Paperdoi:10.3390/bioengineering13101099
Criterion validity of Apple Watch 8, Galaxy Watch 5, Fitbit Charge 5 and Garmin Vivosmart 5 for HR and energy expenditure during resistance exercise (Yun, Ko, Lee; Bioengineering 2026)
Bioengineering 13(10):1099, published 2026-09-23 (PubMed entry 2026-10-26)
Licence: CC BY 4.0
TL;DR
Devices: Apple Watch Series 8, Samsung Galaxy Watch 5, Fitbit Charge 5, Garmin Vivosmart 5. Cohort / protocol: 70 healthy men aged 20–39; two sets each of bench press, T-bar row, squat and deadlift at individual 10-RM loads. References: ECG for HR; indirect calorimetry for workout-session EE.
- Form factor: wrist (consumer smartwatches/bands)
Abstract
Commercial smartwatches are increasingly used to monitor physiological responses during exercise; however, their validity for resistance exercise remains uncertain. This study evaluated the criterion validity of four commercial smartwatches (Apple Watch Series 8, Samsung Galaxy Watch 5, Fitbit Charge 5, and Garmin Vivosmart 5) for measuring heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) during resistance exercise. Seventy healthy men aged 20–39 years performed two sets each of the bench press, T-bar row, squat, and deadlift at individualized 10-repetition maximum loads. Smartwatch-derived HR was evaluated against electrocardiography, whereas smartwatch-derived workout-session EE was evaluated against indirect calorimetry. The Apple Watch showed the lowest measurement error for mean HR across the protocol (bias = −0.36 bpm; MAE = 1.81 bpm; ICC = 0.969) and for overall dynamic HR (bias = −0.72 bpm; MAE = 4.95 bpm; ICC = 0.904). HR agreement deteriorated markedly immediately after each set, particularly for the Samsung and Fitbit devices, which underestimated ECG-derived HR by 25.60 and 19.59 bpm, respectively. In contrast, EE estimates showed poor agreement with indirect calorimetry across all devices (ICC = 0.021–0.033). These findings demonstrate that the agreement of smartwatch-derived HR with electrocardiography measurements varies across time points during resistance exercise and indicate that smartwatch-derived workout-session EE should be interpreted cautiously when accurate metabolic assessment is required.
Verbatim from the publisher's DOI record (opens in a new tab) · Publisher licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Results on ChatPPG leaderboards
All leaderboardsNo results from this paper on ChatPPG leaderboards yet. Browse the leaderboards.
Tasks & signals
Tasks
Signals
Keywords
How it works
Cite this paper
APA
Yun, J.-H., Ko, J.-M., & Lee, T.-H. (2026). Criterion validity of Apple Watch 8, Galaxy Watch 5, Fitbit Charge 5 and Garmin Vivosmart 5 for HR and energy expenditure during resistance exercise (Yun, Ko, Lee; Bioengineering 2026). Bioengineering. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13101099
BibTeX
@article{yun2026criterion,
title = {{Criterion validity of Apple Watch 8, Galaxy Watch 5, Fitbit Charge 5 and Garmin Vivosmart 5 for HR and energy expenditure during resistance exercise (Yun, Ko, Lee; Bioengineering 2026)}},
author = {Yun, Jung-Hyun and Ko, Jae-Myun and Lee, Tae-Hyung},
year = {2026},
journal = {Bioengineering},
doi = {10.3390/bioengineering13101099}
}Built from the hub record. Check it against the publisher before submitting.
Added to the ChatPPG research hub
