Validation of ambulatory monitoring devices to measure energy expenditure and heart rate in a military setting

Rahel Gilgen-Ammann,Thomas Wyss,Mark J Buller,Nadja Beeler,Simon K Delves,Bertil J Veenstra,Lilian Roos,Karl E Friedl

doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ac19f9

Abstract

Objectives.To investigate the validity of different devices and algorithms used in military organizations worldwide to assess physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) and heart rate (HR) among soldiers. Design. Device validation study. Methods. Twenty-three male participants serving their mandatory military service accomplished, firstly, nine different military specific activities indoors, and secondly, a normal military routine outdoors. Participants wore simultaneously an ActiHeart, Everion, MetaMax 3B, Garmin Fenix 3, Hidalgo EQ02, and PADIS 2.0 system. The PAEE and HR data of each system were compared to the criterion measures MetaMax 3B and Hidalgo EQ02, respectively. Results. Overall, the recorded systematic errors in PAEE estimation ranged from 0.1 (±1.8) kcal.min−1 to −1.7 (±1.8) kcal.min−1 for the systems PADIS 2.0 and Hidalgo EQ02 running the Royal Dutch Army algorithm, respectively, and in the HR assessment ranged from −0.1 (±2.1) b.min−1 to 0.8 (±3.0) b.min−1 for the PADIS 2.0 and ActiHeart systems, respectively. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) in PAEE estimation ranged from 29.9% to 75.1%, with only the Everion system showing an overall MAPE <30%, but all investigated devices reported overall MAPE <1.4% in the HR assessment. Conclusions. The present study demonstrated poor to moderate validity in terms of PAEE estimation, but excellent validity in all investigated devices in terms of HR assessment. Overall, the Everion performed among the best in both parameters and with a device placement on the upper arm, the Everion system is particularly useful during military service, as it does not interfere with other relevant equipment.

Highlights

Armed forces worldwide are monitoring the demands and activities performed by their personnel in different military occupations (Rosendal et al 2003, Pihlainen et al 2014, Wyss et al 2014, Friedl 2018, Buller et al 2021)
The Everion performed among the best in both parameters and with a device placement on the upper arm, the Everion system is useful during military service, as it does not interfere with other relevant equipment
The recorded systematic errors in physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) estimation ranged from 0.1 (±1.8) kcal.min−1 to −1.7 (±1.8) kcal.min−1 for the PADIS 2.0 and activity module Equivital (AMEQ), respectively, and in the heart rate (HR) assessment ranged from −0.1 (±2.1) b.min−1 to 0.8 (±3.0) b.min−1 for the PADIS 2.0 and ActiHeart, respectively

Summary

Introduction

Armed forces worldwide are monitoring the demands and activities performed by their personnel in different military occupations (Rosendal et al 2003, Pihlainen et al 2014, Wyss et al 2014, Friedl 2018, Buller et al 2021). This allows the commanders to make data based decisions about military performance tasks, missions and injury prevention. Many different commercial or self-developed objective monitoring devices are available They claim to assess the same parameters, these are based for example on HR data, on acceleration data or on a combination of both obtained on the upper arm, on the chest, on the hip using each time different technology (Brage et al 2007, Wyss et al 2012, Burrell et al 2016, Buller et al 2021). The major limitation of these devices is the limited knowledge about data validity and reliability for measuring physical demands in a military setting or limited comparability

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion