EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
WEARABLE TECH
It’s commonplace now, but still largely lacks the ability to provide accurate training data. So,
asks Dr Mark McKean PhD, why does the research still find value in wearable fitness tech?
he fitness industry has always loved being ahead of the
game, with interactive cardio equipment, new training toys,
and multiple forms of electronic engagement. Wearable
technologies have quickly grown in both type and complexity. Disruptive
technologies are new emerging technologies that unexpectedly
displace an established or accepted technology. Disruptive technologies
have the capacity to alter our lifestyles, change the way we work and
influence both business and the global economy.
There has been a major influx of wearable disruptive technologies
in the fitness industry and many of these have been embraced by both
clients and fitness professionals. At the most basic level, some of
these technologies have poor reliability and accuracy, and some have
been shown to be more accurate for specific – but not all – purposes.
T
Tracking activity
Assessing and monitoring physical activity has become more
common and easier with the help of a range of simple devices that
can be worn or via mobile device apps. These devices and phones
use a range of technologies from simple pedometers through to
complex triaxial accelerometers and gyrometers.
56 | NETWORK SUMMER 2017
A range of factors influence the accuracy of these devices,
including where they are worn on the body, what variables they are
trying to measure, and what information is programmable during set
up. Stackpool et al. (2014) compared a range of current and well-
known activity trackers that manufacturers claimed could track
varied activities like climbing stairs or playing basketball, energy
expenditure and sleep behaviour. In most cases these easily-
purchased devices generally overestimated energy expenditure
during basic activities like walking and running, and underestimated
activities like basketball. Generally, they were within 10% of the
correct number of steps taken during slower walking-based
activities, but less accurate during more varied activities like agility
drills and court sports.
Stackpool and colleagues also report that common GPS
monitors, which rely on access to satellites (the more the better) via
clear skies, have also been found to be inaccurate for slow walking,
but slightly more accurate in running. While there has been some
research into the use of these devices, there appears to still be little
reliability in the measures they produce, and they are still considered
to have low validity.
Another systematic review by Gierisch et al. (2015) reported on the