OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of the Fitbit wireless activity tracker in assessing energy expenditure (EE) for different activities. METHODS: Twenty participants (10 males, 10 females) wore the Fitbit Classic wireless activity tracker on the hip and the Oxycon Mobile portable metabolic system (criterion). Participants performed walking and running trials on a treadmill and a simulated free-living activity routine. Paired t tests were used to test for differences between estimated (Fitbit) and criterion (Oxycon) kcals for each of the activities. RESULTS: Mean bias for estimated energy expenditure for all activities was -4.5 ± 1.0 kcals/6 min (95% limits of agreement: -25.2 to 15.8 kcals/6 min). The Fitbit significantly underestimated EE for cycling, laundry, raking, treadmill (TM) 3 mph at 5% grade, ascent/descent stairs, and TM 4 mph at 5% grade, and significantly overestimated EE for carrying groceries. Energy expenditure estimated by the Fitbit was not significantly different than EE calculated from the Oxycon Mobile for 9 activities. CONCLUSION: The Fitbit worn on the hip significantly underestimates EE of activities. The variability in underestimation of EE for the different activities may be problematic for weight loss management applications since accurate EE estimates are important for tracking/monitoring energy deficit.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of the Fitbit wireless activity tracker in assessing energy expenditure (EE) for different activities. METHODS: Twenty participants (10 males, 10 females) wore the Fitbit Classic wireless activity tracker on the hip and the Oxycon Mobile portable metabolic system (criterion). Participants performed walking and running trials on a treadmill and a simulated free-living activity routine. Paired t tests were used to test for differences between estimated (Fitbit) and criterion (Oxycon) kcals for each of the activities. RESULTS: Mean bias for estimated energy expenditure for all activities was -4.5 ± 1.0 kcals/6 min (95% limits of agreement: -25.2 to 15.8 kcals/6 min). The Fitbit significantly underestimated EE for cycling, laundry, raking, treadmill (TM) 3 mph at 5% grade, ascent/descent stairs, and TM 4 mph at 5% grade, and significantly overestimated EE for carrying groceries. Energy expenditure estimated by the Fitbit was not significantly different than EE calculated from the Oxycon Mobile for 9 activities. CONCLUSION: The Fitbit worn on the hip significantly underestimates EE of activities. The variability in underestimation of EE for the different activities may be problematic for weight loss management applications since accurate EE estimates are important for tracking/monitoring energy deficit.
Authors: Stephen P Wright; Tyish S Hall Brown; Scott R Collier; Kathryn Sandberg Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Ryan J Shaw; Q Yang; A Barnes; D Hatch; M J Crowley; A Vorderstrasse; J Vaughn; A Diane; A A Lewinski; M Jiang; J Stevenson; D Steinberg Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sunmoo Yoon; Joseph E Schwartz; Matthew M Burg; Ian M Kronish; Carmela Alcantara; Jacob Julian; Faith Parsons; Karina W Davidson; Keith M Diaz Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Md Mobashir Hasan Shandhi; William H Bartlett; James Alex Heller; Mozziyar Etemadi; Aaron Young; Thomas Plotz; Omer T Inan Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 5.772