Last Updated on September 2, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org
There are countless accuracy testers for consumer grade heart rate monitors, but only view scientific papers about those. With research grade ECG devices we have listings of papers in which these devices where used. ECG devices from iWorx offer for every device a listing of papers in which they where used. But which consumer grade heart rate monitor offers this? The Polar H10?
The paper «RR interval signal quality of a heart rate monitor and an ECG Holter at rest and during exercise»:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31004219/
has been cited 257 times on Google Scholar:
And Rob ter Horst entitled the Polar H10 as the «gold standard in research», and uses it as his reference device. But the manufacturer g.tec medical who offers devices which cost up to 50 000 USD which where used for instance to test the accuracy of the Polar OH1 says, that they do not know of a manufacturer who offers a device which has solved the problem of ECG movement artifacts and does not mention the Polar H10 at all.
If g.tec medical does not know such a device, who else should know such a device? The sports scientists who test the accuracy of the Polar H10, but cannot convince physiologists and cardiologists? The statement 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”
which can be found in this paper:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31004219/
is controversial. The Polar H10 does not even meet the requirements to be a gold standard device for HR measurements, and that is 3 ECG channels, the Polar H10 has only one ECG channel. And manufacturers who offer ECG devices at the highest level do not even mention the Polar H10. Should therefore scientists who are looking for accurate heart rate data not avoid consumer grade heart rate monitors such as the Polar H10 which offers no uncontroversial validation paper which says something about it’s accuracy?