학술논문
Validation of Garmin and Polar Devices for Continuous Heart Rate Monitoring During Common Training Movements in Tactical Populations.
Document Type
Article
Author
Source
Subject
*PATIENT monitoring equipment
*PHYSICAL fitness
*WEARABLE technology
*EXERCISE physiology
*REGRESSION analysis
*COMPARATIVE studies
*CYCLING
*HEART beat
*COMMERCIAL product evaluation
*ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY
*EXERCISE intensity
*DESCRIPTIVE statistics
*RESEARCH funding
*PSYCHOLOGY of military personnel
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Language
ISSN
1091-367X
Abstract
Heart rate samples (n = 4500–8000) from wearables were compared to electrocardiography during a steady-state ruck (Ruck-S), maximal effort ruck (Ruck-M), submaximal cycle (Cycle), and Tabata Circuit. One device was worn at each location (wrist: Polar Grit-X, Garmin Fenix 6; chest-straps: Polar H10, Garmin HRM-Pro; armband: Polar Verity). Comparisons were made via percent error (MAPE) ≤5%, Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), and ordinary least product regressions (OLP). H10 demonstrated strong agreement for all movements (MAPE = 1.28–3.40%, CCC = 0.93–0.99). During Ruck-S, Ruck-M, and Cycle, HRM-Pro (MAPE = 1.96–3.73%, CCC = 0.95–0.99) and Verity (MAPE = 1.84–5.36%, CCC = 0.98–0.99) demonstrated strong agreement. Fenix-6 demonstrated low MAPE (4.23–5.44%) and moderate to strong CCC (0.76–0.96) for Ruck-S, Ruck-M, and Cycle, while Grit-X had poor agreement (MAPE = 8.49–16.45%; CCC = 0.24–0.78). Tabata Circuit had the worst disagreement for all devices. Overall, chest straps and armbands demonstrated the strongest agreement, and should be worn when precise heart rate training is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]