Last Updated on July 30, 2025 by pg@petergamma.org
Is it not a mistake to engage a post-doctoral scientist such as Rob ter Horst to test smartwatch accuracy?:
It took Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org several month of his spare time at home and it was no fun:
And if we look at the papers about smartwatch accuacy, do we not conlude that these smartwatches are basically not suitable for scientific studies?
Since who uses smartwatches for scientific studies on a regular basis and in a sustainable way? Where not not only one or two papers written with a specific smartwatch type, and then this specific smartwatch was not used anymore to write scientific papers?
Smartwatch developers made a big effort so that it is difficult do access their sensor data. And we made a big effort to find a way to get to this data. Until Adafruit helped us with the Pyloton:
And since these convincing scientic studies are not there, smartwatches with PPG sensors do not fit our needs.
Maybe some hobbyists will have fun to build their own Adafruit cycling computer?
But if smartwatch sellers continue to engage post-doctoral scientists such as Rob to test the accuracy their devices, will they finally be available more and more by sellers such as VEDIA Switzerland?:
Smartwatches are currently available from VEDIA Switzerland starting from 30 USD:
https://www.vedia.ch/catalogsearch/result/?q=smartwatch&product_list_order=price-asc
And will the prices for those not drop even more? And can the post-doctoral scientist Rob ter Horst really stop this process? By making us believe that he can show us which is the most accurate smartwatch? But in which scientific papers are Rob ter Horsts statements confirmed?