Apple Watch's heart rate sensor on par with Mio's dedicated Alpha monitor
The heart rate sensor in the Apple Watch is nearly on par with Mio's Alpha, a popular dedicated heart rate tracker also worn on the wrist, a new comparison of the two devices has found.
A graph showing a comparison of the devices, shared Wednesday by Mac and iOS developer Brad Larson, comes from raw data extracted from HealthKit after a recent run with both devices. The Alpha produced sharper peaks, which may suggest more filtering on the Watch, but in most cases the data produced was essentially equal.
The two wearables each use optical sensors that measure reflected light to gauge blood flow. Larson noted that the sensor on the Watch takes a reading every 5 seconds while in workout mode, slowing to once every 10 minutes while in regular use.
Apple recently encountered some controversy with the sensor when it confirmed that the Watch may not work properly for people with wrist tattoos, a consequence of using optical technology. The company changed a support page to state that the "ink, pattern, and saturation" of some tattoos can make it "difficult to get reliable readings."
In practice some people have found they were effectively unable to use the Watch without disabling wrist detection, which relies on the heart rate sensor. Turning the feature off also disables Apple Pay, and tattooed people may have to buy a separate tracker to get an accurate heart rate.
A graph showing a comparison of the devices, shared Wednesday by Mac and iOS developer Brad Larson, comes from raw data extracted from HealthKit after a recent run with both devices. The Alpha produced sharper peaks, which may suggest more filtering on the Watch, but in most cases the data produced was essentially equal.
The two wearables each use optical sensors that measure reflected light to gauge blood flow. Larson noted that the sensor on the Watch takes a reading every 5 seconds while in workout mode, slowing to once every 10 minutes while in regular use.
Apple recently encountered some controversy with the sensor when it confirmed that the Watch may not work properly for people with wrist tattoos, a consequence of using optical technology. The company changed a support page to state that the "ink, pattern, and saturation" of some tattoos can make it "difficult to get reliable readings."
In practice some people have found they were effectively unable to use the Watch without disabling wrist detection, which relies on the heart rate sensor. Turning the feature off also disables Apple Pay, and tattooed people may have to buy a separate tracker to get an accurate heart rate.
Comments
I would be curious how well it tracks against a medical grade device.
As the Apple device specifically isn't a medical grade I. e. certified, medical device what would be the point?
How about battery life (compared to the same tech)?
In regards to tatoogate, how does the Mio perform (same tech, same results)?
If however the patient is using a medical grade monitor, then it is not likely that the medical grade monitor will be replaced. The Government has stated that it will maintain a light regulatory hand on the medical applications of the Apple Watch. However, this does not mean that it is "Katy, bar the door." Neither Apple nor a third-party developer will be permitted to promote or sell an app that rivaled the results of a dedicated monitor without first going through a rigorous certification protocol.
In regards to tatoogate, how does the Mio perform (same tech, same results)?
Good point. I'm also curious if the Mio samples at the same intervals as the ?Watch. The OP indicates that the "watch", which I presume is the ?Watch only, measures every 5 seconds during a workout, and every 10 minutes normally. One other complaint is that it takes a while to take the reading on the watch and offer results, it's not "real time", even sending the personal "heartbeat" feature appears to use the last recorded heartbeat, and not what a person is experiencing the moment they send it. I presume the Mio works the same way.
From Mio's write up on Amazon: If that's true, it's a good news for Apple, I guess.
By the way, didn't CR review the Apple Watch heart rate sensor and find it was as good as dedicated chest straps?
(I looked up the Mio info, I can't be expected to look up that too...)
Nothing new here. When Apple made a product with less quality vs competitors?
All this talk about medical grade, it's as if readers are expecting the medical grade device to derive a different bpm reading, let's just be clear the medical grade device will not get a different bpm reading (and from time to time that reading can be incomplete, but that's another story with medical professionals understanding that read outs need a statistical consistency to determine disease.)
The primary difference between a "medical grade" device and a "consumer grade" device is that the medical grade takes constant readings via a medically accepted method while the consumer grade takes intermittent readings via a variety of technology options. One is not any better than the other at determining the bpm of a person during exercise. The additional resolution, such as by electrocardiogram, allows the "medical grade" device to determine disease (such as by analysing the sinus rhythm.)
In short: consumer HR devices are generally very accurate and any small variance from environmental factors/interference has no bearing on exercise. I'd say that anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't have a clue what HR readings are used for in the exercise setting.
The primary difference between a "medical grade" device and a "consumer grade" device is that the medical grade takes constant readings via a medically accepted method while the consumer grade takes intermittent readings via a variety of technology options.
A exercise heart rate strap is the same method as a EKG. They sell certified reflective pulse oximeters that work the exact same way as the Apple Watch. They go on your forehead.
The true difference between a "medical grade" and a "consumer grade" is that somebody blew $10 Million on medical studies to prove that it matches an EKG, paid the FDA some more to get their approval, paid some more for device manufacturer certification, bought a huge liability insurance policy against those TV lawyers then paid a 2.3% per unit Obamacare tax.
This is how the $10 Apple Watch sensor becomes a $150 reflective pulse oximeter.
Say what? Contrary to the views expressed in this diatribe, it is a very good thing to know that the Apple Watch gives essentially the same results as a dedicated consumer-grade heart rate monitor. Would it be a good thing to also compare the Apple Watch to a medical grade monitor? Of course it would. However, that is not the point. Knowing that the Watch gives essentially the same results as the dedicated consumer monitor means that the Watch can replace the dedicated consumer monitor.
If however the patient is using a medical grade monitor, then it is not likely that the medical grade monitor will be replaced. The Government has stated that it will maintain a light regulatory hand on the medical applications of the Apple Watch. However, this does not mean that it is "Katy, bar the door." Neither Apple nor a third-party developer will be permitted to promote or sell an app that rivaled the results of a dedicated monitor without first going through a rigorous certification protocol.
They could rival it, even be better than it, they just couldn't promote it as medical grade; it is basically a certification, labeling issue and probably also a liability issue. To be medical grade, you need to prove that it is to the FDA; which is costly. It is a quasi certainty that Apple has looked into having their heart monitors certified as medical devices (and they may well be in the future).
105 to 115 degrees, 40 to 50% humidity .. And me soaked in not dripping but flooding sweat. ... And then on top showers...I am amazed !
And ohhh....for those who are curios.... 900 active calories burned in one session. Total of 1100 calories of active and static calories. Heart-rate range from min of 55 to 150 ....
I am Totally addicted to this watch !
Are you using the sports apple watch or the stainless steel one? I wonder if the steel one is as resistant as the sports one.
I have the SS 42 mm watch, so battery life should do better than the 38 mm watch my wife has - her watch has more than 50% left after the 16+ hours since last charge - hers wasn't switched to a workout.
I haven't tried bluetooth head phones during a workout, but at this point, it doesn't look like battery issues are a real concern - at least, for how I will be using the watch.
If you take a close look, I don't really have the feeling that it is on par. A difference of 5 to 10 heartbeats is a world of a difference. That said, Consumerreports did a test with 'the best' heart rate strap on the market. The watch was rated very accurate.My bet is that the AppleWatch is better than the Mio. Time will tell ...
(p.s. Off topic .. But I have hearing problems ... coincidently I just found Boom2 for OS X 10.10 and wow what a difference to hearing Macs! http://www.globaldelight.com/boom/index.php)
50% ... That is low humidity! On a nice day here in central west florida we'd consider that a dry day! If the top temperature Apple state is 95°F then you'd better leave for the Arctic in summer too.
A cool, dry day in Paradise ... 8-)
(p.s. Off topic .. But I have hearing problems ... coincidently I just found Boom2 for OS X 10.10 and wow what a difference to hearing Macs! http://www.globaldelight.com/boom/index.php)
Thanks for pointing out Boom. My father-in-law has big hearing problems and this may be of help. Do you know of anything like this for iOS? I haven't been able to find any in quick searching. It would be more useful there since he's using the iPad Air more now than laptops.