Validation of Oura ring energy expenditure and steps in laboratory and free-living

Abstract

BackgroundCommercial activity trackers are increasingly used in research and compared with research-based accelerometers are often less intrusive, cheaper, with improved storage and battery capacity, although typically less validated. The present study aimed to determine the validity of Oura Ring step-count and energy expenditure (EE) in both laboratory and free-living.MethodsOura Ring EE was compared against indirect calorimetry in the laboratory, followed by a 14-day free-living study with 32 participants wearing an Oura Ring and reference monitors (three accelerometers positioned at hip, thigh, and wrist, and pedometer) to evaluate Oura EE variables and step count.ResultsStrong correlations were shown for Oura versus indirect calorimetry in the laboratory (r = 0.93), and versus reference monitors for all variables in free-living (r ≥ 0.76). Significant (p < 0.05) mean differences for Oura versus reference methods were found for laboratory measured sitting (− 0.12 ± 0.28 MET), standing (− 0.27 ± 0.33 MET), fast walk (− 0.82 ± 1.92 MET) and very fast run (− 3.49 ± 3.94 MET), and for free-living step-count (2124 ± 4256 steps) and EE variables (MET: − 0.34-0.26; TEE: 362–494 kcal; AEE: − 487-259 kcal). In the laboratory, Oura tended to underestimate EE with increasing discrepancy as intensity increased. The combined activities and slow running in the laboratory, and all MET placements, TEE hip and wrist, and step count in free-living had acceptable measurement errors (< 10% MAPE), whereas the remaining free-living variables showed close to (≤13.2%) acceptable limits.ConclusionThis is the first study investigating the validity of Oura Ring EE against gold standard methods. Oura successfully identified major changes between activities and/or intensities but was less responsive to detailed deviations within activities. In free-living, Oura step-count and EE variables tightly correlated with reference monitors, though with systemic over- or underestimations indicating somewhat low intra-individual validity of the ring versus the reference monitors. However, the correlations between the devices were high, suggesting that the Oura can detect differences at group-level for active and total energy expenditure, as well as step count.