Last Updated on August 27, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org
Polar H10
- If someone is asking for an accurate chest strap, we often hear the name “Polar H10”.
- We know one paper about the accuracy of the Polar H10:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31004219/
- But how accurate are for instance Garmin chest straps compared to Polar chest straps?
- Polar partly financed this paper written by the Swiss Federal Institute of Sports in Magglingen which says that:
«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.»
- A simple chest strap such as the Polar H10 is the gold standard for RR interval assessments says the paper, but would a device with 3 ECG channels which meets the requirements for gold standard for HR measurements and the same Polar as the Polar H10 not be more accurate than the Polar H10?
- The statement that the Polar H10 is a gold standard device for heart rate measurement is controversial, we have discussed this before in our journal, since it does not meet the requirements to be gold standard for HR measurements.
- Furthermore it says in the paper «might be recommended as the gold standard». Might be recommended? What does that mean? Does the paper now recommend the Polar H10 as a gold standard or not?
- And is the Polar H10 gold standard or not according to the authors?
- Which scientists accept such unclear statements in an accuracy validation paper?
- The paper financed by Polar compares the accuracy of the Schiller Medilog AR12 Plus Holter Recorder to a Polar H10 chest strap. But the Medilog AR12 does not offer any features which can handle with noisy ECG signals. There are other ECG HRMs available which can handle with noisy ECG signals and are eventually more accurate than the Polar H10. Where are scientific tests about those to compare them to the Polar 10?
- Research and medical grade ECG devices are eventually more accurate than the Polar H10 for other activities than intense activities with strong body movements. Where are scientific studies about this topic?
Polar OH1
- The sports watch reviewer 5kRunner entitled the Polar OH1 as «very accurate if not the most accurate optical heart rate monitor» in one of his tests.
- A PLOS ONE paper about the Polar OH1 which tested the Polar OH1 accuracy :
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217288
- with a 50`000 USD device by g.tec medical concluded that the Polar OH1 “can be used instead of an ECG device”.
- But then Polar increased the battery running time of the Polar OH1 successor Verity Sense only by a firmware update significantly.
- DC Rainmaker saw no difference before and after the firmware update.
- But which scientists write validation papers about the accuracy of a heart rate monitor before and after a firmware update?
Rob ter Horst uses his Polar H10 chest strap for systematic and scientific studies and compared the accuracy of 100 smartwatches to the accuracy of the Polar H10
- but he delivers no numerical and statistical data.
- Rob ter Horst says he is very satisfied with his Polar H10 chest strap, but can he convince other scientists to use it?
- There are other heart rate monitors on the market which are eventually more accurate than the Polar H10, but Rob does not test those and compares those to the Polar H10.
- Is this a scientific procedure to find out the truth about the accuracy of the Polar H10 as compared to other heart rate monitors?
Yes, it is possible to do science with Polar HRMs, but which scientists are happy with those, their accuracy validation papers and their accuracy validators?