Background: Decreasing levels of physical activity (PA) increase the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality. To counteract these developments, interventions aiming to increase PA are urgently needed. Mobile health (mHealth) solutions such as wearable sensors (wearables) may assist with an improvement in PA. Objective: The aim of this study is to examine which behavior change techniques (BCTs) are incorporated in currently available commercial high-end wearables that target users’ PA behavior. Methods: The BCTs incorporated in 5 different high-end wearables (Apple Watch Series 3, Garmin Vívoactive 3, Fitbit Versa, Xiaomi Amazfit Stratos 2, and Polar M600) were assessed by 2 researchers using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). Effectiveness of the incorporated BCTs in promoting PA behavior was assessed by a content analysis of the existing literature. Results: The most common BCTs were goal setting (behavior), action planning, review behavior goal(s), discrepancy between current behavior and goal, feedback on behavior, self-monitoring of behavior, and biofeedback. Fitbit Versa, Garmin Vívoactive 3, Apple Watch Series 3, Polar M600, and Xiaomi Amazfit Stratos 2 incorporated 17, 16, 12, 11, and 11 BCTs, respectively, which are proven to effectively promote PA. Conclusions: Wearables employ different numbers and combinations of BCTs, which might impact their effectiveness in improving PA. To promote PA by employing wearables, we encourage researchers to develop a taxonomy specifically designed to assess BCTs incorporated in wearables. We also encourage manufacturers to customize BCTs based on the targeted populations.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether an individually designed incremental exercise protocol results in greater rates of oxygen uptake VO\(_{2max}\) than standardized testing. Fourteen well-trained, male runners performed five incremental protocols in randomized order to measure their VO\(_{2max}\): i) an incremental test (INC\(_{S+I}\)) with pre-defined increases in speed (2 min at 8.64 km.h\(^{-1}\), then a rise of 1.44 km.h\(^{-1}\) every 30 s up to 14.4 km.h\(^{-1}\)) and thereafter inclination (0.5.every 30 s); ii) an incremental test (INC\(_{I}\)) at constant speed (14.4 km.h\(^{-1}\)) and increasing inclination (2 degrees every 2 min from the initial 0 degrees); iii) an incremental test (INC\(_{S}\)) at constant inclination (0 degrees) and increasing speed (0.5 km.h\(^{-1}\) every 30 s from the initial 12.0 km.h\(^{-1}\)); iv) a graded exercise protocol (GXP) at a 1 degrees incline with increasing speed (initially 8.64 km.h\(^{-1}\) + 1.44 km.h\(^{-1}\) every 5 min); v) an individual exercise protocol (INDXP) in which the runner chose the inclination and speed. VO\(_{2max}\) was lowest (-4.2%) during the GXP (p = 0.01; d = 0.06 - 0.61) compared to all other tests. The highest rating of perceived exertion, heart rate, ventilation and end-exercise blood lactate concentration were similar between the different protocols (p < 0.05). The time to exhaustion ranged from 7 min 18 sec (INC\(_{S}\)) to 25 min 30 sec (GXP) (p = 0.01). The VO\(_{2max}\) attained by employing an individual treadmill protocol does not differ from the values derived from various standardized incremental protocols.

The present study was designed to assess the psycho-physiological responses of physically untrained individuals to mobile-based multi-stimulating, circuit-like, multiple-joint conditioning (Circuit\(_{HIIT}\)) performed either once (1xCircuitHIIT) or twice (2xCircuit\(_{HIIT}\)) daily for 4 weeks. In this single-center, two-arm randomized, controlled study, 24 men and women (age: 25 ± 5 years) first received no training instructions for 4 weeks and then performed 4 weeks of either 1xCircuitHIIT or 2xCircuit\(_{HIIT}\) (5 men and 7 women in each group) daily. The 1xCircuitHIIT and 2xCircuit\(_{HIIT}\) participants carried out 90.7 and 85.7% of all planned training sessions, respectively, with average heart rates during the 6-min sessions of 74.3 and 70.8% of maximal heart rate. Body, fat and fat-free mass, and metabolic rate at rest did not differ between the groups or between time-points of measurement. Heart rate while running at 6 km⋅h\(^{-1}\) declined after the intervention in both groups. Submaximal and peak oxygen uptake, the respiratory exchange ratio and heart rate recovery were not altered by either intervention. The maximal numbers of push-ups, leg-levers, burpees, 45°-one-legged squats and 30-s skipping, as well as perception of general health improved in both groups. Our 1xCircuit\(_{HIIT}\) or 2xCircuit\(_{HIIT}\) interventions improved certain parameters of functional strength and certain dimensions of quality of life in young untrained individuals. However, they were not sufficient to enhance cardio-respiratory fitness, in particular peak oxygen uptake.

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.

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."