Apple Watch in JAMA Cardiology

[Thai]

Link: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abstract/2566167

Apple Watch did great in this study with accuracy during exercise vs. other brands.

 

[BlueMoon63]

I was surprised to see that Apple Watch beat Fitbit and others for accuracy. Not surprised that it came in second to chest straps at 95% to 90% - but Fitbit and the others only at 80% accuracy range. Also not surprised that as intensity increased, they all started to lose accuracy.

 

[exxxviii]

The AW essentially tied with the Mio. Mio and Valencell are known for being some of the best HRM subsystems for active use. So, it is pretty impressive that the AW is in that space alongside a Mio. I wish they could have tested against some other current products, like the FB Charge 2, a Garmin with their Evolve HRM, and something like the Trio that uses a Valencell sensor. The Basis is ancient and a known HR turd for years, so that one was kind of ridiculous to include. And the original Charge HR has been around for a couple years as well.

I wish the study would reveal the funding behind it. The selection of the FB Charge makes sense, but the Basis is bizarre. The title says it is assessing "4 popular wrist-worn HR monitors." The Fitbit is popular, but the other three are not top-of-mind in my popularity list for 2016. And the Basis barely made the list for 2015. It seems like a major omission not to have a Microsoft band or Garmin vivoactive. The conspiracy theory stuff kicks in and makes me wonder if either Apple funded it or if the lawyers behind the Fitbit lawsuit funded it.

 

[Thai]

The conspiracy theory stuff kicks in and makes me wonder if either Apple funded it or if the lawyers behind the Fitbit lawsuit funded it.

The Heart and Vascular Institute of Cleveland Clinic did the study...and published in a major medical journal.

So, check your conspiracy theory at the door please....
[doublepost=1476389858][/doublepost]Here is the website of clinic: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/heart

Oh by the way, Cleveland Clinic Ranks No. 1 in the Nation for Heart Care for 21 Consecutive Years....

 

[exxxviii]

The Heart and Vascular Institute of Cleveland Clinic did the study...and published in a major medical journal.

So, check your conspiracy theory again....
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/heart

Oh by the way, Cleveland Clinic Ranks No. 1 in the Nation for Heart Care for 21 Consecutive Years....

Right. Cleveland Clinic conducted the study. I saw that. Someone funded it. The study does not say if it was self-funded or if it was conducted on behalf of an outside funding source. It is common for well-known institutions to receive funding for specific studies. This is normative.

 

[Thai]

Right. Cleveland Clinic conducted the study. I saw that. Someone funded it. The study does not say if it was self-funded or if it was conducted on behalf of an outside funding source. It is common for well-known institutions to receive funding for specific studies. This is normative.

Again, Cleveland Clinic we're talking here...JAMA medical journal we're talking here. This is not CNET, which receives money for positive reviews of Samsung.

Medical studies such as above published in major medical journals by major medical institution MUST put disclaimers on who they are/were sponsored by. MUST. And the sources are checked.

So, again, check your conspiracy theory elsewhere dude.

 

[Long Run Nick]

Thanks for posting. Interesting. Oh, exxxviii, Garmin's HR sensor is called Elevate, thought you would like to know Nick

 

[exxxviii]

Garmin's HR sensor is called Elevate, thought you would like to know.

Doh, thanks. I new that. I switched term with something else I was working on. I even run with a 735XT and almost bought a vivoactive.
Dude? Lighten up. Your attack reflects some ignorance and naivete about how research happens.

The JAMA website only has the abstract and first page on the website. I am sure that if you bought the study, it would tell you who funded it. If you feel that strongly about it, buy the study and let us all know.

Personally, I suspect that the legal team building the case against Fitbit funded it. They picked a Basis Peak for a study in 2016? Are you kidding me. The Basis was never that good, and it was out of date last year. Are they even for sale any more? It looks like the study positioned a turd alongside the device named in a class action. Then, it included a known good device (the Mio) along with another probably good device (the AW). Boom, great material for a lawsuit. If the study truly wanted to explore the accuracy of popular HR trackers, it would not have had the Basis or that Mio. And, it would have had several other that actually are popular in 2016.

Now I am off to workout using three of my optical HRM sensors: AW, Valencell, and Fitbit. Sadly, the Elevate will not get used this time. I have run out of wrist space.

 

[Buran]

Actually, there is information about the funding source given in the document, which is not a full paper but is a short research letter. It may be that the full text is not available for most. I am accessing it from a university campus which has a subscription to JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association).

Here it is:

Funding/Support: The research was supported by The Mary Elizabeth Holdsworth Fund at the Cleveland Clinic.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The Mary Elizabeth Holdsworth Fund had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

 

[Thai]

Dude? Lighten up. Your attack reflects some ignorance and naivete about how research happens.

Personally, I suspect that the legal team building the case against Fitbit funded it.

Hmmm, i am in the medical field dude. It is you who is making yourself look really foolish and ignorant. Please stop. Seriously. Zip it!

 

[spinedoc77]

The AW essentially tied with the Mio. Mio and Valencell are known for being some of the best HRM subsystems for active use. So, it is pretty impressive that the AW is in that space alongside a Mio. I wish they could have tested against some other current products, like the FB Charge 2, a Garmin with their Evolve HRM, and something like the Trio that uses a Valencell sensor. The Basis is ancient and a known HR turd for years, so that one was kind of ridiculous to include. And the original Charge HR has been around for a couple years as well.

I wish the study would reveal the funding behind it. The selection of the FB Charge makes sense, but the Basis is bizarre. The title says it is assessing "4 popular wrist-worn HR monitors." The Fitbit is popular, but the other three are not top-of-mind in my popularity list for 2016. And the Basis barely made the list for 2015. It seems like a major omission not to have a Microsoft band or Garmin vivoactive. The conspiracy theory stuff kicks in and makes me wonder if either Apple funded it or if the lawyers behind the Fitbit lawsuit funded it.

The Scosche Rhythm+ uses Valencell tech, it's my go to device but it's far from perfect. My main gripe is that it becomes less accurate when I get sweaty, but otherwise it's very accurate, even with rapidly changing HR such as interval training. I just used it today with Motifit and my AW and it worked great, but I'll be testing it out against the AW itself. It would be nice to lose all bands and just have the AW.

 

[exxxviii]

Hmmm, i am in the medical field dude.

No way. Unless you are in a low level job. It looks like you are making stuff up. You are highly influenced by brand marketing. I spent a decade in the health sector. I had teams of research scientists that reported to me. My teams solicited funding and I signed off on studies. Just this year I dealt with a non-profit explicitly controlling a study through directed funds.

Do you really think those 4 devices represent the popular devices in 2016? One is out of production.

 

[Thai]

No way. Unless you are in a low level job. It looks like you are making stuff up. You are highly influenced by brand marketing. I spent a decade in the health sector. I had teams of research scientists that reported to me. My teams solicited funding and I signed off on studies. Just this year I dealt with a non-profit explicitly controlling a study through directed funds.

Do you really think those 4 devices represent the popular devices in 2016? One is out of production.

LOL...you got me. I am in a low level job. I don't know how you did it but congrats! Custodian pay is tough ya know...but darn it, i eat Ramen noodles every night...and wear my same underwear for a few weeks...just turn it inside out and then front and back...stretch that dollar!

Mary Elizabeth Holdsworth Fund must be Fitbit lawyers in disguise!! Poor Mary must be turning in the grave now seeing how her Fund is being mis-used!!! Wow...dude, you are on a roll!!!

Keep going dude...this is now getting pretty damn funny!!

 

[exxxviii]

LOL...you got me. I am in a low level job. I don't know how you did it but congrats!

I thought so.

I am impressed that AW did well. I also thought the other devices selected were a bit off. Still do. No surprise that you attacked either, that seems to be a recurring pattern.

 

[BlueMoon63]

This spiraled a bit. Would be shocked if the AW could beat a Garmin. I guess it could be biased but it is impressive that the AW could beat anything. Maybe the testers were lucky like me with nearly perfect heart rate monitoring no matter what I do. However too many people have had problems for me to believe they are wearing it wrong. I will say that many pictures here have people wearing their watch right up against their hand and I wear mine about and inch farther up the wrist and firm with no movement at all.

 

[exxxviii]

Garmin's Elevate is relatively new and that is why I wished that got studied. Garmin initially had a Mio sensor before Elevate. I do think Garmin has made great progress with Elevate since its initial release, but I am curious about the data.

When I read stuff from Valencell, the common theme is that it seems easy to create a device that will measure HR reliably in controlled or good conditions. Where the home grown sensors (like the Fitbits, AWs, Garmins, etc.) stumble is working for almost everyone in all conditions.

 

[lordofthereef]

I'm amazed myself! Good to see. I had my own anecdotal evidence of my Apple Watch seemingly giving me the same results (though never better) as my Fitbit. But that was just one person. And I had read a lot on the contrary. So I was sort of unsure of what I was experiencing.

But as was said. Funding and researching body are two different things. I'm also in the medical field and. Well. You don't even have to be to realize the system can be rigged. Let's hope it wasn't. And no need to get super defensive folks. One should always be willing to question studies. Always. Regardless of who did them and what the motivation was.

 

[Thai]

I thought so.

I am impressed that AW did well. I also thought the other devices selected were a bit off. Still do. No surprise that you attacked either, that seems to be a recurring pattern.

Difference is that I understand where this study was done and where it is published. Back to my ramen. I do laugh quite loudly at your credentials. Trust me, no one respects you more after you boasted your cred.

 

[matrix07]

Don't know where the conspiracy theory came from. It's almost like an attempt to paint Apple in shady light. Have Apple had histories of shady funding products testing?

 

[Julien]

Don't know where the conspiracy theory came from. It's almost like an attempt to paint Apple in shady light. Have Apple had histories of shady funding products testing?

Actually just the opposite. Apple is 'stingy' and 'outside paranoid" and this is a leftover behavior brought on by the 80s/90s. Traditionally Apple shuns any type of external studies or sponsorship. As an anecdotal example look at the Olympics or NFL. Apple could easily sponsor but instead resorts to 'gorilla' marketing campaigns like an underfunded startup. Apple is one to NEVER trust any data or money to an outside study. They will only endorse a study if favorable (post publish).


EDIT: Also how is this study a large benefit or windfall for Apple? It is not like it is on the front page of CNN or USA Today. It will likely only be read or known about by a relatively few people. So with little to no upside (increasing sales) there is no plausible reason for Apple to be involved with funding or influencing this study.

 

[Thai]

I spent a decade in the health sector. I had teams of research scientists that reported to me. My teams solicited funding and I signed off on studies. Just this year I dealt with a non-profit explicitly controlling a study through directed funds.

But but but, look at this guy's street cred!! Cleveland Clinic has nothing on this guy!!

LOL...i haven't laughed so hard at someone in a long time!! Not sure if i should feel bad for this guy or not, but man, that was a good laugh!!

 

[exxxviii]

But but but, look at this guy's street cred!! Cleveland Clinic has nothing on this guy!!

LOL...i haven't laughed so hard at someone in a long time!! Not sure if i should feel bad for this guy or not, but man, that was a good laugh!!

You degenerate to ad hominem attacks pretty regularly within this forum. I question your ability of carrying out an intellectual discussion. And, I am pretty sure that I am right about you, and that is not ad hominem. I am happy to continue, but please stay on topic and respond to the ideas and discussion points, not your projection of the person, and avoid the hostility.

Don't know where the conspiracy theory came from.

I raised the question of who funded, because the selection of devices seemed odd. I do not question the protocol or measured results. The weird looking thing is that it only studied four devices, and one of them was a Basis Peak. The AW and Fitbit Charge HR are no-brainers, because those two really are some of the most popular wrist HR trackers. But, it is missing a lot of others that are far more popular than the other two and better reflect the state of the market.

 

[Thai]

You degenerate to ad hominem attacks pretty regularly within this forum. I question your ability of carrying out an intellectual discussion. And, I am pretty sure that I am right about you, and that is not ad hominem. I am happy to continue, but please stay on topic and respond to the ideas and discussion points, not your projection of the person, and avoid the hostility.

I raised the question of who funded, because the selection of devices seemed odd. I do not question the protocol or measured results. The weird looking thing is that it only studied four devices, and one of them was a Basis Peak. The AW and Fitbit Charge HR are no-brainers, because those two really are some of the most popular wrist HR trackers. But, it is missing a lot of others that are far more popular than the other two and better reflect the state of the market.

Actually, you're the one that called me ignorant, remember? You attacked me...oh how your memory is so short these days. And yes, you're projecting yourself in calling out my profession...which remains pretty darn stupid.

Since we know who funded the project, why are you still going on and on with this ignorant conspiracy rant?!

Your street cred boasted by you above is yet another example of you overcompensating for something. You do realize how stupid that was, right?

 

[matrix07]

The weird looking thing is that it only studied four devices, and one of them was a Basis Peak. The AW and Fitbit Charge HR are no-brainers, because those two really are some of the most popular wrist HR trackers. But, it is missing a lot of others that are far more popular than the other two and better reflect the state of the market.

Yeah.. I guess I haven't followed this thing closely so have no idea how odd it is.

Anyway, hope the thread gets back on topic soon.

 

[exxxviii]

Yeah.. I guess I haven't followed this thing closely so have no idea how odd it is.

Anyway, hope the thread gets back on topic soon.

Here's an attempt ... Apple HR performance rocked in the study against a couple direct-ish competitors. But, I wish I knew how it stood up against the other leading competitors, like the vivosmart HR, Jawbone UP3, Gear Fit2, Mi Band, Microsoft Band 2, Polar Loop, etc. My AW has been fine for me, but I am curious where it ranks against the rest of the field.