4 ms·

The only thing I'm interested in with this new Watch, is the heart study. I'm VERY interested if they have this monitoring mastered without the chest strap. Sup

The only thing I'm interested in with this new Watch, is the heart study. I'm VERY interested if they have this monitoring mastered without the chest strap. Super useful for me.

brandonb 9y ago
If you don't want to wait, we launched a study with UCSF Cardiology which showed 97% accuracy at detecting atrial fibrillation in May: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cardiogram/id1000017994?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cardiogram/id1000017994?ls=1... cnbc.com/2017/05/11/apple-watch-uses-cardiogram-to-screen-for-heart-rhythm-abnormalities.html
- overcast 9y ago
  So the Apple Watch is in an accurate heart rate monitor? Or is high precision not needed for testing for this abnormality? I want highly accurate rate monitoring throughout the day, especially on long hikes.
  - peterarmstrong 9y ago
    I've found mine is accurate as long as it is snug. But if it's not snug, it can be way off. Also, when I first tried it I had wrist pain, and learned that I actually was "wearing it wrong". Moving it further up my arm fixed it, and now it's literally my favourite device.
    - overcast 9y ago
      Hrmm. I'll await the in depth reviews. For now, my chest strap will keep monitoring for me.
      - peterarmstrong 9y ago
        I'm talking about Series 2. Series 3 isn't available yet. But Series 3 is supposedly same size as Series 2, except the thing that sticks out of the back is "2 sheets of paper thicker", to use Apple's new contribution to the imperial system :) So my guess is it will be the same: just as good as my Polar chest strap when snug, and off when, well, off.
Alex3917 9y ago
They're trying to to detect heart issues in people who don't otherwise have any reason to suspect they have them. Given that the heart rate monitor isn't even accurate enough to be useful for exercising[1], it seems unlikely you'd want to rely on this if you already know you have an issue. http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/7/2/3/htm http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/7/2/3/htm
- jessewmc 9y ago
  Curious why you come to that conclusion? That study itself says the watches were within acceptable error for their purposes. Why would you need more accuracy than the roughly 2% error on the Apple Watch?
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    The error-rate for walking was up to 3.8%, which is roughly 8bpm for someone with a 200bpm max HR. And that error rate is averaged over a minute, so presumably the instantaneous error rate is even greater. If I'm trying to keep my HR at a constant 150 or whatever, I don't want to be speeding up or slowing down on the basis of getting garbage data from my HR monitor. This is an issue even with the Polar chest straps, and those are significantly more accurate than the Apple Watch. Also, if you look at the protocol the vast majority of participants wouldn't have even broken a sweat, let alone have been sweating significantly.
    - SirensOfTitan 9y ago
      In what health scenario do you need your HR to stay at a constant 150 so stringently?
      - Alex3917 9y ago
        If you're trying to do UT1 (70%-80% of max HR) training and instead you're doing UT2 (55%-70%) or AT (80%-85%), then you're not going to get the benefits you were going for. Further, the only way you can accurately measure your rate of improvement is by comparing average watts across time at a fixed HR. So if your HR isn't at your target level then not only are you not going to be making progress at an acceptable rate, but you're not even going to know that you're not on track until it's already too late.

The only thing I'm interested in with this new Watch, is the heart study. I'm VERY interested if they have this monitoring mastered without the chest strap. Super useful for me.

brandonb 9y ago

If you don't want to wait, we launched a study with UCSF Cardiology which showed 97% accuracy at detecting atrial fibrillation in May: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cardiogram/id1000017994?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cardiogram/id1000017994?ls=1... cnbc.com/2017/05/11/apple-watch-uses-cardiogram-to-screen-for-heart-rhythm-abnormalities.html

overcast 9y ago
So the Apple Watch is in an accurate heart rate monitor? Or is high precision not needed for testing for this abnormality? I want highly accurate rate monitoring throughout the day, especially on long hikes.
- peterarmstrong 9y ago
  I've found mine is accurate as long as it is snug. But if it's not snug, it can be way off. Also, when I first tried it I had wrist pain, and learned that I actually was "wearing it wrong". Moving it further up my arm fixed it, and now it's literally my favourite device.
  - overcast 9y ago
    Hrmm. I'll await the in depth reviews. For now, my chest strap will keep monitoring for me.
    - peterarmstrong 9y ago
      I'm talking about Series 2. Series 3 isn't available yet. But Series 3 is supposedly same size as Series 2, except the thing that sticks out of the back is "2 sheets of paper thicker", to use Apple's new contribution to the imperial system :) So my guess is it will be the same: just as good as my Polar chest strap when snug, and off when, well, off.

Alex3917 9y ago

They're trying to to detect heart issues in people who don't otherwise have any reason to suspect they have them. Given that the heart rate monitor isn't even accurate enough to be useful for exercising[1], it seems unlikely you'd want to rely on this if you already know you have an issue. http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/7/2/3/htm http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/7/2/3/htm

jessewmc 9y ago
Curious why you come to that conclusion? That study itself says the watches were within acceptable error for their purposes. Why would you need more accuracy than the roughly 2% error on the Apple Watch?
- Alex3917 9y ago
  The error-rate for walking was up to 3.8%, which is roughly 8bpm for someone with a 200bpm max HR. And that error rate is averaged over a minute, so presumably the instantaneous error rate is even greater. If I'm trying to keep my HR at a constant 150 or whatever, I don't want to be speeding up or slowing down on the basis of getting garbage data from my HR monitor. This is an issue even with the Polar chest straps, and those are significantly more accurate than the Apple Watch. Also, if you look at the protocol the vast majority of participants wouldn't have even broken a sweat, let alone have been sweating significantly.
  - SirensOfTitan 9y ago
    In what health scenario do you need your HR to stay at a constant 150 so stringently?
    - Alex3917 9y ago
      If you're trying to do UT1 (70%-80% of max HR) training and instead you're doing UT2 (55%-70%) or AT (80%-85%), then you're not going to get the benefits you were going for. Further, the only way you can accurately measure your rate of improvement is by comparing average watts across time at a fixed HR. So if your HR isn't at your target level then not only are you not going to be making progress at an acceptable rate, but you're not even going to know that you're not on track until it's already too late.