This was discussed earlier this year with respect to the Forerunner 235 ">here[/u][/URL]. Since then, it seems Garmin has been tweaking their software, at least on a couple of newer watches.
RHR on Watch Different from RHR on Garmin Connect
Over the past 7 days, the Garmin Connect (GC) site shows my RHR as: 36, 37, 50, 45, 36, 40, 41. The 7-day average on the GC site is 41 (see attached: ). But the "RHR" number on my my Forerunner 735XT watch always has a higher number, eg, today this has been 44 and 46. The watch screen that shows the RHR for each of the last 7 days also has a higher number than the GC site for each of the 7 days and for the 7-day average.
Apparently this is because the RHR function on the watch is the lowest average rate measured over a 1-minute interval, whereas the larger, changing number displayed on the watch face next to the heart symbol is an instantaneous measure.
DC Rainmaker noticed the same thing on the vívoactive HR:
What’s not fine is the above (click to zoom). In this case, as I type this paragraph it shows me at a HR of 53bpm. And the lowest HR value it shows for the four hour time block is 49bpm. Yet as you see above – somehow my RHR value is 55bpm. Huh? ">link[/b][/url]
In an e-mail with them on the topic late last week, they allude to it (on some devices) being the lowest one-minute average. But, then they explain how it’s a bit of a mess because the metrics don’t align up (Garmin Connect Mobile, the device’s HR sensor display, or the HR widget screen). Apparently it’s on the list to address…still. ">link[/b][/url][/indent]
Although the lower instantaneous numbers stroke my ego, I think the 1-minute average is a good technological/software solution since it emulates the traditional human manner of checking one's pulse over a period of time. An instantaneous reading was previously not very common (except on an EKG) and I think there are probably anomalous readings introduced by the the newer optical wrist monitoring technology (eg, a loose watch band moving around).
Others might prefer the lowest instantaneous reading since it better fits the standard medical definition of the RHR reading being the lowest measured rate while awake and different fitness monitors may be using various algorithms for calculating RHR.
I assume most people would at least like Garmin to standardize their way of measuring, calculating, and tracking RHR on their various watches, apps, and websites. The instantaneous numbers are what is being tracked on the graphs on the watch and on GC, but the lowest measured RHR on the watch face is frequently lower than the lowest number recorded on GC (even when frequently syncing). The 7-day graph of the daily RHR on the watch is also considerably higher with the 7-day graph of the daily RHR on GC.
I would be interested in hearing Garmin's current thinking on this or anyone else's thoughts on this issue.">link[/b][/url][/indent]
Although the lower instantaneous numbers stroke my ego, I think the 1-minute average is a good technological/software solution since it emulates the traditional human manner of checking one's pulse over a period of time. An instantaneous reading was previously not very common (except on an EKG) and I think there are probably anomalous readings introduced by the the newer optical wrist monitoring technology (eg, a loose watch band moving around).
Others might prefer the lowest instantaneous reading since it better fits the standard medical definition of the RHR reading being the lowest measured rate while awake and different fitness monitors may be using various algorithms for calculating RHR.
I assume most people would at least like Garmin to standardize their way of measuring, calculating, and tracking RHR on their various watches, apps, and websites. The instantaneous numbers are what is being tracked on the graphs on the watch and on GC, but the lowest measured RHR on the watch face is frequently lower than the lowest number recorded on GC (even when frequently syncing). The 7-day graph of the daily RHR on the watch is also considerably higher with the 7-day graph of the daily RHR on GC.
I would be interested in hearing Garmin's current thinking on this or anyone else's thoughts on this issue.">link[/b][/url]
In an e-mail with them on the topic late last week, they allude to it (on some devices) being the lowest one-minute average. But, then they explain how it’s a bit of a mess because the metrics don’t align up (Garmin Connect Mobile, the device’s HR sensor display, or the HR widget screen). Apparently it’s on the list to address…still. ">link[/b][/url][/indent]
Although the lower instantaneous numbers stroke my ego, I think the 1-minute average is a good technological/software solution since it emulates the traditional human manner of checking one's pulse over a period of time. An instantaneous reading was previously not very common (except on an EKG) and I think there are probably anomalous readings introduced by the the newer optical wrist monitoring technology (eg, a loose watch band moving around).
Others might prefer the lowest instantaneous reading since it better fits the standard medical definition of the RHR reading being the lowest measured rate while awake and different fitness monitors may be using various algorithms for calculating RHR.
I assume most people would at least like Garmin to standardize their way of measuring, calculating, and tracking RHR on their various watches, apps, and websites. The instantaneous numbers are what is being tracked on the graphs on the watch and on GC, but the lowest measured RHR on the watch face is frequently lower than the lowest number recorded on GC (even when frequently syncing). The 7-day graph of the daily RHR on the watch is also considerably higher with the 7-day graph of the daily RHR on GC.
I would be interested in hearing Garmin's current thinking on this or anyone else's thoughts on this issue.">link[/b][/url][/indent]
Although the lower instantaneous numbers stroke my ego, I think the 1-minute average is a good technological/software solution since it emulates the traditional human manner of checking one's pulse over a period of time. An instantaneous reading was previously not very common (except on an EKG) and I think there are probably anomalous readings introduced by the the newer optical wrist monitoring technology (eg, a loose watch band moving around).
Others might prefer the lowest instantaneous reading since it better fits the standard medical definition of the RHR reading being the lowest measured rate while awake and different fitness monitors may be using various algorithms for calculating RHR.
I assume most people would at least like Garmin to standardize their way of measuring, calculating, and tracking RHR on their various watches, apps, and websites. The instantaneous numbers are what is being tracked on the graphs on the watch and on GC, but the lowest measured RHR on the watch face is frequently lower than the lowest number recorded on GC (even when frequently syncing). The 7-day graph of the daily RHR on the watch is also considerably higher with the 7-day graph of the daily RHR on GC.
I would be interested in hearing Garmin's current thinking on this or anyone else's thoughts on this issue.">here[/u][/URL]. Since then, it seems Garmin has been tweaking their software, at least on a couple of newer watches.
RHR on Watch Different from RHR on Garmin Connect
Over the past 7 days, the Garmin Connect (GC) site shows my RHR as: 36, 37, 50, 45, 36, 40, 41. The 7-day average on the GC site is 41 (see attached: ). But the "RHR" number on my my Forerunner 735XT watch always has a higher number, eg, today this has been 44 and 46. The watch screen that shows the RHR for each of the last 7 days also has a higher number than the GC site for each of the 7 days and for the 7-day average.
Apparently this is because the RHR function on the watch is the lowest average rate measured over a 1-minute interval, whereas the larger, changing number displayed on the watch face next to the heart symbol is an instantaneous measure.
DC Rainmaker noticed the same thing on the vívoactive HR:
What’s not fine is the above (click to zoom). In this case, as I type this paragraph it shows me at a HR of 53bpm. And the lowest HR value it shows for the four hour time block is 49bpm. Yet as you see above – somehow my RHR value is 55bpm. Huh? ">link[/b][/url]
In an e-mail with them on the topic late last week, they allude to it (on some devices) being the lowest one-minute average. But, then they explain how it’s a bit of a mess because the metrics don’t align up (Garmin Connect Mobile, the device’s HR sensor display, or the HR widget screen). Apparently it’s on the list to address…still. ">link[/b][/url][/indent]
Although the lower instantaneous numbers stroke my ego, I think the 1-minute average is a good technological/software solution since it emulates the traditional human manner of checking one's pulse over a period of time. An instantaneous reading was previously not very common (except on an EKG) and I think there are probably anomalous readings introduced by the the newer optical wrist monitoring technology (eg, a loose watch band moving around).
Others might prefer the lowest instantaneous reading since it better fits the standard medical definition of the RHR reading being the lowest measured rate while awake and different fitness monitors may be using various algorithms for calculating RHR.
I assume most people would at least like Garmin to standardize their way of measuring, calculating, and tracking RHR on their various watches, apps, and websites. The instantaneous numbers are what is being tracked on the graphs on the watch and on GC, but the lowest measured RHR on the watch face is frequently lower than the lowest number recorded on GC (even when frequently syncing). The 7-day graph of the daily RHR on the watch is also considerably higher with the 7-day graph of the daily RHR on GC.
I would be interested in hearing Garmin's current thinking on this or anyone else's thoughts on this issue.">link[/b][/url][/indent]
Although the lower instantaneous numbers stroke my ego, I think the 1-minute average is a good technological/software solution since it emulates the traditional human manner of checking one's pulse over a period of time. An instantaneous reading was previously not very common (except on an EKG) and I think there are probably anomalous readings introduced by the the newer optical wrist monitoring technology (eg, a loose watch band moving around).
Others might prefer the lowest instantaneous reading since it better fits the standard medical definition of the RHR reading being the lowest measured rate while awake and different fitness monitors may be using various algorithms for calculating RHR.
I assume most people would at least like Garmin to standardize their way of measuring, calculating, and tracking RHR on their various watches, apps, and websites. The instantaneous numbers are what is being tracked on the graphs on the watch and on GC, but the lowest measured RHR on the watch face is frequently lower than the lowest number recorded on GC (even when frequently syncing). The 7-day graph of the daily RHR on the watch is also considerably higher with the 7-day graph of the daily RHR on GC.
I would be interested in hearing Garmin's current thinking on this or anyone else's thoughts on this issue.">link[/b][/url]
In an e-mail with them on the topic late last week, they allude to it (on some devices) being the lowest one-minute average. But, then they explain how it’s a bit of a mess because the metrics don’t align up (Garmin Connect Mobile, the device’s HR sensor display, or the HR widget screen). Apparently it’s on the list to address…still. ">link[/b][/url][/indent]
Although the lower instantaneous numbers stroke my ego, I think the 1-minute average is a good technological/software solution since it emulates the traditional human manner of checking one's pulse over a period of time. An instantaneous reading was previously not very common (except on an EKG) and I think there are probably anomalous readings introduced by the the newer optical wrist monitoring technology (eg, a loose watch band moving around).
Others might prefer the lowest instantaneous reading since it better fits the standard medical definition of the RHR reading being the lowest measured rate while awake and different fitness monitors may be using various algorithms for calculating RHR.
I assume most people would at least like Garmin to standardize their way of measuring, calculating, and tracking RHR on their various watches, apps, and websites. The instantaneous numbers are what is being tracked on the graphs on the watch and on GC, but the lowest measured RHR on the watch face is frequently lower than the lowest number recorded on GC (even when frequently syncing). The 7-day graph of the daily RHR on the watch is also considerably higher with the 7-day graph of the daily RHR on GC.
I would be interested in hearing Garmin's current thinking on this or anyone else's thoughts on this issue.">link[/b][/url][/indent]
Although the lower instantaneous numbers stroke my ego, I think the 1-minute average is a good technological/software solution since it emulates the traditional human manner of checking one's pulse over a period of time. An instantaneous reading was previously not very common (except on an EKG) and I think there are probably anomalous readings introduced by the the newer optical wrist monitoring technology (eg, a loose watch band moving around).
Others might prefer the lowest instantaneous reading since it better fits the standard medical definition of the RHR reading being the lowest measured rate while awake and different fitness monitors may be using various algorithms for calculating RHR.
I assume most people would at least like Garmin to standardize their way of measuring, calculating, and tracking RHR on their various watches, apps, and websites. The instantaneous numbers are what is being tracked on the graphs on the watch and on GC, but the lowest measured RHR on the watch face is frequently lower than the lowest number recorded on GC (even when frequently syncing). The 7-day graph of the daily RHR on the watch is also considerably higher with the 7-day graph of the daily RHR on GC.
I would be interested in hearing Garmin's current thinking on this or anyone else's thoughts on this issue.
