± 9.43 yrs; 168.66 ± 9.37 cm; 72.64 ± 7.73 kg). Participants then wore a Polar H10 HR monitor with chest strap to record mean HR and max HR during the protocol: 5-min self-paced walk, 5-min seated rest, 5-min self-paced run, 5-min seated rest, and 5-min self-paced skip. Mean HR and mean HR as a percent of age-predicted max (%max) were compared across the three activities by using two separate one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs. Population effect sizes were estimated as partial omega squared (ωp2; large effect \u3e 0.14). For both ANOVAs, the post-hoc tests were pairwise comparisons among the three activities by using dependent-samples t-tests with Bonferroni adjustments. The α-level for all statistical analyses was 0.05. RESULTS: Both mean HR and %max significantly differed among the three activities (mean HR: F = 145.62, p \u3c 0.001, ωp2 = 0.91; %max: F = 162.57, p \u3c 0.001, ωp2 = 0.92). Mean HR was 103 ± 17 bpm during walking (%max = 54.2 ± 8.2%), 155 ± 17 bpm during running (%max = 81.6 ± 6.7%), and 170 ± 20 bpm during skipping (%max = 89.6 ± 8.5%). Mean HR and %max were significantly higher during skipping than walking (+67 bpm/+35%, p \u3c 0.001,) and running (+15 bpm/+8%, p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSION: The data suggest that skipping is a significantly more intense exercise than walking and running when performed for several minutes. Thus, skipping can be used as a form of vigorous exercise. Participants’ high HR during skipping may have been caused by the novelty of the exercise. Skipping intensity in avid skippers should be a topic of focus in our future research

The Validity and Reliability of the Garmin Instinct in Measuring Heart Rate, Energy Expenditure, and Steps During Skipping

As the use of wearable technology to monitor physical activity increases, assessment of the validity and reliability of these devices are needed. A popular device brand is Garmin. Although not a common physical activity, skipping can be included in dynamic warm-ups. PURPOSE: Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the Garmin Instinct in measuring caloric energy expenditure (EE), average heart rate (HR), and steps while skipping. METHODS: Ten participants (5 female, age: 27±9 years) skipped at a self-selected pace for five minutes. During that time, HR, EE, and steps were measured by the Polar H10, Cosmed K5, and manual counting, respectively. Two Garmin Instincts simultaneously tracked all three variables. A step was defined as any time the foot leaves and hits the ground (stride x 4). Data was input into Google Sheets and summary statistics, t-test with Bonferonni corrections, and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) were calculated. Additional validity and reliability tests were run in jamovi, including Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), TOST tests, Bland-Altman bias, coefficient of variation (CV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The pre-established validity criteria are as follows: CCC \u3e 0.7 and MAPE \u3c 10%. The pre-established reliability criteria are as follows: CV \u3c 10% and ICC \u3e 0.7. RESULTS: The Garmin Instinct had a MAPE of 19.2%, 28.5%, and 53.2% for HR, EE, and steps, respectively. It had a CCC of .06, .21, and .01 for HR, EE, and steps, respectively. The 2-tailed paired t-tests with corrections for multiple comparisons was significant for HR and steps. The TOST tests were violated for all 3 measurements (HR, EE, and steps). Bland-Altman analysis produced a bias estimate of 34.0, 0.6, and 1100 for HR, EE, and steps, respectively. The Garmin produced a CV of 11.2%, 14.8%, and 6.6% for HR, EE, and steps, respectively. It produced an ICC of .51, .64, and .81 for HR, EE, and steps, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Garmin Instinct did not meet the pre-established validity criteria for any measure (HR, EE, or steps). However, it did meet the pre-established reliability criteria for steps but not for HR or EE. Therefore, the Garmin Instinct cannot be expected to produce accurate estimates of HR, EE, or steps during skipping

Determining Validity and Reliability of Caloric Expenditure Recorded by Wearable Technology While Walking and Running

With growing interest in tracking exercise progress, wearable technology is increasingly popular. While heart rate and step count are typically accurate for consumer-available devices, research from our laboratory indicates that caloric expenditure is not. PURPOSE: The current investigation aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of caloric expenditure in multiple wearable devices during a self-paced walk and run. METHODS: Ten participants were tested (5F, 5M, age = 26.9± 9.43 years, body mass = 72.64± 7.73 kg, height = 168.66± 9.37 cm). Participants were asked to wear 5 devices: 2 Garmin Instinct watches (one on each wrist), 2 Polar Vantage M2 watches, and a K5 portable metabolic analysis system (criterion measure). Data was collected from all devices while participants completed a 5-minute self-paced walk, followed by a 5-minute rest period, then a 5-minute self-paced run. Validity was evaluated using the mean absolute percent error (MAPE) with a threshold of below 10 percent and Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) with significance above 0.7. Reliability was evaluated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Coefficient of Variation (CV). RESULTS: For validity, neither device met the predetermined threshold for MAPE or CCC (see results table for reference). For reliability, only the Polar device during the running condition returned consistent results for both measures. CONCLUSION: These results indicate neither brand of watch produced valid energy expenditure estimates. Reliability was also poor. This poses a challenge to people relying on wearable devices to keep an accurate, consistent log of caloric expenditure. Our research does not indicate that technology is keeping up with how rapidly it is being developed and sold to the public

The Validity of Bicep Located Heart Rate Monitors During Running

Running is a popular sport with 621 million people participating worldwide. Heart rate (HR) is a way to determine intensity but many people do not want to wear a HR strap around their chest because it is uncomfortable and can cause chaffing. An alternative location for determining HR could be the biceps but the validity of such devices need to be determined. PURPOSE: To determine the validity of the Polar OH 1 and Polar Verity biceps devices during self-paced running. METHODS: Wearing Polar OH1, Polar Verity, and Polar H10 (criterion) 5 female and 5 male participants were asked to perform running for 5 minutes up and down a 100 ft hallway. The average HR and maximal HR over the run was recorded in beats per minute (bpm). Validity was determined using mean absolute percent error (MAPE) and Lin\u27s concordance (CCC), with a threshold of less than 10% and greater than 0.70 respectively. The threshold for both was required to be met to be considered valid. RESULTS: Average HR returned from the devices was: Polar H10 = 154.6 (16.3) [mean (standard deviation)], Polar OH1 = 152.0 (16.2), and Polar Verity = 151.1 (16.5) bpm. The average HR MAPE for the Polar OH1 and the Polar Verity was 12.2% and 12.6%, respectively, and the CCC for each device was 0.94 and 0.90. Maximal HR returned from the devices was: Polar H10 = 174.2 (18.1), Polar OH1 = 171.8 (18.8), and Polar Verity = 167.2 (35.1) bpm. The maximal HR MAPE for the Polar OH1 and the Polar Verity was 1.3% and 4.2%, respectively. The CCC for each device was 0.93 and 0.43, respectively. CONCLUSION: We evaluated whether HR monitors located on the biceps could return accurate measures. Neither device met both thresholds when average HR was considered. Because the Polar OH 1 satisfied both thresholds for maximal HR, we conclude it to be the more accurate device for use during running. These results should be used with caution until further improvements in biceps located devices can be made to return valid measures for both average and maximal heart rate

Evaluation of Average and Maximum Heart Rate of Wrist-worn Wearable Technology Devices During Trail Running

It has been estimated that there are 20 million people who participate in trail running, and these numbers are expected to increase by 15% each year. Our laboratory group has conducted studies on the validity of wearable technology watches and heart rate (HR) during trail running. The previous generation devices were mostly inaccurate, and a limitation was that reliability was not measured. PURPOSE: To determine both validity and reliability in newer models of wearable devices during trail running. METHODS: Seventeen participants (F = 7) ran on the Thunderbird Gardens Lightning Switch trail in Cedar City, UT. Demographic characteristics: Age = 25 (9) years (mean [standard deviation]), ht = 168 (9) cm, mass = 72 (14) kg. Two Garmin Instincts and two Polar Vantage M2s were evaluated, along with the Polar H10 chest strap as the criterion measure. Participants ran out on the trail for 10-minutes, and then returned to the trailhead. Maximum HR and average HR were measured during the run. Data were analyzed for validity (Mean Absolute Percent Error [MAPE] and Lin’s Concordance [CCC]) and reliability (Coefficient of Variation [CV] and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]). Predetermined thresholds were: MAPE0.70, CV0.70. RESULTS: The Garmin Instinct met the threshold for both reliability tests for average and maximum HR (see table). The Garmin Instinct and Polar Vantage met the threshold for both validity tests for maximum HR. CONCLUSION: In order for a device to be considered valid, it must meet the predetermined thresholds for both validity and reliability. These results indicate that only the Garmin Instinct is valid and reliable, but only for measuring maximum HR. This is challenging for those who wish to track their HR while trail running, because neither of the studied devices were valid and reliable for maximum and average HR

Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure of Identical Garmin Instinct Watches During Low Intensity Resistance Training

ABSTRACT Wearable technology and resistance training are two of the top five worldwide fitness trends for 2022 as determined by ACSM. Many devices, such as Garmin’s Instinct, have functions to track various physiological aspects during resistance training. However, to our knowledge, independent verification of the validity and reliability of these devices for estimating average heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) during resistance training are nonexistent. PURPOSE: To determine the concurrent validity and reliability of identical Garmin Instinct watches during resistance training. METHODS: Twenty subjects (n=10 female and male; age: 23.2±7.7 years; height: 169.7±11.1; weight: 76.3±15.7 kg) completed this study. Two Garmin Instinct watches were evaluated, along with the Polar H10 chest strap and Cosmed K5 portable metabolic unit as the criterion devices for average HR and EE, respectively. Subjects 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, 30 seconds rest between exercises, and 1-1.5 min. rest between circuits. Data were analyzed for validity (Mean Absolute Percent Error [MAPE] and Lin’s Concordance Coefficient [CCC]) and reliability (Coefficient of Variation [CV]), with predetermined thresholds of MAPE0.70, and CVRESULTS: Garmin Instinct 1 and Instinct 2 were significantly (

Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure Validity of Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Wrist Watches During Light Circuit Resistance Training

Our laboratory recently found wrist-worn wearable technology devices to be valid for measuring average heart rate (HR), but not valid for estimated energy expenditure (EE) compared to criterion devices, during steady state aerobic training (walking, running, biking). However, the validity of wrist-worn devices for HR and EE measures during resistance training is largely unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if two wrist-worn devices, Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Garmin Fenix 6 Pro, record valid measures of average HR and EE while performing circuit resistance training. METHODS: Twenty participants (n=10 female, n=10 male; age: 23.2 ± 7.7 years) completed this study. The Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Garmin Fenix 6 Pro were tested along with the Polar H10 chest strap and Cosmed K5 portable metabolic unit as the criterions for average HR and EE, respectively. 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 (ρ≥0.7) were used to validate the device’s average HR (in bpm) and estimated EE (in kcals) compared to criterion reference devices. Dependent T-tests determined differences (p≤0.05). RESULTS: Average HR for Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Pro were significantly different (p\u3c0.01) than the Polar H10 (115.0±23.9 and 124.5±15.4 vs 128.9±19.0 bpm, respectively), and were not considered valid (MAPE: 44.8% and 25.1%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.50 and 0.63, respectively). Estimated EE for Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Pro were significantly different (p\u3c0.0001) than the Cosmed K5 (31.7±12.3 and 39.7±13.1 vs 20.3±5.5 kcals, respectively), and were not considered valid (MAPE: 309.7% and 322.1%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.04 and 0.15, respectively). CONCLUSION: Anyone involved in any resistance training aspect should be aware of the limitations of these wrist-worn devices in measuring average HR or EE

Formulation of Chitosan Microparticles for Enhanced Intranasal Macromolecular Compound Delivery: Factors That Influence Particle Size during Ionic Gelation

Therapeutic macromolecules (e.g., protein and peptide drugs) present bioavailability challenges via extravascular administration. The nasal route presents an alternative non-invasive route for these drugs, although low bioavailability remains challenging. Co-administration of permeation enhancers is a promising formulation approach to improve the delivery of poorly bioavailable drugs. The aim of this study was to prepare and characterize chitosan microparticulate formulations containing a macromolecular model compound (fluorescein isothiocyanate dextran 4400, FD-4) and a bioenhancer (piperine). Ionic gelation was used to produce chitosan microparticle delivery systems with two distinct microparticle sizes, differing one order of magnitude in size (±20 µm and ±200 µm). These two microparticle delivery systems were formulated into thermosensitive gels and their drug delivery performance was evaluated across ovine nasal epithelial tissues. Dissolution studies revealed a biphasic release pattern. Rheometry results demonstrated a sol-to-gel transition of the thermosensitive gel formulation at a temperature of 34 °C. The microparticles incorporating piperine showed a 1.2-fold increase in FD-4 delivery across the excised ovine nasal epithelial tissues as compared to microparticles without piperine. This study therefore contributed to advancements in ionic gelation methods for the formulation of particulate systems to enhance macromolecular nasal drug delivery

Workplace-based assessment of communication skills: A pilot project addressing feasibility, acceptance and reliability

Background: Imparting communication skills has been given great importance in medical curricula. In addition to standardized assessments, students should communicate with real patients in actual clinical situations during workplace-based assessments and receive structured feedback on their performance. The aim of this project was to pilot a formative testing method for workplace-based assessment. Our investigation centered in particular on whether or not physicians view the method as feasible and how high acceptance is among students. In addition, we assessed the reliability of the method.Method: As part of the project, 16 students held two consultations each with chronically ill patients at the medical practice where they were completing GP training. These consultations were video-recorded. The trained mentoring physician rated the student’s performance and provided feedback immediately following the consultations using the Berlin Global Rating scale (BGR). Two impartial, trained raters also evaluated the videos using BGR. For qualitative and quantitative analysis, information on how physicians and students viewed feasibility and their levels of acceptance was collected in written form in a partially standardized manner. To test for reliability, the test-retest reliability was calculated for both of the overall evaluations given by each rater. The inter-rater reliability was determined for the three evaluations of each individual consultation.Results: The formative assessment method was rated positively by both physicians and students. It is relatively easy to integrate into daily routines. Its significant value lies in the personal, structured and recurring feedback. The two overall scores for each patient consultation given by the two impartial raters correlate moderately. The degree of uniformity among the three raters in respect to the individual consultations is low.Discussion: Within the scope of this pilot project, only a small sample of physicians and students could be surveyed to a limited extent. There are indications that the assessment can be improved by integrating more information on medical context and student self-assessments. Despite the current limitations regarding test criteria, it is clear that workplace-based assessment of communication skills in the clinical setting is a valuable addition to the communication curricula of medical schools