Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (17)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (17)
Document Type
- Journal article (16)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Keywords
- cardiorespiratory fitness (4)
- technology (4)
- wearable (4)
- eHealth (3)
- endurance (3)
- innovation (3)
- smartwatch (3)
- SWOT (2)
- athletes (2)
- health monitoring (2)
Background: Physical activity reduces the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality, but an inactive lifestyle is becoming increasingly common. Innovative approaches to monitor and promote physical activity are warranted. While individual monitoring of physical activity aids in the design of effective interventions to enhance physical activity, a basic prerequisite is that the monitoring devices exhibit high validity.
Objective: Our goal was to assess the validity of monitoring heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity with 4 popular wrist-worn wearables (Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa).
Methods: While wearing the 4 different wearables, 25 individuals performed 5 minutes each of sitting, walking, and running at different velocities (ie, 1.1 m/s, 1.9 m/s, 2.7 m/s, 3.6 m/s, and 4.1 m/s), as well as intermittent sprints. HR and EE were compared to common criterion measures: Polar-H7 chest belt for HR and indirect calorimetry for EE.
Results: While monitoring HR at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.09-0.62, 0.13-0.88, 0.62-1.24, and 0.47-1.94 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 0.9%-4.3%, 2.2%-6.7%, 2.9%-9.2%, and 4.1%-19.1%, respectively, for the 4 wearables. While monitoring EE at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.34-1.84, 0.32-1.33, 0.46-4.86, and 0.41-1.65 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 13.5%-27.1%, 16.3%-28.0%, 15.9%-34.5%, and 8.0%-32.3%, respectively.
Conclusions: The Apple Watch Series 4 provides the highest validity (ie, smallest error rates) when measuring HR while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity, followed by the Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, in that order. The Apple Watch Series 4 and Polar Vantage V are suitable for valid HR measurements at the intensities tested, but HR data provided by the Garmin Fenix 5 and Fitbit Versa should be interpreted with caution due to higher error rates at certain intensities. None of the 4 wrist-worn wearables should be employed to monitor EE at the intensities and durations tested."
Background
Physical activity (PA) guidelines acknowledge the health benefits of regular moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) regardless of bout duration. However, little knowledge exists concerning the type and intensity distribution of structured and incidental lifestyle PA of students and office workers. The present study aimed to i) assess the duration and distribution of intensity of MVPAs during waking hours ≥50% of heart rate reserve (HRR), ii) to identify the type of PA through diary assessment, iii) to assign these activities into structured and lifestyle incidental PA, and iv) to compare this information between students and office workers.
Methods
Twenty-three healthy participants (11 students, 12 office workers) recorded heart rate (HR) with a wrist-worn HR monitor (Polar M600) and filled out a PA diary throughout seven consecutive days (i.e. ≥ 8 waking h/day). Relative HR zones were calculated, and PA diary information was coded using the Compendium of PA. We matched HR data with the reported PA and identified PA bouts during waking time ≥ 50% HRR concerning duration, HRR zone, type of PA, and assigned each activity to incidental and structured PA. Descriptive measures for time spend in different HRR zones and differences between students and office workers were calculated.
Results
In total, we analyzed 276.894 s (76 h 54 min 54 s) of waking time in HRR zones ≥50% and identified 169 different types of PA. The participants spend 31.9 ± 27.1 min/day or 3.9 ± 3.2% of their waking time in zones of ≥50% HRR with no difference between students and office workers (p > 0.01). The proportion of assigned incidental lifestyle PA was 76.9 ± 22.5%.
Conclusions
The present study provides initial insights regarding the type, amount, and distribution of intensity of structured and incidental lifestyle PA ≥ 50% HRR. Findings show a substantial amount of incidental lifestyle PA during waking hours and display the importance of promoting a physically active lifestyle. Future research could employ ambulatory assessments with integrated electronic diaries to detect information on the type and context of MVPA during the day.
Here, we performed a non-systematic analysis of the strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) associated with the application of artificial intelligence to sports research, coaching and optimization of athletic performance. The strength of AI with regards to applied sports research, coaching and athletic performance involve the automation of time-consuming tasks, processing and analysis of large amounts of data, and recognition of complex patterns and relationships. However, it is also essential to be aware of the weaknesses associated with the integration of AI into this field. For instance, it is imperative that the data employed to train the AI system be both diverse and complete, in addition to as unbiased as possible with respect to factors such as the gender, level of performance, and experience of an athlete. Other challenges include e.g., limited adaptability to novel situations and the cost and other resources required. Opportunities include the possibility to monitor athletes both long-term and in real-time, the potential discovery of novel indicators of performance, and prediction of risk for future injury. Leveraging these opportunities can transform athletic development and the practice of sports science in general. Threats include over-dependence on technology, less involvement of human expertise, risks with respect to data privacy, breaching of the integrity and manipulation of data, and resistance to adopting such new technology. Understanding and addressing these SWOT factors is essential for maximizing the benefits of AI while mitigating its risks, thereby paving the way for its successful integration into sport science research, coaching, and optimization of athletic performance.
The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is a subjective load marker and may assist in individualizing training prescription, particularly by adjusting running intensity. Unfortunately, RPE has shortcomings (e.g., underreporting) and cannot be monitored continuously and automatically throughout a training sessions. In this pilot study, we aimed to predict two classes of RPE (≤15 “Somewhat hard to hard” on Borg’s 6–20 scale vs. RPE >15 in runners by analyzing data recorded by a commercially-available smartwatch with machine learning algorithms. Twelve trained and untrained runners performed long-continuous runs at a constant self-selected pace to volitional exhaustion. Untrained runners reported their RPE each kilometer, whereas trained runners reported every five kilometers. The kinetics of heart rate, step cadence, and running velocity were recorded continuously ( 1 Hz ) with a commercially-available smartwatch (Polar V800). We trained different machine learning algorithms to estimate the two classes of RPE based on the time series sensor data derived from the smartwatch. Predictions were analyzed in different settings: accuracy overall and per runner type; i.e., accuracy for trained and untrained runners independently. We achieved top accuracies of 84.8 % for the whole dataset, 81.8 % for the trained runners, and 86.1 % for the untrained runners. We predict two classes of RPE with high accuracy using machine learning and smartwatch data. This approach might aid in individualizing training prescriptions.
Although it is becoming increasingly popular to monitor parameters related to training, recovery, and health with wearable sensor technology (wearables), scientific evaluation of the reliability, sensitivity, and validity of such data is limited and, where available, has involved a wide variety of approaches. To improve the trustworthiness of data collected by wearables and facilitate comparisons, we have outlined recommendations for standardized evaluation. We discuss the wearable devices themselves, as well as experimental and statistical considerations. Adherence to these recommendations should be beneficial not only for the individual, but also for regulatory organizations and insurance companies.
Monitoring variations in the functioning of the autonomic nervous system may help personalize training of runners and provide more pronounced physiological adaptations and performance improvements. We systematically reviewed the scientific literature comparing physiological adaptations and/or improvements in performance following training based on responses of the autonomic nervous system (ie, changes in heart rate variability) and predefined training. PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched systematically in July 2019. Keywords related to endurance, running, autonomic nervous system, and training. Studies were included if they (a) involved interventions consisting predominantly of running training; (b) lasted at least 3 weeks; (c) reported pre‐ and post‐intervention assessment of running performance and/or physiological parameters; (d) included an experimental group performing training adjusted continuously on the basis of alterations in HRV and a control group; and (e) involved healthy runners. Five studies involving six interventions and 166 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Four HRV‐based interventions reduced the amount of moderate‐ and/or high‐intensity training significantly. In five interventions, improvements in performance parameters (3000 m, 5000 m, Loadmax, Tlim) were more pronounced following HRV‐based training. Peak oxygen uptake (VO\(_{2peak}\)) and submaximal running parameters (eg, LT1, LT2) improved following both HRV‐based and predefined training, with no clear difference in the extent of improvement in VO\(_{2peak}\). Submaximal running parameters tended to improve more following HRV‐based training. Research findings to date have been limited and inconsistent. Both HRV‐based and predefined training improve running performance and certain submaximal physiological adaptations, with effects of the former training tending to be greater.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a repeated sprint training with multi-directional change-of-direction (COD) movements (RSmulti) compared to repeated shuttle sprints (RSS) on variables related to COD speed and reactive agility. Nineteen highly-trained male U15 soccer players were assigned into two groups performing either RSmulti or RSS. For both groups, each training session involved 20 repeated 15 s sprints interspersed with 30 s recovery. With RSmulti the COD movements were randomized and performed in response to a visual stimulus, while the RSS involved predefined 180° COD movements. Before and following the six training sessions, performance in the Illinois agility test (IAT), COD speed in response to a visual stimulus, 20 m linear sprint time and vertical jumping height were assessed. Both groups improved their performance in the IAT (p < 0.01, ES = 1.13; p = 0.01, ES = 0.55). The COD speed in response to a visual stimulus improved with the RSmulti (p < 0.01, ES = 1.03), but not the RSS (p = 0.46, ES = 0.28). No differences were found for 20 m sprint time (P=0.73, ES = 0.07; p = 0.14, ES = 0.28) or vertical jumping height (p = 0.46, ES = 0.11; p = 0.29, ES = 0.12) for the RSmulti and RSS, respectively. In conclusion, performance in the IAT improved with the RSmulti as well as RSS. With the RSmulti however, the COD movements are performed in response to a visual stimulus, which may result in specific adaptations that improve COD speed and reactive agility in young highly trained soccer players.
Trainingsprozesse sollten individualisiert und situativ an das Verhältnis zwischen Belastung bzw. Beanspruchung und Erholung angepasst werden, um optimale physiologische Adaptionen und Leistungsverbesserungen zu erzielen. Dazu müssen verschiedene Belastungs- und Beanspruchungsmarker erfasst, analysiert und interpretiert werden. Durch technologische Entwicklungen im Bereich tragbarer Sensorik (Wearables) ist es inzwischen möglich, eine Vielzahl an relevanten Belastungs- und/oder Beanspruchungsmarkern in der Praxis zu erheben. Übergeordnetes Ziel der Dissertation war, den Einsatz von Wearables zum Monitoring von Belastungs- und/oder Beanspruchungsmarkern zur individualisierten und situativ angepassten Steuerung von Trainingsprozessen aus trainingswissenschaftlicher Perspektive zu untersuchen.
Es wurden sechs Studien durchgeführt. Es konnte gezeigt werden,
1. dass einige, aber nicht alle relevanten Belastungs- und Beanspruchungsmarker mit derzeit kommerziell erhältlichen Wearables erfasst werden können (Studie 1),
2. dass viele Marker welche von Wearables erhoben werden nicht auf Reliabilität und/oder Validität hin untersucht worden sind und/oder dass sich die Reliabilität und/oder Validität zwischen Wearables und verschiedenen sportlichen Aktivitäten unterscheidet und deren Anwendung daher limitiert ist (Studie 1,2,3),
3. dass die Apple Watch Series 4, gefolgt von der Polar Vantage V, die derzeit beste Validität zur Erfassung der Herzfrequenz bei Athleten während verschiedenen Laufintensitäten aufweist (Studie 3).
4. dass bei Läufern ein individualisiert gesteuerter Trainingsprozess (basierend auf Daten des autonomen Nervensystems erfasst durch Wearables) zu größeren Leistungsverbesserungen
und ausgewählten submaximalen physiologischen Adaptionen führt, als ein nicht individualisiert gesteuerter Trainingsprozess (Studie 4),
5. dass ein System benötigt wird, welches verschiedene Technologien zur weiteren Ausdifferenzierung eines individualisiert gesteuerten Trainingsprozesses vereint (Studie 5).
Es bleiben weitere Fragen offen die Klärung bedürfen, wenn Wearables zum Monitoring von Belastungs- und/oder Beanspruchungsmarkern zur individualisierten Steuerung von Trainingsprozessen verwendet werden sollen. Zu diesen Fragen gehören unter anderem:
1. Welche Auswahl an Belastungs- und/oder Beanspruchungsmarkern sowie Wearables in Abhängigkeit der Sportart, der Athletenpopulation und der Trainingsphase optimal ist,
2. ob die Erfassung von großen Datenmengen sowie die Anwendung von Big Data Analysen einen Mehrwert bei der individuellen Steuerung von Trainingsprozessen liefern,
3. wie ein (Bio-)Feedback optimal gestaltet wird,
4. wie Trainer mit Wearables interagieren,
5. welche Abänderung des Trainingsprozesses in Abhängigkeit der jeweiligen Sportart und Athletenpopulation auf Basis welches Parameters optimal ist.
Purpose
Pronounced differences in individual physiological adaptation may occur following various training mesocycles in runners. Here we aimed to assess the individual changes in performance and physiological adaptation of recreational runners performing mesocycles with different intensity, duration and frequency.
Methods
Employing a randomized cross-over design, the intra-individual physiological responses [i.e., peak (\(\dot{VO}_{2peak}\)) and submaximal (\(\dot{VO}_{2submax}\)) oxygen uptake, velocity at lactate thresholds (V\(_2\), V\(_4\))] and performance (time-to-exhaustion (TTE)) of 13 recreational runners who performed three 3-week sessions of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), high-volume low-intensity training (HVLIT) or more but shorter sessions of HVLIT (high-frequency training; HFT) were assessed.
Results
\(\dot{VO}_{2submax}\), V\(_2\), V\(_4\) and TTE were not altered by HIIT, HVLIT or HFT (p > 0.05). \(\dot{VO}_{2peak}\) improved to the same extent following HVLIT (p = 0.045) and HFT (p = 0.02). The number of moderately negative responders was higher following HIIT (15.4%); and HFT (15.4%) than HVLIT (7.6%). The number of very positive responders was higher following HVLIT (38.5%) than HFT (23%) or HIIT (7.7%). 46% of the runners responded positively to two mesocycles, while 23% did not respond to any.
Conclusion
On a group level, none of the interventions altered \(\dot{VO}_{2submax}\), V\(_2\), V\(_4\) or TTE, while HVLIT and HFT improved \(\dot{VO}_{2peak}\). The mean adaptation index indicated similar numbers of positive, negative and non-responders to HIIT, HVLIT and HFT, but more very positive responders to HVLIT than HFT or HIIT. 46% responded positively to two mesocycles, while 23% did not respond to any. These findings indicate that the magnitude of responses to HIIT, HVLIT and HFT is highly individual and no pattern was apparent.