Heart rate on Apple Watch
Heart rate on Apple Watch
I have proven to myself by frequent experimentation that an Apple Watch is nearly useless for monitoring my HR without paring it with a Bluetooth chest strap transmitter. I’ve tried many wrist positions and strap tightnesses and if I want to record an accurate HR in my Health App I must use a chest strap!
I had Cardiac Catheter Ablation. I was in totally asymptomatic, (Apple Watch alerted me) persistent, Atrial Flutter and, post Ablation, I am in persistent sinus rhythm, knock on wood!
Know your A1c and your heart rhythm.
Know your A1c and your heart rhythm.
Re: Heart rate on Apple Watch
It seems mildly ironic that you have deemed the Apple watch is less effective given your history with it alerting you to your cardiac issues. There was a bit of discussion about this in the Apple Watch for heart rate? thread back in 2022.
The sense from that discussion was that the Apple watch was very effective for most people here. This article, [url="https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/sho ... ei=106"How Accurate Is The Apple Watch's Heart Rate Monitor?[/url], discusses the accuracy and concludes that the Apple watch was 100% effective in determining heart rate within 10 beats per minute and on a par with an ECG.
As I mentioned in the first thread, my experience with my Garmin watch was not great in terms of pulse accuracy and reliability. A couple of months ago I had to replace the band on my watch. I was pleasantly surprised that the watch detection of pulse rate was markedly better after I started using the new band. On the surface, the bands are similar. The new one is a third-party, low-cost band. It APPEARS that something, probably related to the fit and geometry improved the light sensor to work better.
My theory has been that the act of feathering and squaring the blades is the most likely source of the inaccuracy. It turns out that this article, A review on wearable photoplethysmography sensors and their potential future applications in health care, from the National Library of Medicine states “However, one of the major difficulties in using PPG-based monitoring techniques is their inaccuracy in tracking the PPG signals during daily routine activities and light physical exercises. This limitation is due to the fact that the PPG signals are very susceptible to Motion Artifacts (MA) caused by hand movements.”
Maybe, great feathering technique and/or avoiding the snap catch results in better accuracy.
The sense from that discussion was that the Apple watch was very effective for most people here. This article, [url="https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/sho ... ei=106"How Accurate Is The Apple Watch's Heart Rate Monitor?[/url], discusses the accuracy and concludes that the Apple watch was 100% effective in determining heart rate within 10 beats per minute and on a par with an ECG.
As I mentioned in the first thread, my experience with my Garmin watch was not great in terms of pulse accuracy and reliability. A couple of months ago I had to replace the band on my watch. I was pleasantly surprised that the watch detection of pulse rate was markedly better after I started using the new band. On the surface, the bands are similar. The new one is a third-party, low-cost band. It APPEARS that something, probably related to the fit and geometry improved the light sensor to work better.
My theory has been that the act of feathering and squaring the blades is the most likely source of the inaccuracy. It turns out that this article, A review on wearable photoplethysmography sensors and their potential future applications in health care, from the National Library of Medicine states “However, one of the major difficulties in using PPG-based monitoring techniques is their inaccuracy in tracking the PPG signals during daily routine activities and light physical exercises. This limitation is due to the fact that the PPG signals are very susceptible to Motion Artifacts (MA) caused by hand movements.”
Maybe, great feathering technique and/or avoiding the snap catch results in better accuracy.