Heart Rate compared to Holter ECG

[Jeff_Holter_ECG]

Holter 72 hour ECG reported a 7-beat run average rate of 150 bpm.

Compare this finding with Fitbit Data file of heart-rate. A heart rate of 150+ for 6 samples (at 5 seconds samples) hence 30 seconds of sustained 150+ heart rate. This can also be stated in heart beats. 5 second sample at 150 bpm corresponds to approx. 12.5 beats between samples. So the 150+ heart rate occurred for 75 heart beats.

Holter (considered the gold standard) suggests the Fitbit data is completely wrong and maybe misleading.

Anyone else seeing similar findings?? 

[LZeeW]

Hi @Jeff_Holter_ECG    Every Fitbit will be different from a Holter ECG.  An ECG tracks electrical impulses in the heart.  An optical heart rate monitor (OHRM) looks for pulsations in tiny blood vessels under the skin.  There are many reasons why an OHRM will be different from an ECG.  A Holter is a medical grade ECG.  Fitbit says that its OHRM data is for health and fitness goals and are not designed as scientific or medical purposes.

[Jeff_Holter_ECG]

[image: image.png]
That may be so, but SCARY!
The above chart showed a heart rate of 150+ bpm for 352 seconds of 191
samples or 950 beats at 150 bpm. Data taken from Fitbit data download.
timestamp convert to AEST from UTZ timestamp.

I have over 3 years of recorded heart rate fitbit data (part of a
research program for dementia).

[image: image.png]

As you can see, many high values of heart rate, with
consistent exercise routines of walking , elliptical & weights (consistent
effort & duration) lasting for many minutes .
White papers on Fitbit compared to ECG reading suggests "fairly good
correlation with possible Fitbit lag of high heart rates" considering the
sample time of fitbit.

Sorry to be a pain, I understand Fitbit is not a medical device, but many
people are using it as an indication that they should seek
medical attention.

[LZeeW]

@Jeff_Holter_ECG   Your images didn't come through.  I can't tell what point you are trying to make.

I hope this explanation makes sense.  A Holter monitor will count every heart beat.  The heart fills with blood in between two heart beats.  When two (or more) heart beats come close to each other, not enough blood gets pumped out to create a pulsation at your wrist.

[Jeff_Holter_ECG]

Thanks but if "not enough blood gets pumped out to create a pulsation at
your wrist", then I would expect to see a lower heart rate and not heart
rates at spikes of 170+.

My doctor tells me that my Fitbit is producing many high heart rate spikes
that are not real and he suggests my real heart rate is much lower.

I believe I have ventricular ectopics / supraventricular ectopics confirmed
for one 7 beats with 72 hour Holter monitor. My doctor believes these are
rare events.

I am trying to convince my doctor that these high heart rates events are
not rare but occur many times during a months hence my use of Fitbit

Since my big spikes are random during exercise activity and may not occur
for many days I have been trying to use Fitbit to help me monitor these.

So my exercise routine (walk, weights & elliptical) are the same each time.
That is the same distance, same route, same effort, same weights, same load
etc. This is done on purpose .

For example, a 30 minute walk at 6:00 pm can produce heart rate max of
119bpm, 133bpm, 121 bpm, *176* bpm, 154 bpm. Most in the range 119 to 130
bpm. (recorded over 1000 days)

*I believe my next step* is to pay for a *Holter monitor* for at least a
few weeks - hard & expensive or buy and use a *Polar H10* to monitor heart
rate (suggested higher accuracy than a Fitbit and similar watches).

*Sorry* to keep replying but I would love to prove that the Fitbit readings
are real and not just random spikes.

As I said before I have reviewed many medical white papers on both the
Fitbit and ECG and these reports suggest if anything the Fitbit reading
will slightly lag behind and will be a little lower than the ECG but
basically accurate.

One interesting point, while doing a ECG stress test with my doctor the ECG
heart rate and the Fitbit heart rate were the same value.

Regards Jeff

[Jeff_Holter_ECG]

So I purchase a Polar H10 Heart rate sensor and went for a 64 minute walk. Fitbit recorded avg heart rate of 106 bpm with max of 158 bpm with heart rate above 130 bpm for 3 minute.

Compare this with The Holter H10  report - avg heart rate 87 bpm, max heart rate 101 bpm. Zone readings show 0% in zone5 (130 bpm & above), 0% in zone 4 (115 to 130 bpm), 1% in zone 3 (101 to 115 bpm), 59% in zone 2 (86 to 101 bpm) and 40% in zone 1 (72 to 86 bpm).

I will continue the comparison for a few months, but it seems my fitbit is way out.

Good news for the condition of my heart.

The Holter H10 uses electrical signal like an ECG, not as good but by all accounts between that all watches.