![]() Some running watches let you do this right now by letting you connect the chest strap to the watch via Bluetooth. The ideal solution, says Korhonen, is to have a screen on the wrist, but as a receiver to sensors worn elsewhere on the body. The wrist is a great place for a user interface, but according to both Korhonen and Valencell CEO Steven LeBoeuf, the wrist is one of the worst locations on the body for heart rate sensors. ![]() "There are certain limits with wrist-worn sensors which may be very difficult to push beyond a certain level," says Ilkka Korhonen, VP of technologies at FirstBeat, "because the motion artifacts are so major in the hand when you are using it for doing something." Ok, so we already know the wrist isn't a good place for tracking heart rate - but why? So where is the best place to track heart rate? We pulled in the expert advice from Valencell - maker of heart rate sensors - and Firstbeat - which analyzes heart rate data and provides its secret sauce to copious sports watches - to break it down. And in fairness, more are matching up to the chest strap, which is still the gold standard for BPM. This presents a tough challenge for companies. Read this: Learn to train with heart rate Part of the problem is location we hear time and time again that while the wrist is a good place to put a screen, it's also one of the worst spots for keeping a continuous and accurate HR reading. When we head out running or cycling with these devices, heart rate accuracy is always a consideration, and more often than not it falls down when put up against more established and reliable methods. In fact, these days it's hard to find a fitness tracker or smartwatch that doesn't have some type of heart rate monitoring in it. Since Wareable launched in 2014, heart rate - the testing, accuracy and validity of - has been a major through-line.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |