International journal of sports physiology and performance · 2025
Limited Validity of the Low-Cost Coospo H808S Heart-Rate Monitor Compared to the Polar H10.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Protzen Gabriel, Riesco-Villar José, González-Fernández Alejandro, Escribano-Pascual Aaron, Boullosa Daniel
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study assessed the validity and agreement of the low-cost Coospo H808S chest-strap heart-rate (HR) monitor compared with the Polar H10 during varied conditions.
METHODS: Fifteen recreational runners (25 [5] y) participated in the study. Each participant wore both the Polar H10 and Coospo H808S simultaneously, with strap placement randomized. HR and HR variability (HRV) were recorded for 5 minutes in 3 conditions: supine, seated, and low-intensity running (rating of perceived exertion 2-3/10). The last 4 minutes of each recording were analyzed using Kubios HRV software, with both raw and medium-filtered data. Agreement between devices was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: The raw data of the Coospo H808S demonstrated excellent agreement with the Polar H10 for HR and HRV in the supine condition (ICC > .96, P < .001). In the seated position, agreement remained excellent (ICC > .99, P < .001). During running, the HR agreement slightly decreased (ICC = .94, mean bias = -2.35), and root mean square of successive difference showed a marked reduction to poor agreement (ICC = -.24, mean bias = +17.6 milliseconds). After applying the filtering to the running HRV data, the agreement remained poor (ICC = .13, mean bias = -5.1 milliseconds).
CONCLUSIONS: The Coospo H808S is a low-cost valid alternative to the Polar H10 for HR and HRV assessments in resting conditions and HR during running, but it presents divergences during low-intensity running for time-domain vagally related HRV indices. Researchers and practitioners should be cautious when using HRV data from low-cost monitors in dynamic conditions.
METHODS: Fifteen recreational runners (25 [5] y) participated in the study. Each participant wore both the Polar H10 and Coospo H808S simultaneously, with strap placement randomized. HR and HR variability (HRV) were recorded for 5 minutes in 3 conditions: supine, seated, and low-intensity running (rating of perceived exertion 2-3/10). The last 4 minutes of each recording were analyzed using Kubios HRV software, with both raw and medium-filtered data. Agreement between devices was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: The raw data of the Coospo H808S demonstrated excellent agreement with the Polar H10 for HR and HRV in the supine condition (ICC > .96, P < .001). In the seated position, agreement remained excellent (ICC > .99, P < .001). During running, the HR agreement slightly decreased (ICC = .94, mean bias = -2.35), and root mean square of successive difference showed a marked reduction to poor agreement (ICC = -.24, mean bias = +17.6 milliseconds). After applying the filtering to the running HRV data, the agreement remained poor (ICC = .13, mean bias = -5.1 milliseconds).
CONCLUSIONS: The Coospo H808S is a low-cost valid alternative to the Polar H10 for HR and HRV assessments in resting conditions and HR during running, but it presents divergences during low-intensity running for time-domain vagally related HRV indices. Researchers and practitioners should be cautious when using HRV data from low-cost monitors in dynamic conditions.