Philip Houska There are many uses for the Apple Watch. Whether it is for displaying incoming notifications, quick and simple communication or simply to show the time, many people also buy them for sports. After all, Apple itself often positions its watch as a sports accessory. Athletes often use the Apple Watch to measure heart rate, and the latest study of sports trackers found that the Apple Watch measures the most accurately.
The study came from experts from the Cleveland Clinic, who tested four popular wearable devices that can measure heart rate. These included the Fitbit Charge HR, the Mio Alpha, the Basis Peak and the Apple Watch. The products were tested for accuracy on 50 healthy, adult subjects who were attached to an electrocardiograph (ECG) during activities such as running and treadmill walking. The achieved results spoke clearly for devices from Apple's workshops.
The Watch achieved up to 90 percent accuracy, which is the most compared to the other candidates, who measured values around 80 percent. This is only good for Apple as such, for the reason that their the new generation Series 2 is aimed precisely at the clientele of active athletes.
However successful the results may seem, they cannot be compared to a chest belt with the same technology that captures the flow of electrical activity from the heart. This is because it is located much closer to this organ (not on the wrist) and of course records more accurate, in most cases almost 100% accurate values.
However, during more physically demanding activities, the reliability of the measured information decreases with wearable trackers. For some, even critically. After all, Dr. Gordon Blackburn, who was in charge of the study, also commented on this. "We noticed that not all devices did as well in heart rate accuracy, but once physical intensity was added in, we saw a much larger variation," he said, adding that some products were completely inaccurate.
According to Dr. Blackburn, the reason for this failure is the location of the trackers. "All wrist-based technology measures heart rate from blood flow, but once a person starts exercising more intensely, the device can move and lose contact," he explains. However, in general, they support the opinion that for a person without significant health problems, heart rate measurement based on these trackers is safe and will provide fairly authoritative data.
okay, and how do I pair the Garmin chest belt with the Apple watch? or have we come across something for which it will not be a suitable supplement for an athlete?
I am not aware of any Watches supporting the ANT+ network, so it is unlikely that a GARMIN Chest Strap equipped with this technology and a non-supporting Watch could ever be connected.
The article says that the Watch measures this data best. As far as I know, Garmin's chest strap is not flawless like the Watch. When it's not properly moisturized or moves a lot on the skin, it doesn't measure accurately or at all. Watch only needs to be tightened by one hole, a and b did not move in relation to the hand and it will not happen that they stop measuring heart rate. Then what to attach an uncomfortable chest strap to?
It measures the best of only 4 tested: "they tested four popular wearable devices that can measure heart rate
pulse. These were Fitbit Charge HR, Mio Alpha, Basis Peak and Apple Watch”.
I don't have experience with the chest belt, but it can't be "tightened by one hole"?
Measurements were made "during activities such as running and walking on a treadmill", i.e. not outside in the field. And in the article it is directly written about the fact that the watch does not adjust from the chest waist.
The chest belt is a completely different technology, if it doesn't fit you during sports, you don't have to tighten it too much ;-). But of course it is possible to tighten it.
I agree, chest straps are more accurate - always (at least from reputable brands. I don't know if it's possible to use some random generator in the cinema ;-) ). Mainly, in contrast to measuring by hand, the lump can be used safely even during circuit training, or when doing push-ups, etc. If the hand holding the watch is weighted, measuring from the hand is completely useless.
1. The chest belt is more accurate because it determines the heart rate in a different way = a different technology than hand measurement, so chest belts should always be more accurate.
2. It's a shame that they didn't use a real Garmin watch with the same technology (Garmin Vivoactive Optic) or even a price tag (Garmin Fenix 3 Optic) for the measurement, because Garmin is right behind Apple in the sales of watches. Chance? Or just cut off real competition?
3. Measurement by hand is less accurate due to the technology used, but completely useless for some types of sports (born from chest waist). Typically everything where there is a hand on which the watch is under load. So, for example, push-ups. Running and running is ideal for such an accuracy test (which is definitely not a coincidence ;-) ).
http://www.imore.com/how-pair-external-heart-rate-monitor-apple-watch
But if I understand correctly, only BLE, not ANT+
it looks so accurate. that would mean that it should fit on my old Polare chest belt.