This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Garmin's various ways of measuring, calculating, & tracking resting heart rate (RHR)

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.

0 ANNOUNCEMENT over 9 years ago

exactly what happened on my vivoactice HR. AVG RHR on my device and Garmin Connect is same. But different compare to Garmin Mobile.

0 RobertGilbertSTL over 9 years ago

...

There was a recent change in the way that the devices started recording and displaying Resting Heart Rate, where instead of just displaying the lowest value for the day, it is an average while at rest. This caused some disconnects between Garmin Connect in terms of which value was correct since users were seeing multiple numbers which are currently being worked on.

We continue to provide user feedback to the device teams to make them aware of issues the users are seeing, especially when the numbers are not lining up as we expect.

We appreciate the feedback and continued discussion.

Thanks for responding GFM1011. Aside from the consistency issues, I think we still have a lot of questions about the rationale, if any, behind some of the intended biomarkers, eg, lowest value of the day vs an average while at rest. Personally, I think it would be best if the various Garmin Connect website/apps would provide a variety of such numbers. The alternative and changing definitions of RHR is problematic at a number of levels. Transparently showing a variety of data points and trends would go a long way in improving the utility of your devices and avoiding a lot of confusion.

0 RobertGilbertSTL over 9 years ago

Dear GFM1011:

Here's an example of what I mean by the advantages of displaying a variety of data types and correctly labeling them, not only eliminating confusion but also providing your customers with usable data.

In the attached screenshot, there is a variety of data being made available (good), but the data points and averages are not correctly or consistently labelled:

At the bottom of the Heart Rate graph on the left:
- 39 bpm should be labelled something like: Lowest RHR
- 59 bpm should be labelled something like: Sleeping RHR

Likewise, the graph on the right should be labelled something like: Average Sleeping Heart Rate

Next, I would introduce a new report that correctly identifies Average Lowest RHR

Do you see how this gives us much more usable information and eliminates the confusion that you are creating with your attempts to redefine RHR? And when you do want to introduce a new type of measure, let us know what it is you are trying to measure.

As an added bonus, from a programming perspective, it is much easier to fix labeling then to change algorithms.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

@RobertGilbertSTL

Thank you for your suggestions and ideas. We always appreciate the feedback. We are passing along all feedback from this forum thread to the development teams.

We would also encourage that any users that have ideas for new Reports or features that can be implemented in Garmin Connect to submit their ideas to our Garmin Connect Ideas page. This is a portal that allows users to provide direct feedback and ideas with the development teams. All ideas are evaluated and may be used in future updates or products.

0 RobertGilbertSTL over 9 years ago

GFM1011:

Now compare the previous image of [Sleeping] Resting Heart Rate over the past 7-days with what my watch widget obviously incorrectly identifies as average resting heart rate over the past 7-days:

Obviously they are not tracking the same thing. Is the watch widget perhaps not even looking at a resting heart rate but simply an average daily heart rate. Different levels of activity could explain the big differences. For example on Sunday I went for a bike ride that probably caused the spike on that day. Monday I did a 2-day swim, but since the watch does not measure heart rate while swimming, there is no spike that day.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

@gfm1011

Glad you want ideas but disappointed my lengthy post was ignored because the main reason this thread exists is because of everything I outlined there.

To ask for Garmin to explain changes to fundamental metrics and calculations at the time they are releas2d is not a feature request. It's asking Garmin to do what most the other 98% of th3 software world considers the absolute rock bottom minimum level of effort required for any release of new or updated software. (Apps, Web based services and pc or Mac software are all software...just as the firmware is in our trackers. It's software.)

If Garmin had even given a three sentence explanation of what the new rhr method was when released this thread doesn't exist or is at least much shorter.

I look forward to your response to this post and to the much more detailed one i made above. if there is no response I will certainly be confirmed that Garmin is not interested in doing better by their cusromers and afraid to even acknowledge how messed up communication is. (Remember that forum posters areprobably amongst your most interest2d customers. And while 25 of us read your rhr explanation has the change been communicated to your own customer service people and the affected device owners at large?)

@RobertGilbertSTL

Thank you for your suggestions and ideas. We always appreciate the feedback. We are passing along all feedback from this forum thread to the development teams.

We would also encourage that any users that have ideas for new Reports or features that can be implemented in Garmin Connect to submit their ideas to our Garmin Connect Ideas page. This is a portal that allows users to provide direct feedback and ideas with the development teams. All ideas are evaluated and may be used in future updates or products.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

@ArikM,

Thanks for your post, and I do apologize that the release notes did not indicate that there was a change in how the device calculates resting heart rate. This is something that should have been in the release notes and would have caused less confusion. We have requested that moving forward, anytime there is a change to how the device records a metric like this that the change be added specifically in the release notes, as this normally the case, and was missed in this instance.

We have also requested that the change log for that release be updated. While it will be too late for users that have already updated, users that may not have updated, or ones that want to go back and look at the change log would be able to see in what software version the RHR change was implemented.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

@GFM1011

Thanks so much for your patient and well-meaning response. I think I wasn't clear in my ask, so I'll try and re-phrase and make it brief.

I am glad you are requesting a process change –that is awesome! Since you didn’t latch on to my main point though I will take responsibility for not being clear. I made two posts here, the really long one was the important one.

Because of the nature of this thread we have many different watch types represented in this thread. I happen to own a VAHR. This may have added some confusion. For my watch, the latest release did say RHR was changed, but didn’t tell us how it changed. It did NOT indicate though that they had made a major change to BMR calorie calculations and increased them by 20%.

Garmin has several pervasive problems related to transparent change communication, across all devices and apps/software etc. As shown in the preceding paragraph, Garmin is very bad at the following items:

1) Getting all the details into a release note, even in the briefest outline form (ie VAHR BMR change)

2) If mentioned those notes say nothing meaningful on many occasions and do not explain the new behavior or metric calc (as in RHR on VAHR and probably other devices)

3) When Garmin is called out for these types of mistakes, as you yourself noted, the errata and omissions are not being posted or updated.

4) Release notes can be a nightmare to find and many won’t know where to find them at all. There has to be a better way (see details later in this post.)

The intent of my last post was to request that as you yourself request changes internally- that you expand the request across the company: all watches/trackers and all the GC apps and GC website. Not just for one device.

Hopefully you can advocate for a transparent communication policy across the board.

I also provided links to much better versions of customer communication about SW/apps. Take them as you like.

Lastly, to quote myself in an earlier post, I’m not asking for much in my opinion:

To ask for Garmin to explain changes to fundamental metrics and calculations at the time they are releas2d is not a feature request. It's asking Garmin to do what most the other 98% of th3 software world considers the absolute rock bottom minimum level of effort required for any release of new or updated software. (Apps, Web based services and pc or Mac software are all software...just as the firmware is in our trackers. It's software.)

Thanks so much for re-reading this. Below are more detailed responses to your actual post that should make this more clear if it’s not already.

-A

@ArikM,
Thanks for your post, and I do apologize that the release notes did not indicate that there was a change in how the device calculates resting heart rate. This is something that should have been in the release notes and would have caused less confusion. We have requested that moving forward, anytime there is a change to how the device records a metric like this that the change be added specifically in the release notes, as this normally the case, and was missed in this instance.

Perhaps the issue was that owners of many different watches are in this thread and the release notes are different for each watch. I have a VAHR and the release notes said there was a change (It was announced which is good). What they did NOT say was anything similar to “RHR used to be calculated as XXX and with this update you will see RHR calculated in YYY fashion.” (That’s the bad part)

Your request is dead on target- thank you for making it! All changes should be announced in Release Notes if they were missed. But please add to your request that when there is a truly substantive change like this it not only says that the metric was changed, but HOW (and hopefully WHY) it was changed- so that we can know how to interpret the new data or function.
Simply, announce all items changed added deleted etc…and when appropriate, like RHR, explain the new version and how it works/what changed.

We have also requested that the change log for that release be updated. While it will be too late for users that have already updated, users that may not have updated, or ones that want to go back and look at the change log would be able to see in what software version the RHR change was implemented.

Excellent! Any time something is missed, the release notes should be updated to reflect what was missed for the reasons stated. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to even find release notes and not all users get shown a link to them when they update (at least on my device).

If you update via Garmin Express, you can see release notes before you sync up the update. In my case, the update auto-pushed via Bluetooth since I was connected to the GC Android app at the time. There are no release notes in the Android app describing what the latest watch firmware has in it. Also, it is pretty hard to find the release notes on the Garmin site if not impossible either through navigation or search.

As I have a VAHR- if I go to garmin.com >products >wearables >VAHR I get to the store page for the device https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/wearabletech/wearables/vivoactive-hr/prod538374.html

I can click a “software” Link that should get to me software info. http://www8.garmin.com/support/collection.jsp?product=010-01605-00

Unfortunately, I get the release page, but the dang thing has no information

**********************
Home » Into Sports » vívoactive® HR » Updates & Downloads
Updates & Downloads
vívoactive® HR
Customer Service

(that's all that is there- no release notes!)

************

So, the only place I can find links to these notes is by finding a forum post. Please also request that along with making release notes available easily, that they be referenced for OTA updates and also that when a mod makes a pinned sticky post about the new release, they either update the sticky or post a new thread explaining that it was corrected.

0 kalamarios over 9 years ago

@GFM1011

Thanks so much for your patient and well-meaning response. I think I wasn't clear in my ask, so I'll try and re-phrase and make it brief.

I am glad you are requesting a process change –that is awesome! Since you didn’t latch on to my main point though I will take responsibility for not being clear. I made two posts here, the really long one was the important one.

Because of the nature of this thread we have many different watch types represented in this thread. I happen to own a VAHR. This may have added some confusion. For my watch, the latest release did say RHR was changed, but didn’t tell us how it changed. It did NOT indicate though that they had made a major change to BMR calorie calculations and increased them by 20%.

Garmin has several pervasive problems related to transparent change communication, across all devices and apps/software etc. As shown in the preceding paragraph, Garmin is very bad at the following items:

1) Getting all the details into a release note, even in the briefest outline form (ie VAHR BMR change)

2) If mentioned those notes say nothing meaningful on many occasions and do not explain the new behavior or metric calc (as in RHR on VAHR and probably other devices)

3) When Garmin is called out for these types of mistakes, as you yourself noted, the errata and omissions are not being posted or updated.

4) Release notes can be a nightmare to find and many won’t know where to find them at all. There has to be a better way (see details later in this post.)

The intent of my last post was to request that as you yourself request changes internally- that you expand the request across the company: all watches/trackers and all the GC apps and GC website. Not just for one device.

Hopefully you can advocate for a transparent communication policy across the board.

I also provided links to much better versions of customer communication about SW/apps. Take them as you like.

Lastly, to quote myself in an earlier post, I’m not asking for much in my opinion:

Thanks so much for re-reading this. Below are more detailed responses to your actual post that should make this more clear if it’s not already.

-A

Perhaps the issue was that owners of many different watches are in this thread and the release notes are different for each watch. I have a VAHR and the release notes said there was a change (It was announced which is good). What they did NOT say was anything similar to “RHR used to be calculated as XXX and with this update you will see RHR calculated in YYY fashion.” (That’s the bad part)

Your request is dead on target- thank you for making it! All changes should be announced in Release Notes if they were missed. But please add to your request that when there is a truly substantive change like this it not only says that the metric was changed, but HOW (and hopefully WHY) it was changed- so that we can know how to interpret the new data or function.
Simply, announce all items changed added deleted etc…and when appropriate, like RHR, explain the new version and how it works/what changed.

Excellent! Any time something is missed, the release notes should be updated to reflect what was missed for the reasons stated. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to even find release notes and not all users get shown a link to them when they update (at least on my device).

If you update via Garmin Express, you can see release notes before you sync up the update. In my case, the update auto-pushed via Bluetooth since I was connected to the GC Android app at the time. There are no release notes in the Android app describing what the latest watch firmware has in it. Also, it is pretty hard to find the release notes on the Garmin site if not impossible either through navigation or search.

As I have a VAHR- if I go to garmin.com >products >wearables >VAHR I get to the store page for the device https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/wearabletech/wearables/vivoactive-hr/prod538374.html

I can click a “software” Link that should get to me software info. http://www8.garmin.com/support/collection.jsp?product=010-01605-00

Unfortunately, I get the release page, but the dang thing has no information

**********************
Home » Into Sports » vívoactive® HR » Updates & Downloads
Updates & Downloads
vívoactive® HR
Customer Service

(that's all that is there- no release notes!)

************

So, the only place I can find links to these notes is by finding a forum post. Please also request that along with making release notes available easily, that they be referenced for OTA updates and also that when a mod makes a pinned sticky post about the new release, they either update the sticky or post a new thread explaining that it was corrected.

So very well said!

Garmin, do less and do it well and consistently!

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

so very well said!

Garmin, do less and do it well and consistently!

ty! :)