Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of a new motion sensor wristband (ViM sports memory: ViM), consisting of an accelerometer and a gyro-sensor, by comparing the accuracy with those of indirect calorimeter (IC) and a commonly used accelerometer (Lifecorder: LC). Twenty-five participants (13 males; 12 females) walked at 3.6, 4.8, and 6.0 km·h−1 and ran at 7.2 and 9.6 km·h−1 on a treadmill for 5 min. Then, another 10 males performed static stretching and hopscotch for 5 min each. Measured energy expenditure (EE) by the IC and estimations of the LC and ViM were compared by repeated measures ANOVA. During walking, differences between the IC and ViM (24 to 74%) were lager than those between the IC and LC (−16 to 0%). During running, differences between the IC and LC (−35 to −21%) were larger than those between the IC and ViM (−17 to 14%). During static stretch and hopscotch, differences between the IC and ViM (stretching, −21%; hopscotch −40%) were smaller than those between the IC and LC (stretching, −40%; hopscotch, −66%). The ViM is more suitable than the LC for the estimation of EE during running or static stretching; however, the accuracy of the ViM was far inferior to that of the LC during walking.