he more they talk about how accurate the CRM is the better it is for investors in QUIK’s biz.

Most fitness trackers aren’t terribly accurate, and heart rate monitors are even more fickle. And some smartwatches give back absurd numbers that belong to corpses or heart attack victims. Apple seems to have figured out a way to make the Apple Watch incredibly accurate, though. One user compared it to a heart rate monitoring strap that’s on par with EKG accuracy ratings, with the Apple Watch returning almost the exact same readings.

Engineer Brad Larson strapped on his Mio Alpha heart rate monitor, one of the most accurate monitors around, to compare its data to the Apple Watch’s results during a run. He posted the graph on Twitter, and the Apple Watch matches the Mio Alpha at nearly every data point. The two line graphs are almost perfectly synced, with only a few variations.

Extracted the raw Apple Watch HealthKit heartrate samples after a run and compared it to an HR monitor I had on: pic.twitter.com/2Ycj49Ctjt

— Brad Larson (@bradlarson) May 7, 2015

Related: Read our Apple Watch review
Seeing as the Mio Alpha is rated at EKG level standards of accuracy,

the fact that the Apple Watch manages to match it so closely is very impressive. Most wearables return results that are very far off from heart rate monitoring chest straps, which are typically considered the most accurate. In our review of the Fitbit Charge HR, we found it to be 20 to 30 beats per minute higher than the chest strap rates during exercise, and between 5 to 15 beats higher during regular walking. That’s also been the case with smartwatches like the LG G Watch R, which took a few weeks to get close to accurate results.

So RIck N. asked the question of how good Fttbits CRM algos…this snipof the Fitbit Charge HR, we found it to be 20 to 30 beats per minute higher than the chest strap rates during exercise, and between 5 to 15 beats higher during regular walking. That’s also been the case with smartwatches like the LG G Watch R, which took a few weeks to get close to accurate results

anecdotally says it all

Of course, the Apple Watch’s heart rate monitor has had its own issues, mainly when it’s been worn by people with dark tattoos on their wrists. The watch uses photoplethysmography technology, which uses green LED lights and light‑sensitive photodiodes to detect the amount of blood flowing through your wrist.

Normally, this tech works very well, as evidenced by Larson’s results, but dark tattoos absorb the light, interfering with the reading. There must be at least a few wrist-tattooed Apple Watch owners today who wish they had listened to their mothers.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/wearables/apple-watch-heart-rate-monitor-accuracy/#ixzz3Ze9IW8BH
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

So its so important to have this as background info as we learn more about what QUIK will have to say… the table is set

Apple has DONE WELL ( even if the power is high) and others will just have to do the same….now who can help with that?

QUIK let us know ASAP how the CHRM is coming along.

THanks in advance

May 9, 2015 at 9:20 am#4864REPLY

Just nice..this snip..

the Fitbit Charge HR, we found it to be 20 to 30 beats per minute higher than the chest strap rates during exercise, and between 5 to 15 beats higher during regular walking. That’s also been the case with smartwatches like the LG G Watch R, which took a few weeks to get close to accurate results

Anecdotal, but hopefully true..meaning the table is pretty much set then for someone like QUIK who has accuracy of the CHRM as the focus of their offering?

QUIK this really sounds good. THanks again for the hard work on this one. 

May 9, 2015 at 1:12 pm