Study claims Fitbit trackers are 'highly inaccurate'

[CtW]

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/23/study-shows-fitbit-trackers-highly-inaccurate.html

Fitbit has some 'splainin to to.

Quote

A class action lawsuit against Fitbit may have grown teeth following the release of a new study which claims the company's popular heart rate trackers are "highly inaccurate."

Researchers at the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona tested the heart rates of 43 healthy adults with Fitbit's PurePulse heart rate monitors, using the company's Surge watches and Charge HR bands on each wrist.

Subjects were then hooked up to a BioHarness device that produced an electrocardiogram (ECG), to record the heart's rhythm against the data being produced by Fitbit's devices.

Comparative results from rest and exercise, including jump rope, treadmills, outdoor jogging and stair climbing, showed that the Fitbit devices miscalculated heart rates by up to 20 beats per minute on average during more intensive workouts.

"The PurePulse Trackers do not accurately measure a user's heart rate, particularly during moderate to high intensity exercise, and cannot be used to provide a meaningful estimate of a user's heart rate," the study document stated. 

The study was commissioned by Lieff Cabraser, the law firm behind the class action suit that is taking aim at three Fitbit models that use the PurePulse heart monitor, including the Fitbit Blaze, Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge. The suit claims the devices do not accurately measure heart rate, and the study was included as part of an amended complaint filed last week.

Fitbit wants you to take this with a grain of salt.

Quote

In a statement, Fitbit called the study "biased" and "baseless," saying it lacked "scientific rigor."

"It was paid for by plaintiffs' lawyers who are suing Fitbit, and was conducted with a consumer-grade electrocardiogram – not a true clinical device, as implied by the plaintiffs' lawyers. Furthermore, there is no evidence the device used in the purported 'study' was tested for accuracy."

Fitbit's argument doesn't seem to hold however.

Quote

However, a separate study by Ball State University in Indiana and journalists at NBC-affiliated TV station WTHR released in February, also showed that the Fitbit Charge HR missed heartbeats, marking an average heart rate error of 14 percent.

"Calculating a heart rate that's off by 20 or 30 beats per minute can be dangerous — especially for people at high risk of heart disease," the report explained.

I'm taking 2 things away from this article: the study's results should be taken with a grain of salt and that fitbit's devices are not as accurate as they claim to be, which his hugely problematic, given their widespread usage and marketing. As the article mentions, such innacurate readings are very dangerous for those with heart conditions that might result in an unhealthy heart rate. Hopefully fitbit is held accountable for this and either start to produce more accurate devices or clearly state the issues with the devices to the consumer.

[Guest]

I did not read the post. i simply cannot take you seriously with that profile pic

[CtW]

1 minute ago, ChickenNugget said:

I did not read the post. i simply cannot take you seriously with that profile pic

thx for posting a relevant reply to this topic

[Guest]

1 minute ago, CtW said:

thx for posting a relevant reply to this topic

You are very welcome, sir

[vanished]

I'm not that surprised really - anyone who's used or tried to make a heat rate monitor like the ones they use that are just pressed against the skin will know that they are very prone to being thrown off by any little movement.  You know those little ones they clamp on your finger in hospitals?  Have you ever noticed how crazy the graph goes if you just turn a little or sit up?

 

I can't wait for LTT's test of a few of these trackers - my guess is they will find the same thing

[DocHolliday]

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I can't wait for LTT's test of a few of these trackers - my guess is they will find the same thing

That is a video I am looking forward to. I have used a few different fitbits and now with the Apple Watch, all this data but how accurate is it all.

[vanished]

14 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:

That is a video I am looking forward to. I have used a few different fitbits and now with the Apple Watch, all this data but how accurate is it all.

I think if these readers can get +/- 5%, that's honestly about as good as anyone could possibly hope for - they're not professional medical devices, they are not connected with electrodes to your chest, and they are being subjected to all sorts of environments, like running, jumping, in the rain, etc.  They're meant for getting a rough idea of how you are doing, if you are the healthy active type.  If you are someone who actually needs to constantly monitor their heart rate for medical reasons, someone should have really hooked you up with the tools you need, and not left you to just roam the world and maybe find a bracelet that gives you the info you need to live  

[AHaskin14]

I believe it. They're cheap bracelets that dangle around while you move.

[crystal6tak]

I eagerly await Luke's findings

[BHS4K]

And thats why I never bought one.

[zMeul]

can't wait for some idiot to take pills because his watch told him so 

[GeekJump]

I felt like this was common knowledge...do people really think something simply attached to your wrist will match up against full blown medical equipment attached all over a person?

 

Do 20 bpm really matter? On the high end, you should feel your heart pounding w/o a tracking to tell you "hey listen! your heart rate is high"

[suicidalfranco]

7 hours ago, GeekJump said:

I felt like this was common knowledge...do people really think something simply attached to your wrist will match up against full blown medical equipment attached all over a person?

 

Do 20 bpm really matter? On the high end, you should feel your heart pounding w/o a tracking to tell you "hey listen! your heart rate is high"

always wondered that. Also what happened to just running? does knowing your heart rate make you faster? does counting your steps make  you go further? i find them pointless frankly

[GeekJump]

13 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

always wondered that. Also what happened to just running? does knowing your heart rate make you faster? does counting your steps make  you go further? i find them pointless frankly

Partially agree. But I worked on some psych studies regarding fitness motivation, etc. and this trackers actually have some mental benefit for the most part. Actually seeing progress on "paper" motivates some people much more than running 2 miles and feeling the burn after.

 

Also some of those fitness nuts actually have full blown excel sheets based on their tracker's data to customize their routines (trust me, I know some of these nuts >_> lol)

[Ivo]

There is a lot of things that these are useful especially to athletes. The more data you have the better you can plan your conditioning. HR at least is useful when trying to hit your training zones. This is where this fitbit fails on its face. You have to have a sensor directly attached to your skin in order to keep tracking it, hence companies like Polar or Garmin do give straps with their watches. Fitbit and other fitness watches "dangle" too much and lose contact with your skin which is main cause of not being accurate. So to sum up Fitbit sensors are accurate, its how they implemented it is what causes it to not be accurate, you could strap it tight to the wrist but how comfortable is that then.

[CtW]

8 hours ago, Ivo said:

There is a lot of things that these are useful especially to athletes. The more data you have the better you can plan your conditioning. HR at least is useful when trying to hit your training zones. This is where this fitbit fails on its face. You have to have a sensor directly attached to your skin in order to keep tracking it, hence companies like Polar or Garmin do give straps with their watches. Fitbit and other fitness watches "dangle" too much and lose contact with your skin which is main cause of not being accurate. So to sum up Fitbit sensors are accurate, its how they implemented it is what causes it to not be accurate, you could strap it tight to the wrist but how comfortable is that then.

One has to wonder how accurate the other devices are though. Since this information gathering is fitbit's entire business model, other companies who merely integrate it as a feature might be much less accurate.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, CtW said:

One has to wonder how accurate the other devices are though. Since this information gathering is fitbit's entire business model, other companies who merely integrate it as a feature might be much less accurate.

The nice thing about tracking heart rate though is that unlike pretty much everything else in life, like measuring temperature, brightness, etc. we don't have to rely on one instrument to give us the stats on another and just assume that at least one of them is correct - heart rate can easily be measured with nothing but your own body, a timer, and the ability to count

[nims0c]

Got one from work and I tend to agree.

[Ivo]

3 hours ago, CtW said:

One has to wonder how accurate the other devices are though. Since this information gathering is fitbit's entire business model, other companies who merely integrate it as a feature might be much less accurate.

Are you talking about companies that are trying to build fitness trackers or companies that are making professional sport gear. Because fitness wearable will most likely all be the same as far as accuracy. As far as how accurate the pro ones are, we'll go buy any polar watch and a strap, run for 2 min check what your hr is on the watch and when you stop find a pulse and count yourself, they are pretty accurate.