Key result
The Fitbit Charge HR provided equivalent mean heart rates compared to the Polar H1 during continuous aerobic exercise (mean difference 2.69 bpm; 95% CI 1.41-3.97).
Why the study?
Does the Fitbit Charge HR accurately measure heart rate compared to a Polar H1 chest strap during continuous aerobic exercise?
Cross-Sectional (n=19)
Does the Fitbit Charge HR accurately measure heart rate compared to a Polar H1 chest strap during continuous aerobic exercise?
Mean Difference: 2.69 (95% CI 1.41–3.97)
The Fitbit Charge HR provides relatively accurate heart rate measurements during continuous aerobic exercise, though accuracy is limited at the onset of exercise.
Fitbit Charge HR may track steady-state exercise HR adequately in healthy adults; leaves open validation at onset and in clinical groups.
Purpose : Consumer-grade wrist-worn activity monitors frequently include photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors for estimating heart rate (HR). The Fitbit Charge HR is marketed specifically for tracking fitness; therefore, HR accuracy is critical, especially during exercise. This study examined HR equivalency of the Fitbit Charge HR during continuous aerobic exercise. Method : Participants ( N = 19) concurrently wore a Polar H1 and Fitbit Charge HR during a measurement visit that included seated rest (5 minutes), warm-up (5 minutes), continuous treadmill exercise (30 minutes), and cool-down (5–10 minutes). Mean HR differences were examined by protocol phase, total activity (i.e., warm-up, exercise, and cool-down combined), and the first, middle, and last 5 minutes of continuous exercise. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE), Bland-Altman plots, and 95% equivalence testing explained overall and individual HR agreement between devices. Results : The Fitbit Charge HR significantly underestimated HR for all measurement phases (all p ≤ .01) except cool-down ( p > .33). HR agreement was notably weaker during warm-up ( r = 0.66, d = 0.57) and differences were greatest for the first 5 minutes compared to the middle and end of exercise (6.94±2.16 beats per minute [bpm] vs. 1.76±0.59 bpm, and 1.74±0.58 bpm), F = 4.87, p = .04). Mean exercise HRs were equivalent between devices (±2.69 bpm, 95% CI: 1.41–3.97 bpm); MAPE was 1.96%. Conclusion : The Fitbit Charge HR is relatively accurate for measuring HR during continuous aerobic exercise. Whereas the accuracy of PPG-based HR appears limited at exercise onset, agreement improves throughout the exercise bout and HR differences are negligible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stock et al. (2018) reported a cross-sectional. Fitbit Charge HR vs. Polar H1 was evaluated on Mean exercise heart rate (MD 2.69 bpm, 95% CI 1.41-3.97). The Fitbit Charge HR provided equivalent mean heart rates compared to the Polar H1 during continuous aerobic exercise (mean difference 2.69 bpm; 95% CI 1.41-3.97).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: