Do Rob ter Horst & DC Rainmaker make paid promotional reviews & do not tell us the whole truth?

Last Updated on November 13, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org

But tell us what product sellers want them to say?

The best reference device for sports heart rate monitors on a treadmill up to about 15 km/h are 3 lead ECG devices

this has been shown in papers of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio:

090. Review of Accuracy Studies of Consumer Grade Heart Rate Monitors: Methods, Testing Protocols, Reference Devices

But Rob ter Horst tells us that he is very happy with his Polar H10 chest strap as a reference for testing HRMs.

The best reference to test the accuracy of treadmills is a Raspberry Pi treadmill sensor

https://gallochri.com/2020/05/universal-treadmill-speed-sensor-for-zwift-with-ant-stick-and-raspberry-pi/

connected to a data analysis software, and not to Zwift.

And not the methods DC Rainmaker uses for testing such as measurement wheels or measure the length of th treadmill belt and count the numbers of turns.Is this because treadmill sellers want him to do so?

As a result we do not have scientifically valitated sport heart rate monitors and treadmills tested by Rob ter Horst and DC Rainmaker tested with the best methods which are available. Why do they not choose the best testing method which are one the market? Is this because they are paid for their reviews on one or the other way?

Paid promotional reviews, since they receive the products they test for free, do not declair this and eventually can keep those, and everything arranged by a lawyer who protects those with a legal contract?

And do they make reviews since the employement offices want them to do so and are they paid from governmental support? If so should they not work for the public service? And if they work for the product sellers should they not declare this and publish their terms and conditions?

If all of this is true and would happen in Switzerland, wouldn’t we not soon have a referendum about changing these rules and enshrining this in a law so that something has to change. Reviews not only to the benefit of the product sellers but also to benefit of the service public?

And if someone has so many views on YouTube and influences sales rates and is supported in one way or the other should this not be declaired properly and be anchored in laws so that everybody is treated fairly – also the tax payers and the social security contributors?

And also if they have an income from advertising revenues does this not influence their opinion? And are therefore reviews in papers which declare that they do not have a conflict of interest more helpful and interesting for users than reviews from intransparant reviewers with intransparent rules?