Examining the Accuracy of the Polar A360 Monitor. Issue 8 (August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rider, Brian C.; Conger, Scott A.; Ditzenberger, Grace L.; Besteman, Summer S.; Bouret, Claire M.; Coughlin, Adam M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of strength and conditioning research. Volume 35:Issue 8(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-08
• Subjects: watch -- heart rate -- photoplethysmography; Physical education and training -- Periodicals; Weight training -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Physical fitness -- Periodicals; 613.7
• DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003136
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1064-8011

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: Rider, BC, Conger, SA, Ditzenberger, GL, Besteman, SS, Bouret, CM, and Coughlin, AM. Examining the accuracy of the Polar A360 monitor. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2165–2169, 2021—The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the Polar A360 heart rate (HR) monitor during periods of rest, walking/running, and active/passive recovery from exercise. Thirty collegiate athletes (women n = 15 and men n = 15) wore an A360 monitor and a previously validated chest HR monitor (Polar RS400) that served as the criterion measurement across a range of resting and walking/running intensities. First, subjects rested in a supine, seated, and standing position. Next, each subject walked on a treadmill at 1.6 kilometers per hour (kph). Speed was increased by 1.6 kph every 2 minutes until volitional fatigue. Then, subjects walked at 4.8 kph followed by a seated recovery stage. Heart rate was recorded in 30-second increments. Total mean difference in HR readings, percent accuracy, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis established the level of agreement between devices. Bland-Altman plots and a regression were used to examine the agreement between devices. The A360 demonstrated a strong correlation with the RS400 ( r 2 = 0.98) across time points. The analysis of variance with repeated measures indicated an overall significant difference ( p < 0.001) between devices. The A360 significantly underestimated HR during the 6.4-kph speed only ( p < 0.05) (effect size 0.26). The greatest percent accuracy occurred during rest (91%) and recovery (90%). An ICC of 0.98 ( SEM : 0.35) demonstrates a strong level of agreement between devices. The A360 is accurate at rest and during various walking and running speeds and thus is a device that can be used with confidence by athletes for specific training purposes. Future research should examine accuracy during weight training and other sport-specific activities.