Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure Validity of Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Wrist Watches During Light Circuit Resistance Training

Authors

jocelyn m. graffius, Southern Utah UniversityFollow
David Pearce, Southern Utah UniversityFollow
brynlie ellingford, Southern Utah UniversityFollow
Bryson Carrier, University of Nevada, Las VegasFollow
Charli D. Aguilar, University of Nevada, Las VegasFollow
Wyatt Fullmer, Southern Utah UniversityFollow
Wesley Ziegler, Southern Utah UniversityFollow
Damian Gil, California Baptist UniversityFollow
Mike Torence, California State University- San BernardinoFollow
Dustin W. Davis, University of Nevada, Las VegasFollow
myranda peck, University of Nevada Las VegasFollow
Nicole R. Vargas, University of Nevada, Las VegasFollow
Bianca Weyers, University of Nevada, Las VegasFollow
Katherine Carlos, University of Nevada, Las VegasFollow
Nathaniel Bodell, California State University - San BernardinoFollow
Jacob W. Manning, Southern Utah UniversityFollow
Mark DeBeliso PhD, Southern Utah UniversityFollow
James W. Navalta, University of Nevada, Las VegasFollow
Merrill Funk, Southern Utah UniversityFollow
Marcus M. Lawrence, Southern Utah UniversityFollow

Abstract

Our laboratory recently found wrist-worn wearable technology devices to be valid for measuring average heart rate (HR), but not valid for estimated energy expenditure (EE) compared to criterion devices, during steady state aerobic training (walking, running, biking). However, the validity of wrist-worn devices for HR and EE measures during resistance training is largely unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if two wrist-worn devices, Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Garmin Fenix 6 Pro, record valid measures of average HR and EE while performing circuit resistance training. METHODS: Twenty participants (n=10 female, n=10 male; age: 23.2 ± 7.7 years) completed this study. The Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Garmin Fenix 6 Pro were tested along with the Polar H10 chest strap and Cosmed K5 portable metabolic unit as the criterions for average HR and EE, respectively. Participants completed 4 circuits of 4 exercises (front squat, reverse lunge, push-ups, and shoulder press) using dumbbells at a light intensity with 1 set of 10 repetitions per exercise and 30 seconds rest between exercises and 1-1.5 min. rest between circuits. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE, ≤10%) and Lin’s Concordance (ρ≥0.7) were used to validate the device’s average HR (in bpm) and estimated EE (in kcals) compared to criterion reference devices. Dependent T-tests determined differences (p≤0.05). RESULTS: Average HR for Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Pro were significantly different (p<0.01) than the Polar H10 (115.0±23.9 and 124.5±15.4 vs 128.9±19.0 bpm, respectively), and were not considered valid (MAPE: 44.8% and 25.1%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.50 and 0.63, respectively). Estimated EE for Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Pro were significantly different (p<0.0001) than the Cosmed K5 (31.7±12.3 and 39.7±13.1 vs 20.3±5.5 kcals, respectively), and were not considered valid (MAPE: 309.7% and 322.1%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.04 and 0.15, respectively). CONCLUSION: Anyone involved in any resistance training aspect should be aware of the limitations of these wrist-worn devices in measuring average HR or EE.

Recommended Citation

graffius, jocelyn m.; Pearce, David; ellingford, brynlie; Carrier, Bryson; Aguilar, Charli D.; Fullmer, Wyatt; Ziegler, Wesley; Gil, Damian; Torence, Mike; Davis, Dustin W.; peck, myranda; Vargas, Nicole R.; Weyers, Bianca; Carlos, Katherine; Bodell, Nathaniel; Manning, Jacob W.; DeBeliso, Mark PhD; Navalta, James W.; Funk, Merrill; and Lawrence, Marcus M. (2022) "Average Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure Validity of Garmin Vivoactive 3 and Fenix 6 Wrist Watches During Light Circuit Resistance Training," International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 14: Iss. 2, Article 129.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol14/iss2/129