The paper Rob ter Horst uses as a scientific basis to justify his choice for his Polar H10 chest strap was partly financed by Polar:
RR interval signal quality of a heart rate monitor and an ECG Holter at rest and during exercise
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31004219
But a validation paper about the Polar OH1:
Validation of Polar OH1 optical heart rate sensor for moderate and high intensity physical activities
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217288
was not funded by Polar: The research of this paper was fully funded by the Institute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovation (IISRI), Deakin University, Australia.
This validation paper about the Polar OH1 was performed with a g.tec multi-purpose which costs 50 000 USD:
Polar devalued this scientific accuracy validation paper by a firmware update which increased the running time of the Polar OH1 to more than 24 hrs, which would require a new validation study.
- Polar has no support forum anymore. Shortly before this happend, Peter Gamma from www.petergamma asked in the DC Rainmaker blog about the Polar OH1 for an optical heart rate monitor from Polar which runs more than 24 hrs:
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/03/polar-oh1-plus-optical-hr-sensor-in-depth-review.html
- After this firmware ugrade happened by Polar, Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org started a discussion with DC Rainmaker about this fimware update on his blog,
- How could this firmware update happen?
- Did Polar change the sampling rate of the scientifically validated Polar OH1?
- You can read about it here:
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/03/polar-oh1-plus-optical-hr-sensor-in-depth-review.html
- The discussion with DC Rainmaker has lead Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org to retreat from further discussions with DC Rainmaker about topics like this.
But which sports watch company supports validation papers about the Polar H10 on the one hand, and on the other hand devalues validation papers about about the Polar OH1? Polar.