Key result
Premium smartwatches track HR with ~0.98 correlation to clinical standards, while low-cost devices falter during motion.
Why the study?
Technical disparities exist between premium and affordable smartwatches, and objective heart rate may fail to capture the subjective exercise strain experienced by individuals with elevated central adiposity.
How accurate are diverse smartwatches in estimating heart rate and calorie expenditure, and how does central adiposity affect the relationship between objective heart rate and subjective perceived exertion?
Observational (n=40)
No
How accurate are diverse smartwatches in estimating heart rate and calorie expenditure, and how does central adiposity affect the relationship between objective heart rate and subjective perceived exertion?
Effect estimate: r ≥ 0.98
While premium smartwatches offer superior heart rate precision, affordable devices provide consistent energy expenditure estimates, though heart rate alone may underestimate subjective exertion in individuals with central adiposity.
Objective HR may underestimate strain in central adiposity; leaves open whether RPE integration refines wearable-guided exercise prescriptions.
Introduction In light of the growing global trend toward health awareness, wearable technologies like smartwatches have become essential for monitoring physiological indicators such as heart rate (HR). However, their utility faces two critical challenges: a technical disparity between premium and affordable devices and a conceptual gap where objective HR may fail to capture the true subjective strain experienced by diverse populations. Consequently, this study has a dual objective: to evaluate the HR accuracy of four commercially available watches and examine how measurement variations propagate through a standardized HR-derived energy expenditure model; and to investigate the dissociation between objective HR and subjective perceived exertion (RPE) in individuals with elevated central adiposity. Methods Forty healthy adults ( n = 40 ) participated in a 45 min multi-stage exercise protocol consisting of stretching, cycling, and running. Participants were stratified into two groups based on their waist-to-height ratio (WHtR): normal ( ≤ 0.5) and elevated (>0.5). Data were synchronized using a temporal alignment procedure, and calorie expenditure was calculated through a standardized heart-rate-based regression model to ensure fair comparisons across all devices. Results Premium smartwatches, specifically the Apple Watch and Garmin, demonstrated superior HR precision across all activity phases, maintaining high correlations ( r ≥ 0.98 ) with the clinical reference. While the low-cost Xiaomi and ThaiSook watches exhibited higher HR errors during motion-intensive activities, their derived calorie expenditure estimates remained remarkably stable and consistent with the reference standard. Notably, individuals with elevated WHtR reported significantly higher Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) during running and recovery phases ( p < 0.05 ), despite showing no significant difference in heart rate responsiveness compared to leaner participants. Conclusion This study confirms that while higher-end sensors offer greater heart rate precision, affordable wearables can provide sufficient HR data to yield consistent energy expenditure estimates when using a standardized mathematical model, supporting their potential utility in large-scale health monitoring. The divergence between objective heart rate and subjective exertion in participants with central adiposity indicates that heart rate alone is an insufficient gauge of exercise intensity. Consequently, personalized weight-management programs should integrate wearable-derived metrics with perceived effort to better account for the unique physiological and psychological strain associated with higher body mass.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lertyongphati et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Healthy adults (n=40). Smartwatches (Apple Watch SE, Garmin Forerunner 245, Xiaomi Mi Watch Lite, ThaiSook Watch) vs. Polar H10 chest strap was evaluated on Heart rate measurement accuracy (Pearson's correlation coefficient) (r ≥ 0.98). Premium smartwatches demonstrated superior heart rate precision (r ≥ 0.98) compared to a clinical reference, while low-cost devices exhibited higher errors during motion but maintained consistent calorie expenditure estimates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: