Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (24)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (24)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal article (24)
Language
- English (24)
Keywords
- endurance (4)
- SWOT (3)
- athletes (3)
- cardiorespiratory fitness (3)
- performance (3)
- technology (3)
- wearable (3)
- adolescents (2)
- aerobic fitness (2)
- biofeedback (2)
Institute
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."
Virtual online training has emerged as one of the top 20 worldwide fitness trends for 2021 and continues to develop rapidly. Although this allows the cycling community to engage in virtual training and competition, critical evaluation of virtual training platforms is limited. Here, we discuss the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with virtual training technology and cycling in an attempt to enhance awareness of such aspects. Strengths include immersive worlds, innovative drafting mechanics, and versatility. Weaknesses include questionable data accuracy, inadequate strength and reliability of power-speed algorithms. Opportunities exist for expanding strategic partnerships with major cycling races, brands, and sponsors and improving user experience with the addition of video capture and “e-coaching.” Threats are present in the form of cheating during competition, and a lack of uptake and acceptance by a broader community.
Athletes adapt their training daily to optimize performance, as well as avoid fatigue, overtraining and other undesirable effects on their health. To optimize training load, each athlete must take his/her own personal objective and subjective characteristics into consideration and an increasing number of wearable technologies (wearables) provide convenient monitoring of various parameters. Accordingly, it is important to help athletes decide which parameters are of primary interest and which wearables can monitor these parameters most effectively. Here, we discuss the wearable technologies available for non-invasive monitoring of various parameters concerning an athlete's training and health. On the basis of these considerations, we suggest directions for future development. Furthermore, we propose that a combination of several wearables is most effective for accessing all relevant parameters, disturbing the athlete as little as possible, and optimizing performance and promoting health.
Athletes schedule their training and recovery in periods, often utilizing a pre-defined strategy. To avoid underperformance and/or compromised health, the external load during training should take into account the individual’s physiological and perceptual responses. No single variable provides an adequate basis for planning, but continuous monitoring of a combination of several indicators of internal and external load during training, recovery and off-training as well may allow individual responsive adjustments of a training program in an effective manner. From a practical perspective, including that of coaches, monitoring of potential changes in health and performance should ideally be valid, reliable and sensitive, as well as time-efficient, easily applicable, non-fatiguing and as non-invasive as possible. Accordingly, smartphone applications, wearable sensors and point-of-care testing appear to offer a suitable monitoring framework allowing responsive adjustments to exercise prescription. Here, we outline 24-h monitoring of selected parameters by these technologies that (i) allows responsive adjustments of exercise programs, (ii) enhances performance and/or (iii) reduces the risk for overuse, injury and/or illness.
The aim was to examine certain aspects of circulatory, metabolic, hormonal, thermoregulatory, cognitive, and perceptual responses while sitting following a brief session of high-intensity interval exercise. Twelve students (five men; age, 22 ± 2 years) performed two trials involving either simply sitting for 180 min (SIT) or sitting for this same period with a 6-min session of high-intensity exercise after 60 min (SIT+HIIT). At T\(_0\) (after 30 min of resting), T\(_1\) (after a 20-min breakfast), T\(_2\) (after sitting for 1 h), T\(_3\) (immediately after the HIIT), T\(_4\), T\(_5\), T\(_6\), and T\(_7\) (30, 60, 90, and 120 min after the HIIT), circulatory, metabolic, hormonal, thermoregulatory, cognitive, and perceptual responses were assessed. The blood lactate concentration (at T\(_3\)–T\(_5\)), heart rate (at T\(_3\)–T\(_6\)), oxygen uptake (at T\(_3\)–T\(_7\)), respiratory exchange ratio, and sensations of heat (T\(_3\)–T\(_5\)), sweating (T\(_3\), T\(_4\)) and odor (T\(_3\)), as well as perception of vigor (T\(_3\)–T\(_6\)), were higher and the respiratory exchange ratio (T\(_4\)–T\(_7\)) and mean body and skin temperatures (T\(_3\)) lower in the SIT+HIIT than the SIT trial. Levels of blood glucose and salivary cortisol, cerebral oxygenation, and feelings of anxiety/depression, fatigue or hostility, as well as the variables of cognitive function assessed by the Stroop test did not differ between SIT and SIT+HIIT. In conclusion, interruption of prolonged sitting with a 6-min session of HIIT induced more pronounced circulatory and metabolic responses and improved certain aspects of perception, without affecting selected hormonal, thermoregulatory or cognitive functions.
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 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.
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.