This summary of the video was created by an AI. It might contain some inaccuracies.
00:00:00 – 00:22:14
In the video, Rob thoroughly evaluates the Fitbit Charge 6, focusing on heart rate tracking, sleep stage detection, GPS performance, and overall utility compared to other devices like the Charge 5, Pixel Watch 2, and Apple Watches.
The Charge 6 demonstrates notable improvements in heart rate monitoring, attributed to a new machine learning algorithm, despite utilizing the same sensors as its predecessor. During various physical activities such as indoor and outdoor cycling, spinning, weightlifting, and running, the Charge 6 shows high correlation with the reliable Polar H10 ECG chest strap, although slight deviations are noted, particularly at lower heart rates and in certain weightlifting sessions due to wrist tension. Compared against nearly 70 other devices, it consistently outperforms its predecessor and holds its ground against top competitors, though its running performance has some deviations.
For sleep stage tracking, the Charge 6 is evaluated against the zMAX EEG headband. It demonstrates reasonable accuracy, especially in REM sleep detection, despite some discrepancies in timing and lower agreement in wake-time detection. The comparison reveals that while it generally performs well, recognizing the start of sleep accurately remains a challenge.
In contrast, the GPS tracking of the Charge 6 is found lacking. Tests show significant deviations in route tracking, resulting in a preliminary low rating of 2.5 out of 5 stars. The video concludes with an overall rating of 3.5 out of 5 stars for the Charge 6, suggesting that depending on specific needs (e.g., GPS tracking or sleep improvement), alternatives like the Pixel Watch 2, Aura Ring, Whoop Strap, Garmin, or the Eight SleepBot 3 might be preferable. Despite some shortcomings, the Charge 6 is recognized for its competent heart rate and sleep stage tracking features.
00:00:00
In this part of the video, Rob evaluates the Fitbit Charge 6’s improvements over the Charge 5, particularly its promised better heart rate tracking. After extensive testing, he confirms that the Charge 6 performs better in heart rate monitoring, largely due to a new machine learning algorithm, despite using the same sensor set as the Charge 5. Additionally, the Charge 6 can be used as an external heart rate monitor on third-party fitness equipment, a feature not available on the Charge 5.
Rob systematically tests the heart rate accuracy by comparing it to the Polar H10 ECG chest strap. He demonstrates this with an indoor cycling exercise, showing that most heart rate measurements of the Charge 6 are closely aligned with those of the Polar H10, except for slight deviations in the lower heart rate range. Overall, the Charge 6 showed a high correlation of 0.99 with the Polar H10, indicating excellent performance.
00:03:00
In this segment, the video discusses the performance of the Fitbit Charge 6 in various heart rate monitoring conditions. The speaker notes some deviations and drops in heart rate readings during spinning sessions but generally finds the device performs well. They compare the Fitbit Charge 6’s performance against nearly 70 other watches, using a correlation metric, where the Fitbit Charge 6 scores highly, particularly against the Pixel Watch 2. This performance is significantly better than the previous model, Fitbit Charge 5. The segment also reviews the Charge 6’s performance during outdoor cycling, showing a high correlation of 0.97 to reference devices, despite some minor deviations.
00:06:00
In this segment of the video, the reviewer assesses the Fitbit Charge 6 against other watches, both for biking and running. For biking, the Charge 6 shows strong performance with a high correlation, slightly underperforming against the Pixel Watch 2 but well above the Charge 5. The reviewer notes the need to retest on bumpier rides. Shifting to running, the Charge 6 demonstrates lower correlation with many deviations, particularly between 120-140 BPM. The reviewer highlights specific runs, noting anomalous heart rate detection likely due to positioning issues on the wrist. Future retests are planned to understand these discrepancies better.
00:09:00
In this segment, the speaker evaluates the performance of the Fitbit Charge 6 in tracking heart rates during weightlifting, which is a challenging exercise due to the high tension on the wrist and arm. The Fitbit Charge 6 shows a good correlation of 0.9, slightly lower than for cycling and spinning but still commendable. The accuracy in detecting heart rate peaks varies across different weightlifting sessions, performing well initially, struggling in the middle, and again doing well towards the end. The speaker notes that the watch performs better during exercises with less arm tension, like leg exercises. The Fitbit Charge 6 is highlighted as one of the top performers, almost comparable to the Pixel Watch 2 and surpassed mainly by Apple and some Huawei watches. Preliminary heart rate tracking performance is rated four out of five stars. The segment ends with a brief introduction to the sleep stage tracking performance of the Fitbit Charge 6, which will be compared against the zMAX EG headband, known for its accurate sleep stage tracking excluding wake moments.
00:12:00
In this segment of the video, the analysis focuses on the comparison between sleep stage data recorded by the zMAX EEG headband and the Fitbit Charge 6. Each column on the matrix sums to 100%, showing how the Charge 6 predicted various sleep stages compared to the zMAX. Key findings include:
– 73% agreement on deep sleep between the EEG headband and the Charge 6, though some deep sleep was mistaken for light sleep or wake time by the Charge 6.
– Detailed graphs of two nights show that while the Charge 6 generally agreed with the EEG on deep sleep detection, it sometimes overestimated deep sleep in certain periods.
– On the second night, the Charge 6 delayed recognizing the user falling asleep, causing significant confusion between wakefulness and light or deep sleep.
– Light sleep had a 64% agreement, with most confusion stemming from deep sleep and wake time.
– REM sleep showed an 80% agreement, with consistent detection across both devices, except for minor discrepancies at the start of sleep periods.
– Wake time detection had lower agreement at 37%, but this is attributed to the zMAX overestimating awake periods.
Overall, despite some discrepancies, the Charge 6 performed reasonably well, especially in detecting REM sleep. The issues mainly arose from timing discrepancies in the Charge 6’s detection, particularly on when sleep began.
00:15:00
In this part of the video, the speaker discusses the accuracy of sleep stage detection by the Charge 6 device compared to other devices and reference standards. He highlights partial overlap in awake time detection between the Charge 6 and the EEG device but notes inconsistencies. The speaker presents a comparison graph of different devices tested with various reference devices, revealing that Apple Watches and certain Fitbit models perform well in sleep stage tracking, while Huawei watches do not fare as well. The Charge 6 and Pixel Watch 2 generally show good performance, but more testing is needed for confirmation. The preliminary results suggest that Fitbit Charge 6’s sleep stage tracking capability is consistent with expectations for Fitbit devices.
00:18:00
In this part of the video, the reviewer assesses the GPS or location tracking capabilities of the Fitbit Charge 6 by cycling the same route three times to see if the recorded signals overlap. The reviewer notes that the watch took varying amounts of time to acquire the signal initially and that there was significant deviation between the recorded signals throughout the route. This inconsistency led to a poor evaluation of the GPS tracking performance, with the reviewer giving it a preliminary rating of 2.5 out of 5 stars. The reviewer also highlights some limitations of this initial test, such as it being a single person’s experience and the potential inaccuracies of reference devices. Despite the disappointing GPS performance, the reviewer concludes that the heart rate and sleep stage tracking of the Charge 6 are quite good.
00:21:00
In this part of the video, the speaker reviews the Ribit Charge 6, giving it a rating of three and a half out of five stars. They suggest that other smartwatches or health trackers might be better choices depending on individual needs, such as an Aura Ring, Whoop Strap, or Garmin for GPS tracking and battery life. For sleep improvement, they recommend the Eight SleepBot 3. The speaker also mentions affiliate and non-affiliate links in the video description for those interested in purchasing recommended devices, including the Pixel Watch 2, which performed better than the Charge 6. Viewers are encouraged to watch additional videos for more information on top recommendations for sports and health tracking.