Last Updated on July 23, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org
According to cardiologists, 3 lead ECG devices are gold standard for HR measurements. This information can be found in this paper written by cardiologists from the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6732081/
But is the Polar H10 chest strap a 3 lead ECG device? Polar delivers no information about this. We strongly doubt about this. A 3 lead ECG device for 90 USD? 3 lead means in contemporary devices, that there are 3 separate channels which are amplified seperately from each other. A 3 lead device are basically 3 devices which measure in 3 seperate channels the heart rate signal. We suppose that this makes these devices to gold standard devices, since these are basically 3 heart rate measurement devices integrated into one.
The cheapest mult-channel modules which we know are currently 8 channel OpenBCI modules sold from Chinese sellers for around 230 USD. These are based on a multi-sensor chip from Texas Instruments with 8 channels. This chip was developed to make EEG devices with many channels cheaper. We strongly doubt that the Polar H10 chest strap is a 3 lead ECG device. To develop a 3 lead ECG device for 90 USD? Who is capable of doing this?
The ADS1115 offers 4 channels with 16 Bit analog to digital conversion rate, and can be found for a view dollars on Aliexpress:
https://de.aliexpress.com/item/32817162654.html
But is does HRM developement not progress slowly, and also costs for multi-sensor devices? We still doubt about that the Polar H10 is a 3 lead ECG device.
What is not gold standard on the Polar H10 is also, that these features are not known. This makes it difficult to compare devices. For instance we do not have any information about the analog to digital conversion rate of the Polar H10.
That the Polar H10 chest strap is a «gold standard» device is published in a paper of the Swiss Federal Institute of sports in Magglingen:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31004219/
The authors came to the conclusion:
«A simple chest strap such as the Polar H10 might be recommended as the gold standard for RR interval assessments if intense activities with strong body movements are investigated»
after comparing data from the Polar H10 to a 3 lead Schiller Medilog AR12 Plus Holter ECG device. But this device does not offer ECG motion artifact removal, altough these software options are available:
Other more expensive ECG devices offer options to remove ECG noise:
Furthermore, the 3 lead Schiller Medilog AR12 Plus Holter ECG device offers only 12 bit analog to digital conversion rate. Research grade ECG devices offer at least 16 bit A/D conversion rate.
To choose a paper which compares the Schiller Medilog AR12 Plus Holter ECG device to the Polar H10 chest strap funded partly by Polar as a scientific justification to choose a Polar H10 chest strap as a gold standard reference device for HR measurments? This topic certainly needs an update by new scientific studies, especially if new studies are availalbe with ECG devices and ECG motion artifacts.
Also the Polar H10 was developed for sporting acivities. It has lesser electrodes as clinical ECG devices to be more comfortable to wear. We also do not know how strong this reduced architecture influences the accuracy. For sporting activities, a Polar H10 is certainly more comfortable to wear than a device with 5 electrodes. But as a reference device to study the accuracy of heart rate monitors, should we not choose the most accurate device which can be developed? A device for a scientific study does not need to be comfortable to wear, but it needs to be the most accurate which is available.