↓ Skip to main content

Validity of sports watches when estimating energy expenditure during running

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of sports watches when estimating energy expenditure during running
Published in
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13102-017-0089-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lilian Roos, Wolfgang Taube, Nadja Beeler, Thomas Wyss

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of three different sport watches in estimating energy expenditure during aerobic and anaerobic running. Twenty trained subjects ran at different intensities while wearing three commercial sport watches (Suunto Ambit2, Garmin Forerunner920XT, and Polar V800). Indirect calorimetry was used as the criterion measure for assessing energy expenditure. Different formulas were applied to compute energy expenditure from the gas exchange values for aerobic and anaerobic running. The accuracy of the energy expenditure estimations was intensity-dependent for all tested watches. During aerobic running (4-11 km/h), mean absolute percentage error values of -25.16% to +38.09% were observed, with the Polar V800 performing most accurately (stage 1: -12.20%, stage 2: -3.61%, and stage 3: -4.29%). The Garmin Forerunner920XT significantly underestimated energy expenditure during the slowest stage (stage 1: -25.16%), whereas, the Suunto Ambit2 significantly overestimated energy expenditure during the two slowest stages (stage 1: 38.09%, stage 2: 36.29%). During anaerobic running (14-17 km/h), all three watches significantly underestimated energy expenditure by -21.62% to -49.30%. Therefore, the error in estimating energy expenditure systematically increased as the anaerobic running speed increased. To estimate energy expenditure during aerobic running, the Polar V800 is recommended. By contrast, the other two watches either significantly overestimated or underestimated energy expenditure during most running intensities. The energy expenditure estimations generated during anaerobic exercises revealed large measurement errors in all tested sport watches. Therefore, the algorithms for estimating energy expenditure during intense activities must be improved before they can be used to monitor energy expenditure during high-intensity physical activities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 33 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 35 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Computer Science 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 34 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,865,354
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#101
of 534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,391
of 445,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.