Actually all devices are super accurate when measuring still HR, the issue is the continuous measurement when you move around, walk or train. Then the differences become HUGE. About spo2 most watches are tuned to show okish results in the healthy range 95% and above. When I hold my breath for 90secsonds for example the bad ones still show 95% while the good ones are in the 80% range. I have a dedicated medical equipment to measure and compare btw. So all those tests look promising at first glance, but actually they don't mean anything...
A heart rate sensor on a sport watch really should be tested when you are doing sport. Most watches can get an accurate reading when you are sitting still but when running, riding a bike etc and it’s shaking around on your wrist, that is when it will show if it is a good sensor or not.
@@VelianSpeaksTech Yeah good to have a baseline but to test it properly you need to do an actual run or bike ride and record it along with a chest strap (since they are usually very accurate) and then compare.
@VelianSpeaksTech Actually u can do approx. Test. Just start running and after a while sprint ur heart out for 30sec and look at your watch quickly, samsung is so bad that if u look after the sprint, it will take its sweet time raising the HR above 170. And if it raises or lower down your hr initiated than old watch problem is solved. I have 5 pro and it cannot track sudden change of hr.
@@sidha22 “The quantified scientist” just released his initial look at Samsungs new watches and just like normal, they are very bad for HR, sleep tracking and even GPS is shaky.
Correction, a pulse oximeter that is bought over the counter is no where near as accurate as those used in a hospital. Do some research before making misleading comments.
I don't think there's an issue measuring all these parameters while you're not moving. The real question is how well it tracks your heart rate during workouts, especially when you're cycling or doing resistance exercises. Another thing to consider is how quickly it can detect sudden changes in your heart rate during a workout.
It seems that is performs strangely, check here th-cam.com/video/F_pDY47RxE4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=nx1cePXOwCt700bM Indoor HR tracking for cycling is bad. Outdoor HR tracking is better. We will know more sure.
It’s important to have accuracy during activities. Such correlating results during standstill should not be anything more than basic needs that should be correct by default. Isn’t it?
A baseline is required even for basic tracking. th-cam.com/video/F_pDY47RxE4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=nx1cePXOwCt700bM The interesting point is that the HR is more or less un par conapres to an external HR monitor (check video above). But what is strange is that indoor HR tracking for cycling is worse, and the outdoor cycling HR tracking is better, which doesn't make sense at the moment, but I'll guess we will know very soon.
This oxymetter is garbage, I have one and it sometimes records half of my pulses and I can tell because I see the graph while i have my finger on my hand vein and they don't match .. idk wich oxymeter is better to try but this one is bad.
![Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra vs Galaxy Watch 5 Pro - WHICH ONE IS BETTER [THE TRUTH]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XyjAbkdWGM8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra vs Galaxy Watch 5 Pro - WHICH ONE IS BETTER [THE TRUTH]](/img/tr.png)
Finally, someone tested this out.
🫡
Actually all devices are super accurate when measuring still HR, the issue is the continuous measurement when you move around, walk or train. Then the differences become HUGE. About spo2 most watches are tuned to show okish results in the healthy range 95% and above. When I hold my breath for 90secsonds for example the bad ones still show 95% while the good ones are in the 80% range. I have a dedicated medical equipment to measure and compare btw. So all those tests look promising at first glance, but actually they don't mean anything...
Your coverage of the Ultra has been terrific. Great stuff!
Tnx man, I try my best, some like it, some not, that's okay but I am happy you like it!
A heart rate sensor on a sport watch really should be tested when you are doing sport. Most watches can get an accurate reading when you are sitting still but when running, riding a bike etc and it’s shaking around on your wrist, that is when it will show if it is a good sensor or not.
Makes sense, but it was important to check a baseline. I also did some physical activity to elevate the HR and see if the watch would pick that up.
@@VelianSpeaksTech Yeah good to have a baseline but to test it properly you need to do an actual run or bike ride and record it along with a chest strap (since they are usually very accurate) and then compare.
Yes, a proper Garmin HR on the chest is required for this, but I don't own one sadly...
@VelianSpeaksTech Actually u can do approx. Test. Just start running and after a while sprint ur heart out for 30sec and look at your watch quickly, samsung is so bad that if u look after the sprint, it will take its sweet time raising the HR above 170. And if it raises or lower down your hr initiated than old watch problem is solved. I have 5 pro and it cannot track sudden change of hr.
@@sidha22 “The quantified scientist” just released his initial look at Samsungs new watches and just like normal, they are very bad for HR, sleep tracking and even GPS is shaky.
What do you think?
Correction, a pulse oximeter that is bought over the counter is no where near as accurate as those used in a hospital. Do some research before making misleading comments.
Thanks so much for testing
I don't think there's an issue measuring all these parameters while you're not moving. The real question is how well it tracks your heart rate during workouts, especially when you're cycling or doing resistance exercises. Another thing to consider is how quickly it can detect sudden changes in your heart rate during a workout.
It seems that is performs strangely, check here
th-cam.com/video/F_pDY47RxE4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=nx1cePXOwCt700bM
Indoor HR tracking for cycling is bad. Outdoor HR tracking is better. We will know more sure.
@VelianSpeaksTech im disappointed to be honest, I hope the software updates fixes the issue but going of older watches most unlikely.
It’s important to have accuracy during activities. Such correlating results during standstill should not be anything more than basic needs that should be correct by default. Isn’t it?
A baseline is required even for basic tracking.
th-cam.com/video/F_pDY47RxE4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=nx1cePXOwCt700bM
The interesting point is that the HR is more or less un par conapres to an external HR monitor (check video above). But what is strange is that indoor HR tracking for cycling is worse, and the outdoor cycling HR tracking is better, which doesn't make sense at the moment, but I'll guess we will know very soon.
Amazing review thx 💙
Check the quantified scientist for a real test. I'm a user of the Watch 5 pro and the Galaxy watch Ultra did not do good with testing.
Just watch the testing that was done while actually doing an activity. The Galaxy watch Ultra was not good.
This oxymetter is garbage, I have one and it sometimes records half of my pulses and I can tell because I see the graph while i have my finger on my hand vein and they don't match .. idk wich oxymeter is better to try but this one is bad.
not really useful. Should be tested when doing workouts.
94% kevés
You make too many videos. And they're all piecemeal