Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


KIRK_Thesis.pdf (924.01 KB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Comparison of the Apple Watch, Fitbit Surge, and Actigraph GT9X Link in Measuring Energy Expenditure, Steps, Distance, and Heart Rate

Kirk, Sarah E, Kirk
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5440-4770
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=csu1462375247

Abstract Details

2016, Master of Education, Cleveland State University, College of Education and Human Services.
Introduction: Physical activity tracking devices have become a popular tool to help individuals become active and healthy. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the Apple Watch, Fitbit Surge, and Actigraph in estimating energy expenditure, steps, HR, and distance. Methods: An experimental study was used to compare the accuracy of the Apple Watch, Fitbit Surge, and Actigraph to indirect calorimetry (energy expenditure), hand counting (steps), ScottCare Telemetry System (HR), and calibrated treadmill (distance). Twenty subjects (10 males, 10 females), wore the Apple Watch, Fitbit Surge and Actigraph while connected to the Cosmed and ScottCare system. Subjects jogged and walked two miles (on two separate testing days) while wearing all devices simultaneously. Energy expenditure, steps, HR, and distance were compared using Repeated Measures. If there was statistical significance, a protected T-Test was used to assess differences between devices. Results: During the two mile walk, both the Fitbit Surge and Actigraph significantly differed from the Cosmed (p=0.0001); while the Apple Watch did not differ (p=0.238). For the two mile jog, the Fitbit Surge and Actigraph significantly differed from the Cosmed (p=0.0001 and 0.008, respectively); while the Apple Watch did not differ (p=0.231). For steps during the walk and jog, there was no statistical difference between the hand counter and any of the three commercial devices. Compared to ScottCare HR, the Surge, Apple, and Actigraph did not significantly differ (p=0.916) for the walk. During the jog, the Surge and Actigraph did not significantly differ from ScottCare (p= 0.117 and 0.895 respectively), but the Apple watch did significantly differ (p=0 .0001). During the walk and run, the Fitbit significantly differed from the calibrated treadmill (p=0.0001), while the Apple Watch did not significantly differ (p=0.793 and 0.047, respectively). Conclusion: The results of this study support previous research that fitness devices are not always as accurate, but still give individuals a “ballpark” estimate of calories burned, steps, HR, and distance. Of the devices tested, the Apple Watch was generally the most accurate.
Kenneth Sparks, PhD (Committee Chair)
Kathleen Little, PhD (Committee Member)
Emily Kullman, PhD (Committee Member)
54 p.
Health; Physical Education; Public Health; Sports Medicine
Fitbit Surge; Apple Watch; Actigraph GT9X; energy expenditure; steps; distance; heart rate; accuracy; physical activity tracking devices

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Kirk, Kirk, S. E. (2016). Comparison of the Apple Watch, Fitbit Surge, and Actigraph GT9X Link in Measuring Energy Expenditure, Steps, Distance, and Heart Rate [Master's thesis, Cleveland State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=csu1462375247

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Kirk, Kirk, Sarah. Comparison of the Apple Watch, Fitbit Surge, and Actigraph GT9X Link in Measuring Energy Expenditure, Steps, Distance, and Heart Rate. 2016. Cleveland State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=csu1462375247.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Kirk, Kirk, Sarah. "Comparison of the Apple Watch, Fitbit Surge, and Actigraph GT9X Link in Measuring Energy Expenditure, Steps, Distance, and Heart Rate." Master's thesis, Cleveland State University, 2016. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=csu1462375247

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

csu1462375247
3,870
© 2016, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by Cleveland State University and OhioLINK.