Upper panel displays descriptive data for the criterion measure EEE VO2 , distance measured by devices, and total EEE for the individual tracking devices. Middle panel display ICC measures for absolute and consistency measures, percentage error (EEE), as well as paired sample t-test between specific devices and criterion measure for total energy expenditure. Lower panel of the table display the values adjusted, by removing EPOC measurement from the criterion measure value (VO 2 ), only analyzing moving time. Exercise energy expenditure = EEE; kilojoule = kJ; effect size = ES; post-exercise energy consumption = EPOC.

Upper panel displays descriptive data for the criterion measure EEE VO2 , distance measured by devices, and total EEE for the individual tracking devices. Middle panel display ICC measures for absolute and consistency measures, percentage error (EEE), as well as paired sample t-test between specific devices and criterion measure for total energy expenditure. Lower panel of the table display the values adjusted, by removing EPOC measurement from the criterion measure value (VO 2 ), only analyzing moving time. Exercise energy expenditure = EEE; kilojoule = kJ; effect size = ES; post-exercise energy consumption = EPOC.

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of the study was to assess the accuracy of commonly used GPS/accelerometer-based tracking devices in the estimation of exercise energy expenditure (EEE) during high-intensity intermittent exercise. A total of 13 female soccer players competing at the highest level in Norway (age 20.5 ± 4.3 years; height 168.4 ± 5.1 cm; weight 64.1 ± 5.3...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... total distance and mean energy expenditure measured for the tracking devices GPS 1 , GPS 2 , and IMU are presented in Table 1. Compared to the manually measured track, results for distance displayed a percentage difference of 4.4%, 3.7%, and 0.7%, respectively. ...
Context 2
... lactate measurement was significantly elevated compared to baseline resting values (1.3 ± 0.4 mmol/L) during round 1-5 ( Figure 2). Table 1. Compared to the indirect calorimetry, all tracking devices significantly underestimated the caloric expenditure during intermittent bouts of exercise (GPS 1 , p = 0.022, ES = 0.60, GPS 2 , p = 0.002, ES = 0.96 and IMU, p = 0.017, ES = 0.77). ...
Context 3
... to the indirect calorimetry, all tracking devices significantly underestimated the caloric expenditure during intermittent bouts of exercise (GPS 1 , p = 0.022, ES = 0.60, GPS 2 , p = 0.002, ES = 0.96 and IMU, p = 0.017, ES = 0.77). When adjusting EEE by subtracting EPOC (EEE measured during standstill resting periods) from the measurement, no differences were found (EEEGPS 1 p > 0.05, ES = 0.44, EEE GPS2 p > 0.05, ES = 0.15 and EEE IMU p > 0.05, ES = 0.21) ( Table 1). ...
Context 4
... ICC values for total EEE ranged between 0.48 and 0.21 based on consistency estimation, and between 0.39 and 0.24 based on absolute agreement estimation, respectively. Adjusting calculations by excluding EPOC measurements, only analyzing moving time, ICC values ranged between 0.54 and 0.48 and between 0.54 and 0.49 based on consistency and absolute agreement estimation, respectively (See Table 1 for specific values). ...