Presenter: Wyatt Fullmer
Authors: Wyatt Fullmer, Bryson Carrier, Damian Gil, Kyle Cruz, Charli Aguilar, Dustin Davis, Elias Malek, Nathaniel Bodell, Jeff Montes, Jake Manning, Mark DeBeliso, James Navalta, Marcus Lawrence
Faculty Advisor: Marcus Lawrence
Institution: Southern Utah University
Wearable technology has become increasingly utilized amongst fitness enthusiasts and the general public. Polar is a common brand that is utilized, and many use the devices for a variety of modalities, like walking, running, or biking. However, the validity of Polar’s armband optical devices in estimating average heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) while biking is unknown.PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if two devices, the Polar OH1 and Polar Verity Sense, record valid measures of average HR and EE while self-paced biking.METHODS: Twenty participants (n=10 female, n=10 male; 23.5±6.48 years) were tested individually. The Polar OH1 and Polar Verity Sense were worn around separate biceps (placement was randomly selected). Following a ~5 min. self-paced walking warm-up outdoors, participants were fitted to a road bicycle and asked to perform a ~5 min. self-paced bike ride on a flat paved surface outdoors. 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 of the Polar H10 heart rate strap and Cosmed K5 portable metabolic unit, respectively. Dependent T-tests determined differences (p≤0.05).RESULTS:Average HR for Polar Verity Sense and OH1 were no different (p>0.05) than the Polar H10 (113.74±17.61 and 112.35±18.85 vs 110±16.83 bpm, respectively), and was considered valid (MAPE: 4.68% and 4.12%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.83 and 0.88, respectively). Estimated EE for Polar Verity Sense and OH1 were no different (p>0.05) than the Cosmed K5 (40.95±18.85 and 39.59±19.31 vs 37.16±8.72 kcals, respectively), but was not considered valid (MAPE: 30.76% and 30.93%; Lin’s Concordance: 0.52 and 0.53, respectively).CONCLUSION:Individuals who bike ride and use these devices should consider the implications of these findings.