HEART RATE MEASURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN APPLE WATCH SERIES 8 AND POLARGRIT X COMPARED TO POLAR H10 SENSOR

Authors

Jacob J. Becker, University of South CarolinaFollow
Monica M. Ryan, University of South CarolinaFollow
Ryan E. Albino, University of South CarolinaFollow
Alexa J. Chandler, University of South CarolinaFollow
Gianna F. Mastrofini, University of South CarolinaFollow
Blaine S. Lints, University of South CarolinaFollow
Bridget A. McFadden, University of South CarolinaFollow
Bret Trahan, University of South CarolinaFollow
R. Glenn Weaver, University of South CarolinaFollow
Shawn M. Arent FACSM, University of South CarolinaFollow

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Heart rate (HR) measure agreement between wrist-worn devices and the chest-worn Polar H10during non-steady-state exercise is unclear. PURPOSE: To assess agreement between wrist-based photoplethysmography (PPG) devices (Apple Watch Series 8 [AW], Polar Grit X [PX]compared to Polar H10 chest-worn electrocardiographic device (H10) estimated HR.METHODS: Following an initial visit to determine velocity at VO2max (vVO2max),participants (n=10 males, 10 females, ages 18-35) completed 2 testing days. Participants wore the PX, AW, and H10 during all exercise bouts. Day 1 consisted of two, 4-minute bouts on the treadmill at 50% and 75% of vVO2max followed by an 8-min interval effort (30:30) at 100-120% of vVO2max. Day 2 consisted of a high intensity functional training (HIFT) protocol comprised of 3 rounds of 5 exercises (kettlebell swings, box jumps, burpees, sit-ups, cycling sprint) with a 40:20 work:rest ratio. Agreement of average and max HR from wrist-based PPG devices and H10 were analyzed via inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals. An alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.RESULTS: There were strong significant correlations for average and max HR between H10and AW during running intervals at 50% (Average: ICC=0.99, CI=0.98-1.00; P<0.0001; Max:ICC= 0.97, CI=0.91-0.99; P<0.0001), 75% (Average: ICC=0.84, CI=0.62-0.94; P<0.0001; Max:ICC=0.97, CI= 0.91-0.99; P<0.0001) and 100% (Average: ICC=0.95, CI=0.84-0.98; P<0.0001;Max: ICC=0.97, CI=0.91-0.99; P<0.0001) of vVO2max. In contrast, PX was moderately correlated with at H10 at 50% (Average: ICC=0.70, CI=0.18-0.89; P=0.0001; Max: ICC=0.79,CI=0.50-0.92; P<0.0001) and 75% (Average: ICC=0.50, CI= 0.01,-0.80; P=0.005; Max:ICC=0.43, CI=-0.14-0.75; P=0.26), but not 100% (Average: ICC=0.17, CI=-0.19,-0.56; P=0.19;Max: ICC=0.24, CI= -0.18-0.63; P=0.14) of vVO2max. There was strong agreement betweenAW and H10 (ICC=0.92, CI =0.59-0.98; P<0.0001), but not PX (ICC=0.19, CI =-0.11-0.55;P=0.05), during HIFT. CONCLUSION: While AW shows strong agreement across multiple exercise intensities and modalities, the PX PPG technology does not demonstrate as strong of agreement. The PX showed decreased agreement as running interval intensity increased, and poor agreement duringHIFT. While the non-invasive nature, affordability, and convenience of PPG shows promise for continued growth as a daily activity assessment tool without the need for a chest strap, consumers and researchers should take this information into account when selecting a PPG device. The novel inclusion of HIFT sets this study apart and indicates the need for agreement testing across multiple exercise modalities in the field.

Recommended Citation

Becker, Jacob J.; Ryan, Monica M.; Albino, Ryan E.; Chandler, Alexa J.; Mastrofini, Gianna F.; Lints, Blaine S.; McFadden, Bridget A.; Trahan, Bret; Weaver, R. Glenn; and Arent, Shawn M. FACSM (2024) "HEART RATE MEASURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN APPLE WATCH SERIES 8 AND POLARGRIT X COMPARED TO POLAR H10 SENSOR," International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 16: Iss. 3, Article 184.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol16/iss3/184