apparently has similar accuracy to all the other optical HR measuring devices.Balkan boy wrote:From the godfather himself >> https://twitter.com/StephenSeiler/statu ... 4673460224
https://www.polar.com/en/products/acces ... ate-sensor
Only thing that appeals to me is not hitting the sensor with the handle at the finish.
CEO/Creator - MYZONE:
"The whole optical blood flow thing is great if all you're doing is walking or running. And if that's all you do, they're not too bad.
"But when you start building a live display into ecosystems and you're guiding your training by it, that's when you can't afford to have any delay. Consumer demand for credible data is so high now, they don't expect anything less."
Chris Eschbach - Valencell:
"It's in our interest to do detailed validation and testing of all optical heart rate devices on the market. Accuracy is heavily dependent on where the sensors are located and what the person is doing. The wrist has less tissue, more bones, more tendons and if there's not great blood flow then accuracy goes down...
"When we analysed the chest strap data we're getting about 91% of all the data within +/- 5 BPM of each other. Now if we move to earbuds and arm bands they're nearly there too, around 91% accurate compared to a chest strap between +/- 5 beats. Our wrist tech was around 85% within that +/- 5 beat range when running.
"When you go to other activities, it's a whole different ball game. During cross fit or weight lifting, the head is a great location, good blood flow, stable and a good fit, as is the upper arm. The wrist can completely crap out. If you're doing pull-ups or arm curls, they may not be measuring at all."
Liz Dickenson - Mio Global
Inventor of optical HR Tech
"For us the most important thing was getting rid of the chest strap. Over time optical will become good enough if not perfect. It's not quite there yet, but it's a lot better than when I invented it a few years ago when it couldn't even do continuous sensing."
Its usefulness right now depends on what you want to use data for. I would say that optical is useful for running and cycling and some are useful for daily life – but nothing out there today is at the level of the chest strap. That's the fact, but I don't think anyone is saying that's not the case. What we're saying is that if you don't want to wear a chest strap then there is an alternative."
could be great tech - but not yet.
if you are just walking or doing not strenuous activities where +/- 10% accuracy is ok - sounds like your bit of kit.
If you want to do training based on HR - then you are better off buying a chest strap.
anything strenous - arm moving (i.e. rowing) will require a non wrist monitor for any sort of ballpark accuracy.