Advances in Applied Physiology

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

Heart Rate Variability: A Longitudinal Comparison of Commercial Devices for Individual and Group Stress-Response

The collection of heart rate variability (HRV) for health and performance observations have become prominent. However, each wearable device has proprietary algorithms that govern methods and timing of HRV capture and subsequent analysis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate HRV metrics taken from three, commonly used commercial wearables, and identify reliability and relationships to one another over time. Methods: Twenty-five subjects (18 males; 7 females) with ages ranging from 23 to 41 years (32.70 ± 4.65 years) were included in this study. These subjects were participants in a 12-week exercise intervention study. Each subject was equipped with a Whoop Strap (v2.0), the Garmin Fenix 5 Smartwatch and chest strap, and the Omegawave chest strap and sensor. Statistical Analysis: Between and within-subject correlations were calculated as well as average correlations, descriptive and inferential statistics, and the resultant z-score, which was transformed back into a correlation. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. Finally, linear mixed models were used to evaluate trends in HRV. Results: Within-subject correlations (0.24 ± 0.27) were lower than between-subjects correlations (0.54 ± 0.43), t (35) = -4.02, p < 0.001. Garmin HRV Stress, Whoop RMSSD, Omegawave SDNN, and Omegawave RMSSD yielded an ICC between 0.65 and 0.75. Garmin All-day stress, Garmin prior all-day stress, and Omegawave LF/HF yielded an ICC of 0.30 and 0.37. To test the effects of day of the week on HRV, we fitted linear mixed models to HRV metrics from three of the identified communities related to ICC: Omegawave RMSSD (moderate to high ICC), Omegawave LF/HF (low to moderate ICC), and Whoop recovery score (very low ICC). There was a main effect of gender on Omegawave RMSSD (p = 0.020) and a negative effect of day of the week (p = 0.030). Day of the week was the only significant predictor of Whoop recovery score (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The correlations of HRV values remain more consistent when assessed at similar times of the day, rather than being device dependent. Regardless of which wearable device is considered, HRV measures should be collected at a specific time each day for the best reliability. When creating an individualized or group exercise program, the human performance specialist should be aware that fatigue may become increasingly evident during the course of each week (e.g. individuals demonstrably fatigued by Friday may exhibit physiological indicators of relative recovery by Monday).

Heart Rate Variability, Wearables, RMSSD, SDNN

Kaela Hierholzer, Robert Briggs, Michael Tolston, Nicholas Mackowski, Jason Eckerle, et al. (2022). Heart Rate Variability: A Longitudinal Comparison of Commercial Devices for Individual and Group Stress-Response. Advances in Applied Physiology, 7(2), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aap.20220702.12

Copyright © 2022 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Billman, G. E. (2011). Heart rate variability – a historical perspective. Clinical and Translational Physiology, 2 (96), 1-13.
2. Barrero, A., Schnell, F., Carrault, G., Kervio, G., Matelot, D., Carre, F., Lahaye, S. L. (2019). Daily fatigue-recovery balance monitoring with heart rate variability in well-trained female cyclists on the Tour de France circuit. PLOS ONE, 14 (3).
3. Plews, D. J., Laursen, P. B., Stanley, J., Kilding, A. E., & Buchheit, M. Training adaptation and heart rate variability in elite endurance athletes: Opening the door to effective monitoring. Sports Medicine, 43, 773-781.
4. Task Force of The European Society of Cardiology. (1996). Heart rate variability. European Heart Journal, 17, 354-381.
5. Jung, W., Jang, K., & Lee, S. (2019). Heart and brain interaction of psychiatric illness: A review focused on heart rate variability, cognitive function, and quantitative electroencephalography. Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience, 17 (4), 459-474.
6. Dong, J. (2016). The role of heart rate variability in sports physiology (review). Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 11 (5), 1531-1536.
7. Schuurmans, A. T., de Loof, P., Nijhof, K. S., Rosada, C., Sholte, R. H., Popma, A., & Otten, R. (2020). Validity of the Empatica E4 wristband to measure heart rate variability (HRV) parameters: A comparison to electrocardiography (ECG). Journal of Medical Systems, 44 (190), 1-11.
8. Shaffer, F. & Ginsberg, J. P. (2017). An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms. Frontiers in Public Health, 5 (258).
9. Shaffer, F., McCraty, R., & Zerr, C. L. (2014). A healthy heart is not a metronome: An integrative review of the heart’s anatomy and heart rate variability. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1040.
10. McCraty, R. & Shaffer, F. (2015). Heart rate variability: New perspectives on physiological mechanisms, assessment of self-regulatory capacity, and health risk. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 4 (1), 46-61.
11. Billman, G. E. (2013). The LF/HF ratio does not accurately measure cardiac sympatho-vagal balance. Frontiers in Physiology, 4, 26.
12. Firstbeat Technologies Ltd. (2014). Stress and recovery analysis method based on 24-hour heart rate variability. White Paper by Firstbeat Technologies Ltd., 1-13.
13. Garmin Ltd. (2021). Fenix® 5 Specs. Garmin. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/552982#specs.
14. Firstbeat Technologies Ltd. (2019). A sleep analysis method based on heart rate variability. White Paper by Firstbeat Technologies Ltd., 1-7.
15. Whoop, Inc. (2021). Experience Whoop. WHOOP. https://www.whoop.com/experience/.
16. Omegawave, Inc. (2021). Omegawave. Omegawave. https://www.omegawave.com.
17. Tolston, M. T., O’Connor, M., Mackowski, N., & Strang, A. J. (2019). Evaluating the structural and temporal aspects of responses to a short daily wellness questionnaire. Poster presented at the 2019 INFORMS Annual Meeting. Seattle, WA.
18. Bakdash, J. Z. & Marusich, L. R. (2107). Repeated measures correlation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 456.
19. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R. & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 10, P10008.
20. Unetami, K. Singer, D. H., McCraty, R. & Atkinson, M. (1998). Twenty-four hour time domain heart rate variability and heart rate: Relations to age and gender over nine decades. Journals of American College of Cardiology, 31 (3), 593-601.
21. Saleem, S., Hussain, M. M., Majeed, S. M., & Khan, M. A. (2012). Gender differences of heart rate variability in healthy volunteers. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 62 (5), 422.
22. Van Deusen, M. (2019, September 30). Everything You Need to Know About Heart Rate Variability (HRV). WHOOP. https://www.whoop.com/thelocker/heart-rate-variability-hrv/.
23. Hierholzer, K., Briggs, R., Tolston, M., Mackowski, N., O’Connor, M., Barrett, K., Strang, A. (2022). Heart Rate Variability Metrics from Commercial Devices Predicts Strength and Cardiovascular Performance in a Military Cohort. American Journal of Sports Science, 10 (1), 14.