四款热门健身腕带，谁测心率最准？
研究人员近日指出，就监测心率的准确度而言，佩戴在手腕上的商用健身追踪器还不能比拟专业的胸贴式监测仪。商用健身追踪器的心率读数可能要高于或低于实际心率，这取决于佩戴者的活动剧烈程度。 总体来说，腕式监测设备给出的心率值，一般在休息时测得较准，而在运动时误差较大。 该研究的主笔人之一、克里夫兰医院医生马克·吉利诺夫表示：“如果有人想知道自己的准确心率，比如确实有这种需要的心脏病人或专业运动员，他们最好还是使用胸贴式监测仪。” 吉利诺夫通过电话对《路透健康》表示：“如果你使用的是腕式监测器，而且它给出了一个很高或很低的数值，这个数值有可能是错误的，所以不必担心。” 吉利诺夫还指出，人的运动状态、背景光线甚至是肤色都有可能对腕式监测器的准确度造成影响。 研究人员对四种心率监测仪进行了研究，50名健康的青年人参与了这项研究。他们要佩戴着心率监测器在跑步机上跑步。他们的四肢连着心电图导联电极，胸口连着一台Polar H7胸贴式监测仪，用于心率数据的对比；同时他们还佩戴着四种不同的腕式监测器中的两种，包括Fitbit Charge HR、苹果Apple Watch、Mio Alpha和Basis Peak。 研究人员收集汇总了被试者在休息状态下以及在跑步机上以每小时2英里、3英里、4英里、5英里和6英里奔跑时的心率数据。被试者要分别以以上速度奔跑3分钟，然后才开始记录其心率数据。被试者的心率数据从每分钟49次至200次不等。 与最精确的心电图数据相比，其它心率监测器在精确度上都是有差异的。首先是目前已经全面退市的Basis Peak，在轻度运动状态下，它的读数比实际心率每分钟高出约8次。其次是Fitbit Charge HR，它在激烈运动中的读数要比实际心率每分钟低6至7次。 据《JAMA心脏病学》杂志报道，在95%的情况下，苹果的Apple Watch和Mio Fuse的读数都处在心电图读数上下不超过每分钟27至29次的范围内，这个误差要略低于Fitbit和Basis Peak。 吉利诺夫还指出，那些腕式健身监测器的生产厂商自己也没有把它们的产品称作医疗设备。 他表示：“它们不应被用于诊断或治疗任何疾病，在那种情况下，你也不能指望它们。” Fitbit的长期临床研究伙伴、Fitabase公司创始人兼CEO亚伦·科尔曼也对《路透健康》表示，他认为实验结果还不算太差，尤其是考虑到这些腕式设备的对比对象是研究级的设备。胸贴式心率监测仪虽然结果很精确，但对于非专业运动爱好者来说，佩戴起来显然是很不便的。 他最后表示，总的来说，心率监测器的佩戴位置离心脏越远，其读数的误差也就越大。（财富中文网） 译者：朴成奎 审校：任文科 | Commercial fitness trackers worn on the wrist are less accurate than a chest strap monitor at measuring heart rate, and may over- or underestimate heart rate depending on activity level, researchers say. In general, wrist monitors are more accurate at rest than during exercise. “If somebody must know his or her heart rate with great accuracy, like a heart patient or a trained athlete, if you really need to know, use a chest strap,” said co-author Dr. Marc Gillinov of the Cleveland Clinic. “If you’re using these wrist worn monitors and you get an odd value, way too high or too low, it’s probably wrong so don’t be concerned,” Gillinov told Reuters Health by phone. Motion, ambient light and varying skin tones can all affect wrist monitor accuracy, he said. The researchers studied four heart rate monitors worn by 50 young, healthy adults exercising on treadmills. They wore electrocardiographic (ECG) limb leads and a Polar H7 chest strap monitor as comparisons for heart rate data, and also wore two of the four different wrist monitors: Fitbit Charge HR, Apple Watch, Mio Alpha, and Basis Peak. Heart rate readings were collected at rest and on the treadmill at two, three, four, five, and six miles per hour. Users exercised at each level for three minutes before heart rate was recorded. Recorded heart rates ranged from 49 to 200 beats per minute (bpm). Compared to the ECG, the heart rate monitors had variable accuracy. The Basis Peak, which is no longer commercially available, overestimated heart rate by roughly eight bpm during moderate exercise. The Fitbit Charge HR underestimated during more vigorous exercise, by about six or seven bpm. The Apple Watch AAPL -0.07% and Mio Fuse had 95% of their heart rate readings fall within a range of 27 to 29 bpm over or under the ECR reading, a slightly smaller range than the Fitbit or the Basis Peak, as reported in JAMA Cardiology. The companies that make the wrist monitors do not claim that they are medical devices, Gillinov said. “They should not be used to diagnose or treat anything, you can’t count on them in that context,” he said. Aaron Coleman, CEO and founder of Fitabase, Fitbit’s FIT 0.00% longtime clinical research partner, told Reuters Health he thinks the results aren’t too bad, especially considering the wrist-worn devices are being compared to a research-grade device, a chest strap that would be unwieldy for any casual athlete to wear. In general, the further away from the heart a body monitor is located, the more variation there will be in heart rate readings, he said. |
