Garmin
1 lurker |
218 watchers
Feb 2022
2:34pm, 9 Feb 2022
1,480 posts
|
Big_G
I was really hoping it would be usable but it’s not for me. I just had a quick look on the Garmin site and there is still the following disclaimer about accuracy, although this page is from their 6X Pro page. garmin.com ‘While our wrist HR monitor technology is state of the art, there are inherent limitations with the technology that may cause some of the heart rate readings to be inaccurate under certain circumstances. These circumstances include the user’s physical characteristics, the fit of the device and the type and intensity of the activity as outlined above’. I otherwise love the watch though, but as I say I was hoping I’d be able to do away with the HR strap, but I can’t at this point. |
Feb 2022
2:58pm, 9 Feb 2022
16,961 posts
|
larkim
As I say, suck it and see. There's no technological reason why an optical reader can't be spot on (cf the Polar OH1+ and other arm based ones which are fundamentally the same optical tech, just as a stand alone device which can be located somewhere "fleshier"). For me, I've been blown away with how good the wrist optical is and would happily rely on it for intervals etc to be spot on. I could never get a chest strap to work reliably due to static interference with the t-shirts I wear. (Though perhaps I could / should try my old one out with my 645 in case it was the Vivoactive giving the grief). Meanwhile, at the lower end of the spectrum a 645 Music can still be had for £175. I think that's a complete bargain for most people - long enough to last a sub 5hr marathon, music, barometric altimeter, smart look, NFC. wiggle.co.uk |
Feb 2022
3:19pm, 9 Feb 2022
1,962 posts
|
Brunski
I've had various watches with wrist HRM function that have ranged from fairly accurate to being a complete random number generator. I now rely on my polar OH1+ arm based sensor that has been amazing, and probably more consistent than even the HRM Run strap. I previously used. I'd be very careful about paying any attention to big jumps in HR with optical. You can use your log and look at each 25m of your run to see if there's big jumps where HR doesn't match the corresponding pace effort. If you're seeing big jumps then everything including Recovery time, VO2 indications, productivity, peaking, suggested sessions, etc that you see on the fancy new Garmin will be pretty much useless. Basically be sure if your HR readings, whether wrist based, optical arm, or chest on your run if you want to get the most from your watch. |
Feb 2022
3:24pm, 9 Feb 2022
24,064 posts
|
Rosehip
And if you are getting frustrated with traces that are obviously not acurate - wrist/arm or chest I’ve put in a feature request for “ignore this hr trace”. As having max 250 anomalous spikes or obvious cadance lock traces in a run makes a right mess of any bpm trend … #1352 (although if Ptb is correct then I shall go back and delete the av hr figures from dodgy runs and see if that helps) |
|
Feb 2022
3:31pm, 9 Feb 2022
16,963 posts
|
larkim
I've asked for similar in the past Rosehip, as it does make all the averages nonsensical. At least now with 2 years of a reliable device in use I can trust the recent HR data, but for me the HR data when summarised is garbage because the "wrong" detailed data is in there. Runalyze's site allows you to do just this for a specific run. |
|
Feb 2022
3:32pm, 9 Feb 2022
1,481 posts
|
Big_G
larkim, Garmin themselves say there are "inherent limitations with the technology" so I am not really sure how you can say "there's no technological reasons why an optical reader can't be spot on". Glad it works for you though 
|
|
Feb 2022
3:40pm, 9 Feb 2022
16,964 posts
|
larkim
My assumption is that they mean the points you raise about skin tone, tightness etc. They are basically covering their backsides when someone with a bony wrist or dark skin or an aversion to wearing a tight watch says "Well, it doesn't work well for me so can I have my money back" What I meant was that an optical reading of HR isn't inherently flawed such that the technology can't deliver accurate readings - e.g. it's sometimes suggested that the chest straps which pick up electrical signals are somehow "better", whereas the reality is that an optical sensor, properly placed, will give just as good a straight BPM reading as a chest strap sensor. The optical one may be less credible for some of the more advanced readings such as HRV etc though. |
|
Feb 2022
3:53pm, 9 Feb 2022
1,482 posts
|
Big_G
As well as physical characteristics, Garmin also mentions type and intensity of exercise though. I don’t have a thin wrist or dark skin, and wear the watch quite tightly. Anyway, it doesn’t really matter; it clearly works for some, but doesn’t for others.
|
|
Feb 2022
3:55pm, 9 Feb 2022
16,966 posts
|
larkim
Yep, whatever the cause I agree with that last bit!
|
Feb 2022
4:12pm, 9 Feb 2022
36,251 posts
|
SPR
Optical at the wrist has flaws for many. Optical at other locations seems ok. I wasn't 100% with it on middle distance races though. Chest strap is more responsive to changes in most cases, but I find polar not too far behind. Might try an interval session with both at some point. |
Related Threads
-
Garmin 735xt problem
Jan 2021
-
Garmin and Windows 10
Jun 2016
-
Help pls - what’s latest equiv to garmin vivoactive HR?
Jan 2024
-
Inporting Garmin historic data
Dec 2023
-
Garmin Connect IQ apps and widgets etc
Jan 2023
-
Polar Precision data
Jan 2022
-
PSA - Potential GPS watch stocking filler bargain?
Sep 2021
-
Running Apps Discrepancies
May 2021
-
Are replacement ANT sticks really *that* much?!
Sep 2013
-
Home Servers
Jan 2025