|
|
|
|
|
|
by macintux
2396 days ago
|
|
|
You keep moving the goalposts. First you claimed they weren’t useful. Now they’re simply inaccurate (somewhat valid, but see below) and when used stupidly can be privacy problems. I can’t argue the latter, but that’s not just a smart watch problem. Regarding accuracy, though, the Apple Watch is very accurate for heart rate, which is important because it can alert the wearer to dangerous heart conditions. It’s also best-in-class accurate for calorie expenditure, which is fine for general day-to-day tracking and dietary planning. https://www.macrumors.com/2017/05/24/apple-watch-heart-rate-... |
|
|
Not useful - because algorithms for caloric expenditure are usable now only for group level experiments
>that’s not just a smart watch problem
True
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/7/2/3/htm#jpm-07-00003-f003
>Overall, heart rate error was within the acceptable error range for the majority of task/device combinations, but EE error exceeded the allowed threshold for all tasks and devices.
And I repeat - for group level experiments such devices are good
For individual, without calibration - not
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/7/2/3/htm#fig_body_display_jp...
You can see this on Fig2. That individual dots on image - that may be error on your device on your body
And even more - I do not know what for you need your pulse measurements. Even accurate
You do not need that number when you reach your peak velocity and do not need it when your sitting
>It’s also best-in-class accurate for calorie expenditure, which is fine for general day-to-day tracking and dietary planning.
I know even more accurate device for such purpose
Scales
And btw - scales can be mechanical so they can't send your data