Reliability of joint monitors on the wrist – Bionicoldgui

Devices monitoring our heart rate based on the art measurement Nowadays are quite widespread, including Fitbit, Garmin watches and Apple watches. There are also devices that promise more sophisticated results such as whoops heart rate variability. These devices then tell us in transparent things about our recent exercises or our activity during the day, how long you should recover before our next hard exercise, and even how well we sleep.

The problem is that the accuracy of data on all this information is based on continued suspect. The first time I noticed that when I had a fitbit. It would often be read more than I suspected that correct, based on how hard I felt I was doing. The same is right now for my Garmin watch. I can only warm up and I will tell me that my heart beat in 130s, which I know it can’t be true because I really hugged and inflated. I recently put it on the test. I accidentally have a polar H10 strap and the heart beat. And a separate device (my Garmin cycling computer). So, on the same ride, I made sure my watch wasn’t paired for the belt, and only only had the wrist information for the heartbeat. My bike computer was paired with a strap, so it was a breast-based measurement. In such a comparison, we expect that the measurement of the chest is more accurate, but I blew it as many as the two differed. Two three-hour driving tickets are shown below. The maximum heart rate from the art measurement was 41 beats two tall and suspected when I only warmed up. There are various other places in charts where the joint results are just wrong.

I was reading about optimal training techniques based on the whole price, and all sounds pretty scientific. But now I know that the data I have become unreliable (usually only use the wrist-based because it is an extra step to put on the belt). In the future I will make sure I use the belt when I really want to check the heartbeat. I will also trust more as my workout feels (perceived level of effort).