DC Rainmaker reviewed the Fenix 6 – one of the first consumer grade devices which catches the interest of scientists who are interested in breath meditation:
Rob ter Horst scientifically tested more than 100 smartwatches – what do independent scientists conclude from these tests?
Do both of them not make a lot of effort & most probably invest also a lot of time in their reviews, tests and YouTube videos? And if we look at these, do we not come to hypothesis that smartwatches might be extraordinary highly accurate high-tech devices with the latest optical sensor technology develeoped at the MIT? But has all of this ever been confirmed in scientifc studies in Nature and Science? And if not, does all of this not raise major doubts about the reliability of their accuracy tests, and rise question about the value of these data for scientists in general? Should we invest as much time as these two invested to disproof their accuracy tests? Is it worth it?
We do not have any evidence for a scientific revolution, a new major break-trough in smartwatch heart rate sensor technology in recent years, which would make those extremely accurate so that they could replace 3 channel gold standard ECG devices which are used in hospitals in near future. We do not know of any scientific papers which give us hope in this direction, on the contrary:
Instead of further testing devices such as smartwatches and chest straps, from which we do not know if they are the most suitable devices for physiologists anyway, is it not better to start building our own 3 channel ECG device and a curved treadmill at the level of a Swiss quality Schiller medical product, as we have discussed it previously under www.petergamma.org, and forget about DC Rainmaker and Rob ter Horst?
Comments are closed.