Background: Devices for monitoring physical activity have focused mainly on measuring aerobic activity; however, the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans also recommend muscle-resistance training two or more days per week. Recently, a wrist-worn activity monitor, the Atlas Wristband2, was developed to recognize resistance training exercises. Purpose: To assess the ability of the Wristband2 to identify the type and number of repetitions of resistance training exercises, when worn on the left wrist as directed by the manufacturer, and when worn on the right wrist. Methods: While wearing monitors on both wrists, 159 participants completed a circuit-style workout consisting of two sets of 12 repetitions of 14 different resistance training exercises. Data from the monitors were used to determine classification accuracies for identifying exercise type verses direct observation. The average repetitions and mean absolute error (MAE) for repetitions were calculated for each exercise. Results: The Wristband2 classification accuracy for exercise type was 78.4 ± 2.5%, ranging from 54.7 ± 3.4% (dumbbell [DB] bench press) to 97.5 ± 1.0% (DB biceps curls), when worn on the left wrist. An average of 11.0 ± 0.2 repetitions, ranging from 9.0 ± 0.3 repetitions (DB lunges) to 11.9 ± 0.1 repetitions (push-ups), were identified. For all exercises, MAE ranged from 0.0–4.6 repetitions. When worn on the right wrist, exercise type classification accuracy dropped to 24.2 ± 5.1%, and repetitions decreased to 8.1 ± 0.8 out of 12. Conclusions: The Wristband2, worn on the left wrist, had acceptable exercise classification and repetition counting capabilities for many of the 14 exercises used in this study, and may be a useful tool to objectively track resistance training.
Steeves and Perry are with the Division of Health Sciences & Outdoor Studies, Maryville College, Maryville, TN, USA. Conger, Flanagan, Fox, and Weisinger are with the Department of Kinesiology, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA. Mitrzyk and Montoye are with the Department of Integrative Physiology and Health Science, Alma College, Alma, MI, USA.
CongerS.A.GuoJ.FulkersonS.M.PedigoL.ChenH. & BassettD.R. (2016). Objective assessment of strength training exercises using a wrist-worn accelerometer. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise48(9) 1847–1855. PubMed ID: 27054678 doi:
DongB.MontoyeA.MooreR.PfeifferK. & BiswasS. (2013). Energy-aware activity classification using wearable sensor networks. Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering872387230Y. PubMed ID: 25075266 doi:
Eves, N.D., & Plotnikoff, R.C. (2006). Resistance training and type 2 diabetes: Considerations for implementation at the population level. 29(8), 1933–1941. PubMed ID: 16873809 doi:10.2337/dc05-1981)| false
LydenK.KozeyS.L.StaudenmeyerJ.W. & FreedsonP.S. (2011). A comprehensive evaluation of commonly used accelerometer energy expenditure and MET prediction equations. European Journal of Applied Physiology111(2) 187–201. PubMed ID: 20842375 doi:
Lyden, K., Kozey, S.L., Staudenmeyer, J.W., & Freedson, P.S. (2011). A comprehensive evaluation of commonly used accelerometer energy expenditure and MET prediction equations. 111(2), 187–201. PubMed ID: 20842375 doi:10.1007/s00421-010-1639-8)| false
MargaritoJ.HelaouiR.BianchiA.SartorF. & BonomiA. (2015). User-independent recognition of sports activities from a single wrist-worn accelerometer: A template matching based approach. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering63(4) 1–1. doi:
Margarito, J., Helaoui, R., Bianchi, A., Sartor, F., & Bonomi, A. (2015). User-independent recognition of sports activities from a single wrist-worn accelerometer: A template matching based approach. 63(4), 1–1. doi:10.1109/TBME.2015.2471094)| false
MontoyeA.H.CongerS.A.FoxA.K.BeachC.MitrzykJ. & SteevesJ.A. (2019). Test-retest and inter-monitor reliability of the Atlas activity monitor for assessing resistance training exercises. Journal for the Measurement of Physical Behavior2(1) 28–35. doi:.
Montoye, A.H., Conger, S.A., Fox, A.K., Beach, C., Mitrzyk, J., & Steeves, J.A. (2019). Test-retest and inter-monitor reliability of the Atlas activity monitor for assessing resistance training exercises. 2(1), 28–35. doi:10.1123/jmpb.2018-0071.)| false
ParkkaJ.ErmesM.KorpipaaP.MantyjarviJ.PeltolaJ. & KorhonenI. (2006). Activity classification using realistic data from wearable sensors. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine10(1) 119–128. PubMed ID: 16445257 doi:
Pernek, I., Kurillo, G., Stiglic, G., & Bajcsy, R. (2015). Recognizing the intensity of strength training exercises with wearable sensors. 58, 145–155. PubMed ID: 26453822 doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2015.09.020)| false
PrinceS.A.AdamoK.B.HamelM.HardtJ.Connor GorberS. & TremblayM. (2008). A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity5(1) 56. doi:
Prince, S.A., Adamo, K.B., Hamel, M., Hardt, J., Connor Gorber, S., & Tremblay, M. (2008). A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: A systematic review. 5(1), 56. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-56)| false
StrathS.J.PfeifferK.A. & Whitt-GloverM.C. (2012). Accelerometer use with children, older adults, and adults with functional limitations. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise44(1 Suppl. 1) S77–S85. PubMed ID: 22157778 doi:
SullivanA.N. & LachmanM.E. (2016). Behavior change with fitness technology in sedentary adults: A review of the evidence for increasing physical activity. Frontiers in Public Health4289. PubMed ID: 28123997 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00289
Sullivan, A.N., & Lachman, M.E. (2016). Behavior change with fitness technology in sedentary adults: A review of the evidence for increasing physical activity. 4, 289. PubMed ID: 28123997 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00289)| false