Sidebar Sidebar
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

wigby said:
Apple Watch isn't a fitness watch just like Garmin and other fitness watches aren't really smart watches. Yes they overlap but no one considering all of these brands compared in the study is considering fitness watches also.
Click to expand...

The Fenix HR line has all the technical features of the Basis Peak. I think it also has most if not all the technical features of the entire Fitbit lines. To suggest that it isn't a smart watch because it targets a different market segment doesn't make sense. It's probably the smartest watch from a hardware perspective. And it looks more like a traditional watch than most on the list.

My needs were fairly ordinary - I wanted a smart watch with a really long battery life, great waterproofing, HR monitor (and ideally sleep monitoring), and I didn't like a lot of notifications. At the time, the Basis Peak was great, but ugly. Comparing the Fenix with the iwatch, the Fenix had more features.

This isn't a "favorite" watch thing. It's like doing a camera phone study without testing iphones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dremmel
So, a dodgy report by a research team indirectly funded by Apple says Apple are the best. It's fake news folks. There are a ton of smart watches out there that are more accurate than an Apple Watch, and that's why they're absent from this faux study. Basis Peak? Fitbit Surge? For real? One is ancient, one is long discontinued.
Apple will get there, but this study stinks and tarnishes everybody involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pacalis
wigby said:
Apple Watch isn't a fitness watch just like Garmin and other fitness watches aren't really smart watches. Yes they overlap but no one considering all of these brands compared in the study is considering fitness watches also. Just like serious athletes aren't considering Apple Watch for real training. Different markets for different customers. Besides, I'm sure any dedicated fitness wearable would trounce Apple and all others compared in HR monitoring. What would that really prove?
Click to expand...

yes. And the article wasn't "most accurate smart watch".. it was "most accurate fitness tracker"

In a new study comparing the accuracy of seven different fitness trackers, the Apple Watch was found to have the lowest margin of error when measuring heart rate, beating the Basis Peak, Fitbit Surge, Microsoft Band, Mio Alpha 2, PulseOn, and Samsung Gear S2.
Click to expand...

So, they outright left out fitness trackers. nitpicking and making up categories like "fitness watch" v "smartwatches". Not when the subject is Fitness trackers. Garmin are also fitness trackers.

Don't act offended here. I think it's fantastic that the Apple watch has highly accurate and compared to many of the compettiion, leading. But they cannot claim to be the best, unless they actually test against ALL fitness trackers.
 
razormaid said:
*****
Funny, I was EXACTLY like you! <grin> I love Apple products, but I don't want something on my wrist; especially when I have an iPhone already... and then this happened:

About 7 months ago I was trying to loose some weight, but because of my age I thought "I better start out slowly then build back up to my 26 mile bike ride every morning" routine. I took 2 years off working out because my roommate had his foot amputated and what would I do if I got hit by a car - no one to come get me or my bike. So I signed up for iTunes Match for my massive music library so I wouldn't have to remember to download music each day and off I went. I walked 4 miles every morning and six miles every night for a month before jumping back on my bike (my friend has his prosthetic by then).

During this month, a few days into it I asked my roommate if I could borrow his AppleWatch. I was just mildly curious just how much work I was doing in fact. I was really surprised to see in just the first 30 minutes of my morning walk the activity circled closed. By night time it had gone around 4 or 5 times. <LOL>. I also started entering in my food intake using LOOSE IT. Again, I was just mildly interested in my calorie intake vs my movement. Interest level on both on a scale of 1-10? I gave it a 2.

Those two things probably would have sealed the deal, then this happened:

I do play by play score calling for the local high school. I do football and basketball, We do as many "away" games as we do home games. I use AppleMaps, because it does a great job steering me around traffic, as some of the away games are 45 minutes in all directions. I forgot to give my roommate back his watch one night, entered in the destination to an away game into my iPhone and off I went. Keep in mind, I know where all these schools are after 20 years, but AppleMaps, along with ADOT (Arizona Dept Of Transportation) does a great job steering me around accidents, heavy traffic and other "live" events. Every time I was to make a turn or merge on to an exit ramp or anything really, the AppleWatch gave 4 strong pulses. That obviously made me look and because my hands are already on the steering wheel I "glanced" (I hate that buzz word). Holy crap. It showed a big ass BLUE ARROW, pointing the direction of the next move (along with aprox. feet - no street name at all) all without talking through my Trucks speakers via bluetooth and stopping my music or conversation in the truck with friends. And as the actual "turn" was to physically happen, again without disturbing the entire truck's participants, 2 more strong pulses. I thought "This is really cool." No more trying to look at my iPhone (which is usually in my pocket anyway). No more trying to hear over everyone talking. No more "2 second mute" during music playback.

OK for sure this would have sold me, then came the text messages:
While driving people would text me. Without trying to get my phone out or worse: my truck trying to record my voice over all the talking in the truck when I hit the "MIC" icon to "text back", I simply clicked the "mic" on the watch sitting right under the message and spoke in a normal voice never taking my hands of the steering wheel, taking to my watch. OK that was weird for sure, but surprisingly 99% accurate. WTF? My iPhone can't even do that without messing things up. seriously? The watch did SIRI better? Go figure.

OK Sold. I went and bought my own watch.

Seriously, I don't know anyway to explain "I am right with you on this one guy - no watch for me"... but these three unrelated things sold me and I'm so glad I did it. Maybe you don't do these things (well I'm sure you at least text), maybe some of these you do, but these were NOT things Apple used to try to sell the watch to my friend when he bought his, so I'm passing them on to you.

Joseph
Click to expand...

I appreciate your story, and maybe I will try it one day. Just not as it is now.

If I did get one, I would probably go with the smaller of the two. I am not sure if it is because of the rectangle shape, but the 42mm one looks huge. Honestly, I would probably prefer a round face, that is half the thickness.

As it is right now, I just think it is a little bit too big, and too expensive.
 
Every time I test the AW and S2 Classic. They both have the same reading the majority of the time, and when the readings are differ it's only by 1 or 2 bpm.
 
pacalis said:
The Fenix HR line has all the technical features of the Basis Peak. I think it also has most if not all the technical features of the entire Fitbit lines. To suggest that it isn't a smart watch because it targets a different market segment doesn't make sense. It's probably the smartest watch from a hardware perspective. And it looks more like a traditional watch than most on the list.

My needs were fairly ordinary - I wanted a smart watch with a really long battery life, great waterproofing, HR monitor (and ideally sleep monitoring), and I didn't like a lot of notifications. At the time, the Basis Peak was great, but ugly. Comparing the Fenix with the iwatch, the Fenix had more features.

This isn't a "favorite" watch thing. It's like doing a camera phone study without testing iphones.
Click to expand...
Then maybe battery life should be listed as a baseline for this study too since none of the
LordVic said:
yes. And the article wasn't "most accurate smart watch".. it was "most accurate fitness tracker"



So, they outright left out fitness trackers. nitpicking and making up categories like "fitness watch" v "smartwatches". Not when the subject is Fitness trackers. Garmin are also fitness trackers.

Don't act offended here. I think it's fantastic that the Apple watch has highly accurate and compared to many of the compettiion, leading. But they cannot claim to be the best, unless they actually test against ALL fitness trackers.
Click to expand...
I agree. Now how are they going to fund a study involving over 200 different smart watches?
 
This Apple Watch series 2 owner has owned all series 1 and Gen. 1 watches as well as the fitbit charge Hr and charge 2. Chubby, balding, and and active. I can run a 15 mile, and do 5 of em straight. I think I'm who the fitbit was made for. It is so much better at fitness challenges and that whole VO2max score thing.
Darn it- I just read that Apple now has more market share than fitbit. I don't care about accuracy- but I wish Fitbit would wise up and accept the data from the Apple Watch for all of the data it can produce. I would even pay a monthly fee. Maybe someone will see this and it will spark an idea!
 
Stella said:
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."
Click to expand...
My apologies. But I doubt that expertise in strap based HR monitoring carries over optical. They are completely different technologies. Straps hardly fail during movement since the electrical signals from our heart makes it to our skin no matter what we are doing. Optical sensors just cannot get an accurate reading continuously on the move. I use Apple Watch during my swims and walks, but I always use my Tickr chest strap during runs. Apple Watch fails miserably during running.
 
iBug2 said:
My apologies. But I doubt that expertise in strap based HR monitoring carries over optical. They are completely different technologies. Straps hardly fail during movement since the electrical signals from our heart makes it to our skin no matter what we are doing. Optical sensors just cannot get an accurate reading continuously on the move. I use Apple Watch during my swims and walks, but I always use my Tickr chest strap during runs. Apple Watch fails miserably during running.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are different technologies, but there are common processes in the development, such as testing methologies.

Apple Watch accuracy differs between different activities - DC Rainmaker review highlights this.
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/02/apple-watch-review.html

I have a Garmin vivosmart and another dedicated Optical Wrist strap. I use the dedicated strap for things like cycling and other activities because the Vivosmart accuracy is way off in the high direction - according to its readings I should have suffered many, many heart attacks...!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cfclay
Dremmel said:
So, a dodgy report by a research team indirectly funded by Apple says Apple are the best. It's fake news folks.
Click to expand...
The stupidity, it burns. No one has claimed that this study was funded either directly or indirectly by Apple. If it was funded by any party in the study, a conflict of interest would have to be declared. As it stands:

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
 
djlythium said:
First of all, what a thoughtful response! Thank you!

While I see what you're getting at, I am having a hard time finding the conflict of interest. If Apple directly funded the research, then it should be declared; but, Apple donated funds to the university where the researcher works. Certainly, the indirect link raises suspicions. But, a researcher working in collaboration with Apple, and being funded by Apple, are different.

Now, if the researcher was funded by Apple, and didn't declare it, then that's a big problem.

Please let me know if I am missing something. I enjoy these types of logical debates!

Lastly, yea, the margin of error is certainly higher than anyone would like, I'm sure, but I derived from the article that Apple's error variance was less than everyone else.
Click to expand...

I spent a few years working in academia following my degrees and later in a medical research company associated with a university and research hospital - academia is all about money. A significant portion of time is spent trying to get industry "sponsors" and professors and staff that are good at getting industry partners are highly prized individuals.

And collaboration with Apple, with their billions == potential cash sources. That's not to say there is any direct corruption, but reporting negative results might be... frowned upon (also see "File Drawer effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias).

So effectively the PI is "funded" by Apple and, I believe, this should have been disclosed in the paper as a simple: The PI collaborates with Apple and other companies to develop applications for health monitoring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tooltalk, macUser2007, djlythium and 1 other person
laz232 said:
I spent a few years working in academia following my degrees and later in a medical research company associated with a university and research hospital - academia is all about money. A significant portion of time is spent trying to get industry "sponsors" and professors and staff that are good at getting industry partners are highly prized individuals.

And collaboration with Apple, with their billions == potential cash sources. That's not to say there is any direct corruption, but reporting negative results might be... frowned upon (also see "File Drawer effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias).

So effectively the PI is "funded" by Apple and, I believe, this should have been disclosed in the paper as a simple: The PI collaborates with Apple and other companies to develop applications for health monitoring.
Click to expand...
Yea, I hear you. I am in academia, which is why I am was so interested in this issue.

I think that what you state, while not required, would reinforce a new precedent of transparency within the scientific community, and probably should have happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macUser2007 and cfclay
Without a valid comparison to both Garmin wrist-based and chest-based heart rate monitoring products, this date is interesting, but NOT helpful.

Please do a follow-up study with some high end Garmin examples...
 
Not only did this study leave out the leading HRMs, but it also failed to test during a variety of workout types. Wrist-mounted HRMs are notoriously unreliable for weight training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back