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.
Heart rate monitor
- Thread starter davidcolker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
“Virtually perfect” is an amazing endorsement!
Any peer-reviewed studies in leading journals and by veteran medical researchers at well-regarded universities or medical centers that confirm that?!
It'd be reassuring. From Apple's own spec sheets, they had gotten up to the third generation heart sensor, so there must have been improvements. Or, did they go from “almost perfect” to “virtually perfect”?! 😁 Just teasing, but it would be interesting to see what professional medical researchers have concluded.
Note as well that the answer must depend upon which indicator one is considering — snapshot heart rate, the day's resting HR (which seems grossly off and depends on the “standard” or formula for calculating it), irregular HR detection, low or high HR, and, the biggie, ECG and atrial fibrillation.
I’m skeptical that the Watch is providing “virtually perfect” measures in *each* of those areas, but would be happy to be disproven. That's especially true because the watch's own resting heart rate graphs show how off the reported resting HR is — the bulk of the measured values, even when resting, lie above, often well above, the so-called resting rate! So, that one is definitely not “virtually perfect”.
I'd like to know, as the OP does, whether Apple is describing the AW 10's sensor as new or 4th generation!
Just checked. It's listed as “Third-generation optical heart sensor” just as the Apple Watch 6 and later models have!
Any peer-reviewed studies in leading journals and by veteran medical researchers at well-regarded universities or medical centers that confirm that?!
It'd be reassuring. From Apple's own spec sheets, they had gotten up to the third generation heart sensor, so there must have been improvements. Or, did they go from “almost perfect” to “virtually perfect”?! 😁 Just teasing, but it would be interesting to see what professional medical researchers have concluded.
Note as well that the answer must depend upon which indicator one is considering — snapshot heart rate, the day's resting HR (which seems grossly off and depends on the “standard” or formula for calculating it), irregular HR detection, low or high HR, and, the biggie, ECG and atrial fibrillation.
I’m skeptical that the Watch is providing “virtually perfect” measures in *each* of those areas, but would be happy to be disproven. That's especially true because the watch's own resting heart rate graphs show how off the reported resting HR is — the bulk of the measured values, even when resting, lie above, often well above, the so-called resting rate! So, that one is definitely not “virtually perfect”.
I'd like to know, as the OP does, whether Apple is describing the AW 10's sensor as new or 4th generation!
Just checked. It's listed as “Third-generation optical heart sensor” just as the Apple Watch 6 and later models have!
Apple Watch - Compare Models
Compare specs for the latest Apple Watch models: Apple Watch Ultra 2, Apple Watch Series 10, and Apple Watch SE.
www.apple.com
Thanks very much. It seems that the heart rate sensor has not been upgraded for Apple Watch 10. I’ll probably hold off buying a new one until it is.
I know you were joking, but actually yes!
Here’s a recent one:
Accuracy of Apple Watch to Measure Cardiovascular Indices in Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Cross Sectional Study - PMC
The validity of the Apple Watch to measure the heart rate (HR) and oxygen saturation (Spo2) for patients with chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus (DM), dyslipidemia, and hypertension is still unclear. Therefore, this study aims to investigate ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> Overall, a strong correlation exists between measuring the SpO2 using the Apple Watch against the pulse oximeter (Contec) at rest (r = 0.92, p < 0.001) and after exercise (r = 0.86, p < 0.001) in all patients. The HR had a very strong correlation between the Apple Watch and the Polar chest strap (r = 0.99, p < 0.001) in all patients.
This also matches what the quantified scientist (a bioinformatics researcher with a medical PhD) found — the Apple Watches are highly correlated with the polar h10 chest straps (we could dig up research on that too).
This video goes into the quantified scientist testing method and he walks through the data analysis, if you’re interested.
I'm curious - what particular issues have you had with the current gen HRM that you expect to be addressed with a new version?