I really hope series 3 can have all day continuous heart rate tracking. That's something most of these other frackers win by.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Proves Most Accurate at Measuring Heart Rate in New Fitness Tracker Study
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
At first sight i agreed with you. But it's not only the 'tightness' of the circle that's of interest here. If you look at the graph more closely, you'll notice that the _actual_ value is... outside of Apple's circle. So the AW has a systematic error in its readings (albeit quite small and for all practical purposes probably negligible).
They conveniently phrased it as "most favorable error profile", since due to this systematic error it would have been wrong to use the word "most precise".
So depending on your definition of 'precision', you could even say the Fitbit does a better job, taken the above into account (less repeatable, but the actual value in the center of its circle!).
Not picking sides btw, we're talking about a few % in laboratory conditions, I suppose most fitness trackers are good enough for most people.
Not all optical sensors are the same. There's are plenty of valid reasons why garmin should be better than Apple Watch HRM.
quality of sensors, software, testing to name a few.
Garmin have been making HRM for years... they've got a lot experience behind them. A lot of knowledge when building their own Optical based HRM.
Apple may have a lot of money but that does not guarantee 'Better' or 'same' quality.
quality of sensors, software, testing to name a few.
Garmin have been making HRM for years... they've got a lot experience behind them. A lot of knowledge when building their own Optical based HRM.
Apple may have a lot of money but that does not guarantee 'Better' or 'same' quality.
You didn't even read the study did you? Just made stuff up to match your preconceived ideas.
[doublepost=1495713644][/doublepost]
You have seen the BOM of each product in detail and the test procedures for both to back your claim? Or are you making stuff up?
The Apple Watch is like Mario in Mario Kart, it does a lot of common things very well. It's great that it compares so well in this test, though like others have said, they should have included more dedicated fitness products.
I started with an Apple Watch, it helped motivate me and I can't forget that but since shortly after the first AW I upgraded to chest based heart rate measuring. I never found the AW to be consistent while performing an activity, combine that with the sweaty finger use, plus pretty nasty instant pace tracking and I had to move on.
It's great though overall, if the AW can keep people active who cares what the #s on the screen say, as long as you regularly increase your heart rate I don't think it really matters.
If you'e dedicating training to like the MAF method or something, or want to know when you're about to pass threshold then get dedicated tracking equipment.
I started with an Apple Watch, it helped motivate me and I can't forget that but since shortly after the first AW I upgraded to chest based heart rate measuring. I never found the AW to be consistent while performing an activity, combine that with the sweaty finger use, plus pretty nasty instant pace tracking and I had to move on.
It's great though overall, if the AW can keep people active who cares what the #s on the screen say, as long as you regularly increase your heart rate I don't think it really matters.
If you'e dedicating training to like the MAF method or something, or want to know when you're about to pass threshold then get dedicated tracking equipment.
Precision, by definition, is how tight the circle is. Accuracy, by definition, is how the fastest compares to the Terence value. Apple Watch is the most precise but has a systemic error off of the reference value.
Garmin has not been doing optical heart rate tracking for years. The first optical heart rate tracking watches were released at the end of 2013 not by Garmin, Apple Watch was announced at September 2014.
Better question is why isn't this published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? For a primer on predatory journals - and the publisher (MDPI) in particular, see http://www.universityaffairs.ca/fea...eware-academics-getting-reeled-scam-journals/
* It is fact that all optical HRM aren't the same and differ in quality, together with concerns such as battery, frequency of measurement etc. ( Look at existing reviews on internet, i.e., DCRainmaker that compare products )
* It is probable that Garmin will have better quality HRM than Apple due to its prior experience and technology.
* It is established fact that more $$ that a company has doesn't equal a better end product vs competitors
Last edited:
I didn't say Garmin had been producing *optical* HRM for years. They have however been building strap based HRM for years. That existing knowledge will have carried over to their optical HRM monitor technology.
This is what I said ( which is essentially the same as above ):
"Garmin have been making HRM for years... they've got a lot experience behind them. A lot of knowledge when building their own Optical based HRM."
Last edited:
Maybe they are the best of those picked, but it still absolutely sucks when measuring HR. Mine skips all over the place... going from 60bpm up to 140bpm then back down to 80bpm within a minute. Brought it to apple and they said "working as designed".
Unfortunately for me, the Apple Watch doesn't seem to be able to track my heart rate accurately when it's elevated. With 2 different Series "0s" and a Series 2, if Im working out my heart rate will variably show what is probably the correct rate, and what is about half of the correct rate. E.g. Max set of pushups, feel my heart pumping quickly, but the watch says 65.
"how the fastest compares to the Terence value"...?
No: accuracy, by definition, is how the average compares to the reference value.
My point was that precision alone isn't telling the whole story if you're being 'precise' around the wrong value.
Imagine if Apple made the next Watch powered with kinetic energy so you'd never need to recharge it 
The irony for me is that I bought an Apple Watch to mainly use as a heart rate monitor when working out and thought the rest of the features would not be real interesting to me. Instead, I find the heart rate monitor very inaccurate compared to my Polar chest strap and the rest of the features are much more useful than I thought they'd be.
I wouldn't say it would "explode" lol. Everyone does have a different heart and can handle different things. ...
I have the opposite problem of you, my heart rate is too low while running. I'm curious to know if the watch can keep up with a 210BPM rate, or it errors out because it might see it as not realistic? After over 2 years, I have now just thought about that, thanks for jogging my brain! (Pun intended
My friend of 30 years was merely, and hyperbolically, pointing out that if my heart rate was truly 215 for any length of time, as I was lightly bragging to him, it would explode. Both he and I knew while this may make a scene in a B-level action flick, things wouldn't actually work out that way. More seriously, I don't run a thrice weekly 2-mile jog at the same level as a stress-test treadmill. Apple Watch measures the former at well over 200+ for much of the time. The latter measured somewhat less. I should point out that the watch is loose on my wrist. Semi-related side note: I though everyone wore watches consistently - not tight, and on the opposite wrist of their handed-ness. A lighthearted disagreement with an office co-worker created an impromptu, walk-around survey. I couldn't have been more wrong. Nearly every conceivable combination was found.