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

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Research

Jonatan Fridolfsson¹  Daniel Arvidsson¹  Mats Börjesson²  Emilia Kristiansson³  Agneta Holmäng⁴  Ulrika Andersson-Hall⁴ 

[1]Center for Health and Performance, Department of Food and Nutrition, and Sport Science Faculty of Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

[2]Center for Health and Performance, Department of Food and Nutrition, and Sport Science Faculty of Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

[3]Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

[4]Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden

[5]Center for Health and Performance, Department of Food and Nutrition, and Sport Science Faculty of Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

[6]Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

[7]Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

关键词: Oura smart ring;    Indirect calorimetry;    Wearable devices;    Energy expenditure;    Step count;    Validation;    Accelerometer;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-023-01868-x

 received in 2022-09-13, accepted in 2023-02-16,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

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.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.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023. corrected publication 2023

【 图 表 】

12888_2023_5172_Article_IEq30.gif

12888_2023_5172_Article_IEq27.gif

Fig. 6