Activity trackers — like those from Fitbit, Nike, Jawbone and Misfit — can provide a good overall estimate of calories burned.

However, an Iowa State University study has found that these wearable devices are less accurate when measuring certain activities, such as strength training.

wearable fitness trackers

Testing Fitbit, Jawbone, FuelBand & Shine

In this latest round of testing, a team of researchers in ISU’s Department of Kinesiology tested four consumer fitness trackers — Fitbit Flex, Nike+ FuelBand SE, Jawbone UP 24 and Misfit Shine — to see how well they measured sedentary, aerobic and resistance activity. Two research monitors, the BodyMedia Core and Actigraph GT3X+, were also included in the study.

Overall, the BodyMedia Core was the top performer with a rate of error of 15.3 percent. The Misfit Shine was the least accurate with a 30.4 percent error rate. The results are published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

The following is a breakdown of error rates for each monitor based on activity:

Overall results for each monitor
BodyMedia Core 15.3 percent
Actigraph GT3X+ 16.7 percent
Fitbit Flex 16.8 percent
Nike+ FuelBand SE 17.1 percent
Jawbone UP24 18.2 percent
Misfit Shine 30.4 percent

 

Results for aerobic activity
BodyMedia Core 17.2 percent
Nike+ FuelBand SE 18.5 percent
Actigraph GT3X+ 22.1 percent
Jawbone UP 24 30.0 percent
Fitbit Flex 34.7 percent
Misfit Shine 60.1 percent

 

Results for sedentary activity
BodyMedia Core 15.7 percent
Misfit Shine 18.2 percent
Nike+ FuelBand SE 20.0 percent
Fitbit Flex 29.4 percent
Jawbone UP24 29.4 percent
Actigraph GT3X+ 45.2 percent

 

Results for resistance activity
Nike+ FuelBand SE 20.0 percent
BodyMedia Core 29.2 percent
Fitbit Flex 31.6 percent
Misfit Shine 36.8 percent
Actigraph GT3X+ 45.2 percent
Jawbone UP24 52.6 percent
Are activity trackers accurate? A test of real conditions

ISU researchers designed the study to mimic real daily living activities. The 56 participants were asked to complete 20 minutes of sedentary activity, such as reading a book, working at the computer or watching a video. That was followed by 25 minutes of their choice of aerobic activity and 25 minutes of resistance exercise, with 5 minutes of rest between each activity.

(Article continues below ad)

exercising with personal activity trackers“By looking at the most commonly performed activities in exercise and daily living settings, we can examine where the errors occur,” said Yang Bai, lead author and a graduate research assistant in kinesiology. ”

>> Is a fitness tracker right for you?

As expected, some monitors overestimate or underestimate all three activities, but some monitors overestimate one type and underestimate the other two categories, which can cancel out if we don’t measure them separately.”

As with the previous activity monitor study, researchers say accuracy is important, but it is only part of the equation in terms of improving physical activity levels.

“I think the key to a consumer is not so much if the activity monitor is accurate in terms of calories, but whether it’s motivational for them and keeps them accountable for activity in a day,” said Greg Welk, professor of kinesiology.

Yoon Ho Nam, Joey Lee, Jung-Min Lee, Youngwon Kim, Nathan Meier and Philip Dixon were part of the research team that contributed to the study.


See books created by our team in the Myria shop!


Leave a comment

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This
Read previous post:
Mad genius: Study suggests link between psychosis and creativity

History teems with examples of great artists acting in very peculiar ways - so Is there a definitive link between...

Close