Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

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.

The Potential Usefulness of Virtual Reality Systems for Athletes: A Short SWOT Analysis

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.

To systematically perform a meta-analysis of the scientific literature to determine whether the outcomes of endurance training based on heart rate variability (HRV) are more favorable than those of predefined training. Systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed and Web of Science were searched systematically in March of 2020 using keywords related to endurance, the ANS, and training. To compare the outcomes of HRV-guided and predefined training, Hedges' g effect size and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A total of 8 studies (198 participants) were identified comprising 9 interventions involving a variety of approaches. Compared to predefined training, most HRV-guided interventions included fewer moderate- and/or high-intensity training sessions. Fixed effects meta-analysis revealed a significant medium-sized positive effect of HRV-guided training on submaximal physiological parameters (g = 0.296, 95% CI 0.031 to 0.562, p = 0.028), but its effects on performance (g = 0.079, 95% CI -0.050 to 0.393, p = 0.597) and V̇O2peak (g = 0.171, 95% CI -0.213 to 0.371, p = 0.130) were small and not statistically significant. Moreover, with regards to performance, HRV-guided training was associated with fewer non-responders and more positive responders. In comparison to predefined training, HRV-guided endurance training had a medium-sized effect on submaximal physiological parameters, but only a small and non-significant influence on performance and V̇O_2peak. There were fewer non-responders regarding performance with HRV-based training.

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.