First evidence (from Apple) the HR sensor may not be accurate

[TwoBytes]

First evidence (from Apple) the HR sensor may not be accurate

Apples watch isn't a great fitness watch to me. It's a great all rounder. Optical sensors have limits which others have posted (ie optical having difficult reading above 120) . The new Jawbone wearable to use more advanced sensors that compare it to a chest strap. Then again, it's been delayed for months now. https://jawbone.com/blog/up3-wearable-heart-rate-monitor/

It just depends on what you want. A fitness tracker or a fashionable watch.

 

[eoblaed]

A terrible amount of conjecture in the OP. This was likely the result of the bootcamp, or some other bit of mild exercise. With all the R&D that went into this watch, there's no way that's what it's claiming an hour of fast running would yield.

 

[TwoBytes]

The amount of R&D that went into the iPhone and it's many iterations over the years and still little things like batter meters or GMT bugs still give off readings..

We're talking about the HR aspect of the watch and the limit is the optical sensor . All you can then do is augment the readings with other readings to give very good estimates that work for a majority of people....that's the audience for the iWatch, a majority of people. As a fitness tracker/HR monitor, it's not for me. Maybe the iWatch will be more accurate than we think, but we are waiting for real tests. For now, the Jawbone for me is the fitness tracker that the iWatch isn't (with a longer battery life plus all the rest).

I think we are still in the early stages of convergence for all in one wearables. It took a while for the iPhone to replace MP3 players, notebooks and phones. I don't see this as the impossible task. Maybe in the near future, we will have a great all in one. If anyone can make it work, Apple can. It's not even out yet and we're debating this. Got to love MacRumors!

 

[matrix07]

To be brutally honest. I think there should be some consumer sales law put into place ASAP to make sure any body monitoring device is within a certain percentage of accuracy in the same way that say a car speedometer has to be accurate within certain limits.

Don't you agree?

We can't have people buy a device, relying on the data when the data is wildly inaccurate.

Aboslutely! Great idea.

 

[Julien]

A terrible amount of conjecture in the OP. This was likely the result of the bootcamp, or some other bit of mild exercise. With all the R&D that went into this watch, there's no way that's what it's claiming an hour of fast running would yield.

My main "conjecture" is it's not accurate. The picture caption says "A summary of my evening run". So if it is another type of workout is still not accurate info.

Not a big deal but as someone who has kept continuous cardio records since 2004, I'm a bit of a stickler for data details.

PULS, since we don't have our Watches yet why not talk about it.

----------

Aboslutely! Great idea.

While I'm not anti regulation in general you don't want the FDA involved in regulating HR monitors. The FDA is already an obstacle in offering other related health data monitoring. The FDA is probably the hardest and most complex regulatory agency to deal with. FDA approval can take not just years but over a decade to receive.

Better to let the consumer decide what is or isn't a good device.