English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Commercially available wrist-worn heart rate (HR) monitors have become increasingly popular. However, the accuracy of the devices across a range of exercise intensities is largely unknown. This study investigated the accuracy of four wrist-worn HR monitors (Apple Watch Series 1, Fitbit Charge, TomTom Touch, and Mio Fuse). Eighteen adults completed three trials on a cycle ergometer wearing a chest-worn HR monitor (Polar). Trial 1 established the HR-power output relationship, and resting and maximum HR. In trials 2 and 3, participants were fitted to an electrocardiogram (ECG) and completed a step test consisting of 5 x 3 minute stages at 40 80% of HR reserve (determined in trial 1) whilst wearing two wrist-worn HR monitors. Relative to ECG, there were no differences in HR between the devices during exercise (p = 0.239), and no device × exercise intensity interaction (p = 0.370). There were no instances where ECG and Polar data differed by ≥ 5 b·min. Conversely, there were two instances (2.2%) with the Apple, four (4.4%) with the Mio, 10 (11.1%) with the TomTom, and 19 (21.1%) with the Fitbit. A chest-worn HR monitor offers greater accuracy compared to wrist-worn devices.

The Accuracy of Wrist-Worn Heart Rate Monitors Across a Range of Exercise Intensities