Smartwatch or Fitness band under 5k with Good HR/BP measurement
- Thread starter dexterz
- Start date
For measuring BP you need a good brand smartwatch , look for 2nd hand Galaxy Watch 3 or there are New watch 4 on discount in classified section.
Good deal for watch 3 https://www.desidime.com/deals/sams...er-strap-09d1b5cd-4c18-4698-bf85-4b0165b9071a
Good deal for watch 3 https://www.desidime.com/deals/sams...er-strap-09d1b5cd-4c18-4698-bf85-4b0165b9071a
Smart watches can never give accurate blood pressure because they aren't able to directly measure it. They can only estimate blood pressure using multiple different methods (because it is not physically possible for a watch to directly measure BP) and there will always be 10-20% offset from the actual BP. On the other hand, they can directly measure HR which is quite accurate. (You can also measure HR by keeping a finger on radial artery and counting for one minute. Not so much with BP)
Even entry level watches give sufficiently accurate HR measurements.
Even entry level watches give sufficiently accurate HR measurements.
desiibond
Skilled
No, entry level watches give very inaccurate measurement when you are not idle. When you do workouts or running or cycling, watch does not have perfect contact with skin and it causes these cheap ones to give inaccurate reading. I had amazfit get 2e before I got the apppe watch. Gtr was so bad when I cycle that it would just stop recording HR.
Check the quantified scientist YouTube reviews on bands and watches. You won’t get better data anywhere else. Straightaway avoid noise and boat shit.
Yes, true. I didn't think about reading when not idle.
sauravghosh
Adept
Buy dedicated instruments for the purpose, smart-watches/bands are toys.
blr_p
Skilled
Omron costs less and will give a BP reaading within 3mm mercury if you follow their instructions.
If you need to monitor BP then use this on a regular basis and log the readings in an app. For BP data measured over time or trends is what will give you a better idea.
Use the watch if you want but you must have redundancy and a strong second opinion to compare with
Pulse rates i think these things can do. So for training sessions they are quite good.
What is your intention ? health monitoring or training performance.
Former was discussed already. Latter is a niche case with some utility with these gadgets
Last edited:
desiibond
Skilled
Please do not generalize without having data in hand. There are couple of watches and bands that are very accurate. Huawei Band 6 and 7 are great budget bands, for example. Fitbit and Garmin and Apple watches are among the best.
Here is a proper test on Huawei Band 7:
I would say this is true for BP and ECG but it cannot be generalised like this. Smart watches have gotten pretty good at HR, SpO2, etc.
sauravghosh
Adept
I have a medical grade oximeter now and I had Honor Bands and some Mi band as well. SpO2 readings were vastly inaccurate. HR was fairly accurate but up to 90 bpm only. My data is my own experience. If anyone has even the slightest interest of taking these measurements seriously, then one should go for medical devices and not these toys. And I didn't even mean BP or ECG there. Don't have Apple watch, so no comments about that.
How did you reach this conclusion? Just wondering, because these readings fluctuate a lot.
desiibond
Skilled
Forget about SpO2 readings. If you have tested Honor Band and Mi band and found it to be inaccurate, yes, I do agree on that (based on input I had on my own and based on data from channels when they compared these with medical grade devices). I have used both Honor Band 5, mom uses Mi Band and they are average at best, just like any low cost bands. These are meant to be pedometers and not meant to be used to monitor heart rate. But this does not mean that you generalize smartwatches and bands as toys. If you have not tested other devices with a proper chest strap HR monitor, you cannot comment on those. This is why I suggested the OP to look at the data from the youtube channel where the guy uses Polar H10 as a reference and shows proper comparison 'without generalizing'.
Last edited:
Which oximeter do you use.
sauravghosh
Adept
By comparing them side by side? The oximeter and the bloody band? I have a mother with a heart condition. I was foolish enough to believe that a smartband will at least be able to measure the HR somewhat accurately. But it couldn't even detect HR beyond 90 when in reality mum's was above 150. Then I checked my own HR several times. It's a meaningless argument really, an oximeter and a smart band cannot even be compared. Instead of throwing away the band in the bin I sold it on this very forum, only because I am going through a financial drought.
And to others, I have watched that Austrian doctorate fellow's reviews and probably started watching them much before others. It's funny someone seems to be hurt as I called them toys. Even more funny is how the word generalise is being generalised nowadays. I could care less what people use, OP asked for an accurate product, hence I bothered. I wasted money behind these 'toys', so I just wanted others to be aware of that before making a decision. This is why I stay away from topics seeking suggestions. Thanks for the reminder.
@Arjun Choicemmed md300c20.
blr_p
Skilled
Don't agree with SpO2
Even dedicated pulse oximeters can be tricked if hand is too cold or sweaty.
SpO2 is not a even direct measurement, it is just an estimation, and I was saying that smartwatches have gotten pretty good at estimating it, and dedicated pulse ox are even better but both cannot be fully relied upon as they have their limitations, sometimes very big limitations.
As you have said, they can be tricked when hands are cold (because peripheral vasoconstricion happens due to hyothermia and that reduces the amount of blood reaching the finger), nail paint application prevents enough light to pass thought the finger affecting the measurement (in transmissive pulse ox), hypotension or low cardiac output can cause reduced peripheral perfusion, patients who are smokers have high spo2 reading because of increased carbon monooxide in their blood, pairtents with very dark skin have increased reading with reflective pulse ox, improper use can cause false readings (patients tend to clamp it tightly on their fingers to get more accurate reading but that occludes the vessels, hence affecting the reading, sweaty fnigers, hairy arm (in reflectance based pulse ox), improper use (moving too much/improper contact between sensor and skin) cause motion artefacts which are more common in reflective type pulse ox, there are so many other limitations that aren't coming to my mind right now. Whenever there is an actual doubt regarding hypoxemia, an arterial blood gas analysis is done to be sure, but that is an invasive procedure and has its own limitations.
I'm not disagreeing, all I'm saying is a pulse ox (weather reflective or transmittive) does an estimation and can never report absolute value but they have gotten pretty good (transmittance once) that they are commonly accepted in clinics even though they never report absolute value and have so many limitations.
Everything has pros and cons, Pulse Ox is non-invasive, quick, cheap, no setup required, does not require any cost per test, does not require much skill to use, no complications, etc. On the other hand ABG gives almost absolute value but it is invasive process, requires much skill to draw arterial blood, has associated complications, requires costly machine, per test cost is there (kit cost), etc. Pulse Ox are approx 95% accurate so we trade the 5% inaccuracy with the added benefits of pulse ox.
Smart watche SpO2 are less accurate than transmittance based pulseox, so lets say they are 90% accurate (just an estimation, maybe they are 85% accurate, maybe 92% accurate) still they are not going to report a 85% on RA patient to be 97%. This is what I was trying to say. Any indirect measurement should never be relied upon when there is a medical doubt / impending emergency, that's why there are other higher testing methods. But SpO2 indirect measurements have gotten considerably good that it will, almost in all the cases, report something before there is anything serious or before some medical intervention is required.
Similarly, we should try to get direct measurements wherever possible, like heart rate can be very easily measured by counting pulse for 60 seconds. It will surely differenciate between 90bpm vs 150bmp. Critical values should always be double checked. Smart watches have their limitations and should not be relied upon in critical / medical cased but they are def more than just toys. Apple watch can even get ECG (although just one lead (only lead 1), in hospitals 12 lead ECG is done) but that lead-1 ECG is combined with multiple other factors to enhance its accuracy and it can very well measure the actual electrical activity of heart and tell about A. Fib or some other irregular rhythms and alert the wearer to go to clinic or something.
Last edited:
desiibond
Skilled
Agree with your point. Cheap bands are just pedometers and clock at best. It is indeed n00bish to think that a Mi or cheap band is good for one with heart condition. I have a friend with heart condition and he wanted to buy an Apple Watch. I told him not to rely on Apple Watch and instead check with his doctor (told him to use a chest strap HR monitor). Call out what worksand what does not. I purchased Apple Watch because I need very good HR tracking as I do lot of cycling and workouts.
Your statement: Buy dedicated instruments for the purpose, smart-watches/bands are toys. <-- this is generalizing. There is no other way to look at it. Your statement is like 'my ultra low budget phone takes bad photos so all phones are toys, though better phones take better photos and does lot more'.
A more reasonal statement: Do not buy cheap bands/watch, they are inaccurate. <-- Fairly accurate as they cannot cram in an accurate sensor and they do not have that kind of budget to bring accuracy. Yet, one good band can change everything as sensors are getting better and better. Newer Huawei/Honor bands are much better than the one that I had used (that was Honor band which was a rebranded Huawei band).
You can say all that you want about 'others' who you think are hurt. All I ask you is : provide your suggestion without 'generalizing'. You had problem with specific bands, call it out and name those devices. If you are not sure what the use case is, ask OP to give more detail on use cases. Then you suggest, if you can.
sauravghosh
Adept
Bruv this is an awful analogy. Hilarious too.
My experience is limited with Honor Band 5, Huawei Watch Fit and Mi Band 2. The last one was released long ago, so I don't even remember it but I sold it in like within few weeks of owning it. Honor band 5 is the one I bought during COVID as oximeter prices had remained insane. The Watch Fit I bought because I simply wanted a square shaped watch as it fits my wrist better. I still have it btw, use it from time to time, only for the notifications on my wrist. It's going on sale very soon.
Both the Huawei/Honor bands are/were vastly inaccurate, erratic thus extremely unreliable with respect to HR alone. SpO2, I won't even go that far. And OP here asked for BP, so there's that. I don't need to know his uses cases, BP monitoring is BP monitoring. If OP wants a product which shows random readings, then sure go for them 20k Samsung watches, it will show some reading. But for generalising and unsmart people like me I'm fine with my Omron BP machine and oximeter, whose combined cost is almost the same as the Watch Fit I bought. I was wrong in calling these stuffs toys, keeping the price factor in mind, they should be called fancy toys, Missed the adjective.
Carry on. Adios.