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

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

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 (