If you want a more personalized experience, the Forme Studio may be the way to go. Forme offers two different types of mirrors: Forme Studio and Forme Lift. The Studio is the original mirror that offers on-demand classes and custom workouts as well as live 1:1 personal training. The Forme Lift is the upgraded version of the Forme Studio and offers the same classes and personal training but has motorized resistance cables (with up to 150 pounds of resistance) meant to elevate your strength training experience. The Forme Studio will run you $2,495, whereas the Forme Lift costs a hefty $6,495.

I was able to test both but thought that the average person would find the Forme Studio more suitable for their homes. If you buy the Forme Studio, you have the option to lean it against or mount it to the wall for extra security. You will also need to make sure you have 6 by 6 feet of space, with a minimum of 7 feet from floor to ceiling to accommodate the unit. Your wall must have a 12-, 16- or 18-inch metal or wood stud spacing, poured concrete, or concrete masonry units. 

There’s no denying the Forme Studio is a touchscreen, but also has an app (currently only available on iOS). I found the imagery on the Forme Studio to be the best of all the smart mirrors because it’s filmed in 4K resolution, which is similar to some nicer televisions on the market. The instructor also looks life-size on the screen, which feel like they are in the room with you. This device has two front-facing cameras which comes in handy if you sign up for personal training sessions (more on this later). Forme includes camera covers for added privacy. 

You will need Wi-Fi to use the Forme Studio. You have the option to connect your headphones, Forme Heart Rate Monitor (included in your accessories box), other compatible heart rate monitors or an Apple Smartwatch via Bluetooth. One downside is that you’ll only be able to access the built-in music on the device.  

The Forme membership will cost you $49 for the first month, then $149 per month afterward, which is a steep price to pay when the unit itself isn’t cheap. You’ll need the membership to access over 700 on-demand classes and a fitness concierge, which has you fill out a survey that asks about your goals, fitness level and lifestyle and then curates a workout plan with recommended videos on demand from Forme’s library released on a weekly basis. You can create up to six profiles with your membership. The video library gives you the option to pick from beginner, intermediate or advanced classes from workouts like barre (you can also purchase the barre attachment separately for $395), strength training, boxing, yoga, pilates, Barry’s X, dance and meditation. You can also join a program if you want to tackle a specific challenge for the month. Keep in mind some of these classes will require you to have additional equipment like dumbbells on hand. You can filter by the length of the class, type of workout, level, instructor and equipment needed. 

I tested out a few classes and for the most part, the experience was similar to other smart mirrors. You can adjust your audio based on whether you want to hear more of the music or the instructor, which I like since it can help you focus. During class, the mirror is not as impressive as I expected since it’s only able to count your reps. Unlike the Lululemon Studio Mirror, there isn’t a sense of camaraderie with other members if you’re looking for that group fitness feel. I would’ve thought that the Forme Studio would be able to offer form corrections or cue suggestions like the Fiture Mini, but it doesn’t.  What makes the Forme Studio stand out is the 1:1 Live Personal Training (something you can set up through the fitness concierge). 

The experience is similar to doing a personal training session in person, and this is where the two front cameras are most useful. During a programmed session with your trainer, you’ll be able to view them from your screen and vice versa. The trainer has the ability to provide feedback since the cameras track your movements and your whole frame (even if you’re on the taller side). If you own the Forme Lift, the trainer can adjust the resistance on the machine remotely if they want to challenge you. Even if you’re traveling, you can access your personal training sessions via a tablet. Your trainer will still be able to view you since camera tracking works similarly on tablets. 

Specs

Dimensions: 6 by 6 foot space with a minimum of 7 feet from floor to ceiling

Weight: 102 pounds (screen only), 125 pounds (screen with package)

Repeated 1-minute bursts of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) are more effective than conventional moderate, continuous exercise for improving aerobic fitness after stroke, according to a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

“We hoped that we would see improvements in cardiovascular fitness after HIIT and anticipated that these improvements would be greater than in the moderate-intensity group, but we were pleasantly surprised by the degree of improvement we observed,” Ada Tang, PT, PhD, associate professor of health sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, told Medscape Medical News. “The improvements seen in the HIIT group were twofold higher than in the other group.”

The results were published on August 7 in Stroke.

Clinically Meaningful

Researchers compared the effects of 12 weeks of short-interval HIIT with those of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on peak oxygen uptake (V̇O₂peak), cardiovascular risk factors, and mobility outcomes after stroke.

They randomly assigned participants to receive 3 days per week of HIIT or traditional moderate exercise sessions for 12 weeks. Participants’ mean age was 65 years, and 39% were women. They enrolled at a mean age of 1.8 years after sustaining a mild stroke.

A total of 42 participants were randomized to HIIT and 40 to MICT. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline, and both groups exercised on adaptive recumbent steppers, which are suitable for stroke survivors with varying abilities.

The short-interval HIIT protocol involved 10 1-minute intervals of high-intensity exercise, interspersed with nine 1-minute low-intensity intervals, for a total of 19 minutes. HIIT intervals targeted 80% heart rate reserve (HRR) and progressed by 10% every 4 weeks up to 100% HRR. The low-intensity intervals targeted 30% HRR.

The traditional MICT protocol for stroke rehabilitation targeted 40% HRR for 20 minutes and progressed by 10% HRR and 5 minutes every 4 weeks, up to 60% HRR for 30 minutes.

The HIIT group’s cardiorespiratory fitness levels (V̇O₂peak) improved twice as much as those of the MICT group: 3.5 mL of oxygen consumed in 1 minute per kg of body weight (mL/kg/min) compared with 1.8 mL/kg/min.

Of note, changes in V̇O₂peak from baseline remained above the clinically important threshold of 1.0 mL/kg/min at 8-week follow-up in the HIIT group (1.71 mL/kg/min) but not in the MICT group (0.67 mL/kg/min).

Both groups increased their 6-minute walk test distances by 8.8 m at 12 weeks and by 18.5 m at 20 weeks. No between-group differences were found for cardiovascular risk or mobility outcomes, and no adverse events occurred in either group.

On average, the HIIT group spent 36% of total training time exercising at intensities > 80% HRR throughout the intervention, while the MICT group spent 42% of time at intensities of 40%-59% HRR.

The study was limited by a small sample size of high-functioning individuals who sustained a mild stroke. Enrollment was halted for 2 years due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, limiting the study’s statistical power.

Nevertheless, the authors concluded, “Given that a lack of time is a significant barrier to the implementation of aerobic exercise in stroke clinical practice, our findings suggest that short-interval HIIT may be an effective alternative to traditional MICT for improving V̇O₂peak after stroke, with potential clinically meaningful benefits sustained in the short-term.”

“Our findings show that a short HIIT protocol is possible in people with stroke, which is exciting to see,” said Tang. “But there are different factors that clinicians should consider before recommending this training for their patients, such as their health status and their physical status. Stroke rehabilitation specialists, including stroke physical therapists, can advise on how to proceed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of HIIT.”

Selected Patients May Benefit

“Broad implementation of this intervention may be premature without further research,” Ryan Glatt, CPT, senior brain health coach and director of the FitBrain Program at Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, California, told Medscape Medical News. “The study focused on relatively high-functioning stroke survivors, which raises questions about the applicability of the results to those with more severe impairments.” Glatt did not participate in the research.

“Additional studies are needed to confirm whether these findings are applicable to more diverse and severely affected populations and to assess the long-term sustainability of the benefits observed,” he said. “Also, the lack of significant improvements in other critical outcomes, such as mobility, suggests limitations in the broader application of HIIT for stroke rehabilitation.”

“While HIIT shows potential, it should be approached with caution,” Glatt continued. “It may benefit select patients, but replacing traditional exercise protocols with HIIT should not be done in all cases. More robust evidence and careful consideration of individual patient needs are essential.”

This study was funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Tang reported grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Glatt declared no relevant financial relationships.

Marilynn Larkin, MA, is an award-winning medical writer and editor whose work has appeared in numerous publications, including Medscape Medical News and its sister publication MDedge, The Lancet (where she was a contributing editor), and Reuters Health.

Published in Sports Medicine, a recent system review revealed the state of smartwatches and fitness trackers today regarding their reliability and potential limitations in terms of tracking vital metrics, ranging from heart rate and SpO2 to aerobic capacity and sleep.

Researchers conducted an umbrella review, which compiled several findings into a single study that involved over 430,465 participants. The gathered data yielded surprising findings that support how key tracking features in wearables have improved over the years, while some tools could still be far from being truly reliable.

Which aspects of health metrics from smartwatches are reliable?

One of the key findings showed how the heart rate measurement in today’s smartwatches and fitness trackers has an accuracy of +/- 3 percent with the possibility of a slight deviation. This means the heart rate data from these wearables are highly accurate.

The same case is touted for arrhythmia detection including Afib, with the sensitivity and specificity of the feature touted to be 100 percent and 95 percent accurate, respectively. Moreover, blood oxygen level saturation or SpO2 monitoring has also shown a 2 percent mean difference, indicating a high level of reliability.

Smartwatches might not be reliable enough to monitor your sleep and fitness activities

It is on the wellness and fitness fronts that smartwatches and fitness trackers seem to exhibit a notable degree of inaccuracy. For instance, VO2 max, or a measurement of the amount of oxygen your body can absorb and use during workouts, has been highlighted to produce about +/- 15 percent difference during rests and +/- 9 percent during exercises. On the other hand, a bigger mean error is observed when tracking physical activity intensity.

Even so, the findings mentioned that wearables also fail to deliver dependable step counts despite being one of the most basic features. It listed mean errors as falling between -9 to +12 percent. Meanwhile, calorie expenditure measurement, or the amount of calories burned during a workout, has an even worse accuracy rate with a -21 percent to +15 percent difference.

Regarding sleep, data from smartwatches and fitness trackers might not be relied upon as well. The study revealed these devices overestimate sleep time by as much as 10 percent when compared to results from polysomnography.

What can we build from this? Are wearables only useful to capture valuable health and fitness insights? Users should be aware that accuracy in other metrics does vary significantly and they should be cautious when interpreting such data.

What is your opinion on this study? How do you manage your health from your smartwatch or fitness tracker? We want to hear your thoughts on this.