Fitbit wristband and apple watch

Author: Janet Peter

Stage

Device

Mean

SD

Minimum

maximum

Cohen’s d

Start

Fitbit

73.08

10.44

55.00

102.33

0.07

Apple

72.84

12.08

43.00

108.00

0.04

Baseline

Fitbit

71.36

10.74

47.67

103.33

-0.15

Apple

73.07

11.45

45.00

105.17

0.01

Stage 1

Fitbit

103.11

17.45

73067

179.33

0.68

Apple

89.19

11.19

65.00

117.67

-0.25

Stage 2

Fitbit

110.06

16.71

78.67

162.00

0.19

Apple

101.01

16.48

68.00

133.00

-0.35

Stage 3

Fitbit

144.65

17.35

107.67

192.00

-0.31

Apple

150.87

19.17

112.00

194.67

0.01

Recovery

Fitbit

82.57

15.17

46.83

119.83

-0.13

Apple

84.02

15.27

45.27

119.83

-0.03

Table1.0 shows average heart rate (bpm) by stage per device. Measures include mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and cohen’s d

Stage

Device

Fitbit

Apple

Start

Fitbit

1

0.806**

Apple

1

Baseline

Fitbit

1

0.971**

Apple

1

Stage 1

Fitbit

1

-0.007

Apple

1

Stage 2

Fitbit

1

0.154

Apple

1

Stage 3

Fitbit

1

0.739**

Apple

1

Recovery

Fitbit

1

0.992**

Apple

1

  • Correlation is significant at 0.01 levels (2-tailed)

Table 3.0 Correlation matrix for devices and corresponding heart rate

Stage

Device

Mean

SD

Minimum

Maximum

Cohen’s d

Baseline

Fitbit

11.80

2.79

8

19

-0.40

Apple

40.41

16.82

17

103

2.27

Stage 1

Fitbit

26.32

7.52

15

45

1.96

Apple

17.15

6.08

9

39

0.52

Stage 2

Fitbit

38.34

13.63

20

88

0.09

Apple

40.35

12.51

23

81

0.27

Stage 3

Fitbit

38.34

13.63

20

88

0.09

Apple

40.35

12.51

23

81

0.27

Recovery

Fitbit

19.76

12.99

8

64

0.33

Apple

43.03

19.92

17

105

1.83

Table 4: Average energy expenditure (kcal) by stage per device. Measures include mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and cohen’s d

Stage

Device

Fitbit

Apple

Baseline

Fitbit

1

0.563**

Apple

1

Stage 1

Fitbit

1

0.537**

Apple

1

Stage 2

Fitbit

1

0.520

Apple

1

Stage 3

Fitbit

1

0.549**

Apple

1

Recovery

Fitbit

1

0.449**

Apple

1

  • Correlation is significant at 0.01 levels (2-tailed)

Table 5.0 Correlation matrix for devices and energy expenditure

Conclusion

The study results reveal that apple watch is more accurate to manage health and wellness. The results shows favorable and consistent results for apple watch.

Reference

Erin E. D. (2016) Measuring the Validity of Self-monitoring Heart Rate and Activity Tracking Wearables

Kanitthika K. & Soochan K. (2016). A comparison of wearable fitness devices. BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted 2016 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3059-0

Carolyn Morgan is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in research paper writing services if you need a similar paper you can place your order from Top American Writing Services.