Validation of Garmin and Polar Devices for Continuous Heart Rate Monitoring During Common Training Movements in Tactical Populations
Justin J. Merrigan, J. Hannah Stovall, Jason D. Stone, Mark Stephenson, Victor Finomore, Joshua A. Hagen
Abstract
Heart rate samples (n = 4500–8000) from wearables were compared to electrocardiography during a steady-state ruck (Ruck-S), maximal effort ruck (Ruck-M), submaximal cycle (Cycle), and Tabata Circuit. One device was worn at each location (wrist: Polar Grit-X, Garmin Fenix 6; chest-straps: Polar H10, Garmin HRM-Pro; armband: Polar Verity). Comparisons were made via percent error (MAPE) ≤5%, Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), and ordinary least product regressions (OLP). H10 demonstrated strong agreement for all movements (MAPE = 1.28–3.40%, CCC = 0.93–0.99). During Ruck-S, Ruck-M, and Cycle, HRM-Pro (MAPE = 1.96–3.73%, CCC = 0.95–0.99) and Verity (MAPE = 1.84–5.36%, CCC = 0.98–0.99) demonstrated strong agreement. Fenix-6 demonstrated low MAPE (4.23–5.44%) and moderate to strong CCC (0.76–0.96) for Ruck-S, Ruck-M, and Cycle, while Grit-X had poor agreement (MAPE = 8.49–16.45%; CCC = 0.24–0.78). Tabata Circuit had the worst disagreement for all devices. Overall, chest straps and armbands demonstrated the strongest agreement, and should be worn when precise heart rate training is necessary.