The purpose of this study was to compare energy expenditure (EE) estimates from 5 consumer physical activity monitors (PAMs) to indirect calorimetry in a sample of youth. Eighty-nine youth (mean (SD); age, 12.3 (3.4) years; 50% female) performed 16 semi-structured activities. Activities were performed in duplicate across 2 visits. Participants wore a Cosmed K4b2 (criterion for EE), an Apple Watch 2 (left wrist), Mymo Tracker (right hip), and Misfit Shine 2 devices (right hip; right shoe). Participants were randomized to wear a Samsung Gear Fit 2 or a Fitbit Charge 2 on the right wrist. Oxygen consumption was converted to EE by subtracting estimated basal EE (Schofield's equation) from the measured gross EE. EE from each visit was summed across the 2 visit days for comparison with the total EE recorded from the PAMs. All consumer PAMs estimated gross EE, except for the Apple Watch 2 (net Active EE). Paired t tests were used to assess differences between estimated (PAM) and measured (K4b2) EE. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE) was used to assess individual-level error. The Mymo Tracker was not significantly different from measured EE and was within 15.9 kcal of measured kilocalories (p = 0.764). Mean percent errors ranged from 3.5% (Mymo Tracker) to 48.2% (Apple Watch 2). MAPE ranged from 16.8% (Misfit Shine 2 - right hip) to 49.9% (Mymo Tracker). Novelty Only the Mymo Tracker was not significantly different from measured EE but had the greatest individual error. The Misfit Shine 2 - right hip had the lowest individual error. Caution is warranted when using consumer PAMs in youth for tracking EE.
Keywords: Apple Watch; Fitbit; activity tracker; activité physique; dispositifs portables; fitness tracker; indicateur d’activité; moniteur d’activité physique; physical activity; wearable devices.