Validity of Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors for Specific Activity Types.

PURPOSE Consumer-based physical activity (PA) monitors are popular for individual tracking of PA variables. However, current research has not examined how these monitors track energy expenditure (EE) and steps in distinct activities. This study examined the accuracy of the Fitbits One, Zip, and Flex and Jawbone UP24 for estimating EE and steps for specific activities and activity categories. METHODS Thirty subjects completed a structured protocol consisting of three sedentary, four household, and four ambulatory/exercise activities. All subjects began by lying on a bed for 10 min; 10 other activities were performed for 5 min each. Indirect calorimetry (COSMED) and researcher-counted steps were criterion measures for EE and step counts, respectively. The Omron HJ-720IT pedometer was used as a comparison of step count accuracy. EE and steps were compared with criterion measures using the Friedman repeated-measures nonparametric test and mean absolute percent error (MAPE). RESULTS All PA monitors predicted EE within 8% of COSMED for sedentary activity but overestimated EE by 16%-40% during ambulatory activity. All monitors except the Fitbit Flex (within 8% of criterion) underestimated EE by 27%-34% during household activity. EE predictions were accompanied with MAPE >10%. For household activity, the Fitbit Flex estimated steps within 10% of researcher-counted steps; all other monitors underestimated steps by 35%-64%. All monitors estimated steps within 4% of researcher-counted steps and displayed MAPE <10% during ambulatory activity. The Omron underestimated household steps by 74% but was within 1% for ambulatory steps. All monitors severely underestimated EE and steps during cycling. CONCLUSION Consumer-based PA monitors should be used cautiously for estimating EE, although they provide accurate measures of steps for structured ambulatory activity, similar to validated pedometers.