Key result
The Fitbit Charge HR systematically underestimated heart rate by an average of 5.96 bpm compared to the Polar H6 monitor under free-living conditions, with larger errors during moderate to vigorous physical activity.
Why the study?
Does the Fitbit Charge HR activity tracker accurately measure heart rate and detect moderate to vigorous physical activity compared to the Polar H6 monitor in healthy volunteers?
Observational (n=10)
No
Does the Fitbit Charge HR activity tracker accurately measure heart rate and detect moderate to vigorous physical activity compared to the Polar H6 monitor in healthy volunteers?
Mean Difference: -5.96 (95% CI -6.33–-5.6)
p-value: p=<0.001
Under free-living conditions, the Fitbit Charge HR systematically underestimates heart rate, especially during moderate to vigorous physical activity, indicating it may not be sufficiently accurate for clinical exercise prescription.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Warrants caution interpreting Fitbit HR during MVPA; leaves open consumer wearable accuracy for research endpoints.
Gorny et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers (n=10). Fitbit Charge HR vs. Polar H6 heart rate monitor was evaluated on Difference in heart rate measurement (bpm) (MD -5.96 bpm, 95% CI -6.33 to -5.60, p=<0.001). The Fitbit Charge HR systematically underestimated heart rate by an average of 5.96 bpm compared to the Polar H6 monitor under free-living conditions, with larger errors during moderate to vigorous physical activity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: