Why is the heartrate recorded in the ECG so much higher than that reported from the HR sensor. Also, how can the HR sensor truly be continuous when it is set and does not record continuously?
An ECG in the hospital is more accurate that checking HR with a sensor. It would require alot of battery power for continuous monitoring. The nurse on a stick at the hospital has a huge battery and it must stay plugged in with continuous HR.
No I got your point and gave you the answer for your first question HR difference between too. And it's impossible to do continous with a smallish battery even if you set it. Movement, contact surface, body temperature all have an effect..
I was giving you and example to make it clear about ECG and stand alone HR. ECG is more accurate. HR can change moment to moment just Like BP. That's why you see differences. Quality medical grade ECG and HR monitors will show a different number so you expect a watch to be any different...
One watch. Two distinctly different reports of the same parameter (HR). AND there is a setting for 'continuous', but there are gaps in the data even when set.
Outside of an emergency setting or extreme physical activity, continuous recording of heart rate is not a necessity. If you're resting and your heart rate right now is say 65BPM and you aren't doing anything else. Your heart rate will most likely be 65BPM in 10 minutes as well. What would be cool is if it measured %HRR.
As far as continuous HR, I was talking about gaps in my HR data during a workout. I walk every day and have for 6 years since my heart required some spare parts. This isn't a new topic, but seems it hasn't been resolved.
As far as the difference in readings that I was talking about, if I'm sitting and my Heart Rate goes up, I can feel it. So I look at the reading. Let's say it reads 85. SO... I do an ECG (WITH THE WATCH) and It says the HR is 120. Those are the differences I was talking about... nothing to do with different equipment. BOTH ARE FROM THE WATCH!
