Researchers at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona have released a study that reported: “Fitbit PurePulse Trackers do not provide a valid measure of the users’ heart rate.”
The study tested the accuracy of Fitbit’s PurePulse heart rate monitoring technology in the company’s fitness trackers; the Fitbit Charge HR and the Fitbit Surge.
The researchers compared the PurePulse’s heart monitoring capabilities to those recorded by Zephyr Bioharness, a time-synced electrocardiogram (ECG), and found there to be a 20 beats per minute discrepancy.
However, the study which found that the PurePulse, “cannot be used to provide a meaningful estimate of a user’s heart rate,” was funded by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, the law firm leading the charge against Fitbit in a suit that claims Fitbit misled users, Fortune reported.
Jonathan Selbin, partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, said to the Daily Mail: “Our claim is that Fitbit knowingly marketed and sold devices equipped with the PurePulse technology that do not in fact accurately measure heart rates.”
However, in an email to Fortune Fitbit highlighted: “[The study] was paid for by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing Fitbit and was conducted with a consumer-grade electrocardiogram – not a true clinical device, as implied by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
“Furthermore, there is no evidence the device used in the purported ‘study’ was tested for accuracy.”
The company went on to note that Consumer Reports independently tested the Charge HR’s and Surge’s PurePulse heart rate tracking earlier this year and gave the products “excellent” ratings.
Yet Selbin highlighted that the testing Fitbit is referring to was paid for by Fitbit and that the results of those tests are not readily available. He said: “We have asked for them but they have refused.
“And, note that Fitbit never quite says those tests actually support their claim that the devices accurately measure heart rates during exercise.”
“It [Fitbit] charged more – a price premium – for the wearables with the PurePulse than those without. For example, the Charge HR typically cost $20 more than the regular Charge. That’s classic consumer fraud.”
But Fitbit pushed back against the report in its email to Fortune. The company said that the California State Polytechnic University’s study was “flawed” in its methodology and “nothing more than an attempt to extract a pay-out from Fitbit.”
The post Pulses racing: Fitbit denies claims that its heart rate monitor is inaccurate appeared first on .