|
Oct 2020
10:43pm, 30 Oct 2020
12,965 posts
|
Badger
And this is wrist versus chest; much bigger discrepancies, obviously. Couldn't get the axes to align in Connect so it's in Excel, which also tells me that the SD of the difference is 9.3, where it was 3.3 for chest vs Tickr Fit before I time-shifted the Tickr and 1.6 afterwards.
|
|
Oct 2020
10:51pm, 30 Oct 2020
32,127 posts
|
SPR
Interesting analysis Badger. Those that get good data from wrist HR are very lucky.
|
|
Oct 2020
11:05pm, 30 Oct 2020
12,966 posts
|
Badger
Yup. I mean it's probably in the right zone most of the time there, but I remember once belting up the hill at Wimpole parkrun and it telling me my heart rate was still in Zone 2. It's usually on the brink of Z5 there.
|
|
Oct 2020
11:16pm, 30 Oct 2020
32,128 posts
|
SPR
It was useless for track racing data this summer for me. I haven't really given it a proper go in training as just don't trust it to be as reliable as chest strap.
|
|
Oct 2020
10:05am, 31 Oct 2020
37,507 posts
|
Nellers
Is it specifically higher intensities or rapid changes in HR that throw the optical off? I've been fine for "normal" runs (ie low HR stuff) but when I do any intensity (eg weights/circuits) it doesn't hit the peaks that I'd see with the chest strap.
Does that question even make sense?
(So when I do weights HR is low generally but during/towards the end of a set it spikes, which is what I'd expect. The chest strap gets this, the wrist watch optical thingy doesn't. Is it because the peak is high or because of the rapid change, over maybe 20 seconds or less? And when I'm saying "high" I'm probably only talking 150s from maybe 100-110 average.)
|
|
Oct 2020
1:30pm, 31 Oct 2020
19,521 posts
|
flanker
Nellers, that's about what I find with the wrist hrm: it's good for lifestyle monitoringm reasonable for low intensity, consistent effort, but seems to lack the responsiveness to cope with rapidly changing heart rate. Not sure if this is the hardware or too aggressive smoothing in the software.
However my biggest problem is (I hope) that it seems to gain a cadence lock far easier than anything else, as it regularly spke to about 180 and stays there. I say hope, because I really don't want to be at max heart rate on easy runs, and if it's not cadence lock I think I post-Covid my ticker isn't ticking very well and I might need to see a cardiac consultant!
|
|
Oct 2020
2:29pm, 31 Oct 2020
32,130 posts
|
SPR
This is the issue with it really. It can't be trusted so when there's issues you're not sure whether they are real or not.
Hopefully it's as you think Flanker.
|
|
Oct 2020
2:32pm, 31 Oct 2020
37,510 posts
|
Nellers
I'd be pretty confident it's a monitor thing rather than your ticker mate. When I did have a genuine ticker issue I could feel the difference, not just see it in the data.
|
|
Oct 2020
2:39pm, 31 Oct 2020
21,188 posts
|
Dvorak
The above is the wrist HR trace from my FR35, from last weeks fakeparkrun 5K, taken at effort. Three laps with in and out. Each lap started with a fairly sharp rise, which you'll be able to pick out on the graph. Although I don't have a crosscheck, looks pretty plausible to me. Hit the max recorded of 190 (!) at around 4.4km, 188 at end.
Not quite sure about that quick rise and fall, and the one at 4 km: although they could be correct, as at each time I'd sped up but felt I was going just a little early, and dialled back. Then I bolted for the line 
|
|
Nov 2020
2:55am, 1 Nov 2020
19,524 posts
|
flanker
Nellers, I'm pretty sure it is the watch. I think if I did 10 miles at max HR I'd be able to tell! It's just as SPR said, if you can't trust these things there's no point using them.
|
