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 dcrainmaker over 8 years ago

....Average RHR is different as it is a rolling 7 day average of the RHR determined each day...

Which makes no sense to me. I guess the problem is even having a field called "Average RHR". It doesn't mean what it says. Quite honestly they should get rid of it, or call it something meaningful.

Still, I just don't get why Garmin insists on coming up with variants that increase RHR. At it's most basic premise RHR was recorded by someone sitting on a couch for a few minutes and getting the lowest value they can. That was in the days where it was kinda a hassle.

Now, the watch is doing this 24x7, and yes, the algorithms are getting totally wonky and away from this idea. Purely a case of re-inventing the wheel when the wheel was perfectly fine. I really don't think someone understands that the entire point of having an optical HR sensor for 24x7 monitoring is proper RHR values. If they can't do that, then why bother? Just stick a different optical HR sensor in there that's more accurate in workouts and more battery hungry, since you're not using the darn thing for what it's supposed to be anyway.

Sigh...rant over.

0 ToffenDask over 8 years ago

Now, the watch is doing this 24x7, and yes, the algorithms are getting totally wonky and away from this idea. Purely a case of re-inventing the wheel when the wheel was perfectly fine.

Beg to differ. I find it completely natural that Garmin will want take a lead in potentially improving the algorithm for RHR measurements. With 24/7 monitors becoming the norm, it makes less sense to restrict the definition of RHR to however low I can zen my heart rate down to during that peaceful minute in the morning. Those who have been using their 30-something values for bragging rights are sure to have some rough times ahead, but just like we mostly got rid of the 220-age nonsense for HRmax we need someone to help us move the science ahead in the other end of the scale as well. It's all about getting values that are actually valid and useful for the intended purpose.

0 Former Member over 8 years ago

Clarification from Garmin

I have now read so many differing explanations as to how the RHR data is gathered, that, frankly, I find myself totally bamboozled. What I would very much appreciate, is that Garmin took a moment to publish a definitive statement detailing how they draw the RHR figures.

0 RobertGilbertSTL over 8 years ago

I have now read so many differing explanations as to how the RHR data is gathered, that, frankly, I find myself totally bamboozled. What I would very much appreciate, is that Garmin took a moment to publish a definitive statement detailing how they draw the RHR figures.

Thank you. This is the primary purpose of this thread, namely that Garmin tell us how they are trying to define RHR and let us know when they've successfully implemented it consistently across their various platforms and environments.

As a secondary purpose, I also appreciate the various perspectives that people have with respect to how RHR should be defined in this context.

I've noted how RHR is variously defined in clinical studies. See, for example, ">this trial">this trial, that employed 5 different ways of defining and documenting RHR:

0) measured for 5 min after a 10-min rest
1) mean of lowest heart rate plus all heart rates within three beats
2) mean of lowest 5
3) [mean of] lowest 10
4) [mean of] lowest 50

Whatever definition is used, the ranking of the participants did not change, but the authors conclude that "a consensus definition of RHR is desirable if comparisons of activity levels between samples or populations are to be made and if the adequacy of physical activity levels is to be assessed using heart rate."

Even for our data to be useful to us as individuals, we at least need a consistent definition and implementation by Garmin.

0 ToffenDask over 8 years ago

Even for our data to be useful to us as individuals, we at least need a consistent definition and implementation by Garmin.

An even more recent study seems to be more akin to what Garmin is trying to do, at least in their premise that sleep HR should be a more reliable indicator.

0 RobertGilbertSTL over 8 years ago

An even more recent study seems to be more akin to what Garmin is trying to do, at least in their premise that sleep HR should be a more reliable indicator.

Thanks for the reference. It does not inspire a lot of confidence in using this measure of sleeping heart rate. Aside from the specifics of this particular study, isn't it also the case that the Garmin devices only check heart rate very infrequently during sleep, thus increasing the random nature of the measures? Or is that being changed as well?

0 gadgetrants over 8 years ago

Thanks guys, this is a good conversation. Thanks in particular to the OP (@RobertGilbertSTL) for getting it started. Just want to chime in with a few thoughts:

(1) I noticed too that my so-called RHR "jumped up" about 10 beats on the GC website earlier this week (including an abrupt increase in values from the previous week). It is not only quite a bit higher than what I'm seeing on the phone app, but also while it doesn't vary day-to-day by more than a beat on the website, it varies in a much more reasonable manner as it's displayed on my phone. The main point here is apparently Garmin made a significant change to how they compute/display RHR on the website and have not adequately updated their users. Booo.

(2) Sadly, on the phone, matching up RHR for individual days to my "All Day Heart Rate" simply involves scanning through my wake-time HR, and it's easy to see the RHR reported there is the lowest instantaneous BPM of the day. Sadly, I say, because it's obvious by looking at timing, context, and the surrounding data that the reading is false. That needs to be fixed by looking at a sustained reading, rather than a single one, for maybe 30 or 60 seconds, if not longer.

(3) I'm TOTALLY OK with Garmin measuring whatever they want and calling it HR-Whatever. However, a more conventional approach should be used for measuring and reporting RHR. Because it plays a significant role in health and fitness tracking, Garmin carries the duty of being 100% transparent about how it is computed.

(4) Finally, and related to (3) and (4), I'm not wedded to any particular computation method, name, or statistic. I think the point is to derive a measure that does at least two things: first, it should change over time in a meaningful way to indicate I'm getting in better shape. Thus, RHR as it's conventionally defined goes down. Second, the value itself across people should be correlated with health outcomes such as heart disease. In other words, a lower RHR is associated with better health outcomes. RHR is also associated with other things like BMR, and to add to the mystery, it looks like trying to measure RHR during sleep doesn't really get at the right metric (i.e., sleeping HR is a different ball of wax). Long story short, I don't mind if Garmin wants to trail blaze, but the trail should lead somewhere that is well-defined, that is, it should serve as a stable analytical/predictive tool.

Ooops, looks like I ranted a bit too! Well, the name fits for sure. :o

-Matt

0 Former Member over 8 years ago

I've been scrutinising my watch and HR for the last couple of days. Last night I was watching the RHR on the widget slowly dropping over the course of hours as it was catching up to my HR, which indicated to me that it was taking a rather long period to work out an average. This morning I checked my HR and the RHR on the widget, both of which were high 40s, uploaded the data to connect and have noticed that the RHR is in the 50s despite my watch STILL saying RHR is in the 40s.

Ultimately many of these measures which we use are arbitrarily defined, at first, but providing the criteria to assess them doesn't change then we can get some insights. Garmin are changing how things are measured and not being consistent about it nor communicating the changes. Hopefully once they've finished with their experiment they'll settle on something.

Does anyone know how to get all of the raw HR data from non-activities? i.e. just the HR throughout the day.

0 Former Member over 8 years ago

Ultimately many of these measures which we use are arbitrarily defined, at first, but providing the criteria to assess them doesn't change then we can get some insights. Garmin are changing how things are measured and not being consistent about it nor communicating the changes. Hopefully once they've finished with their experiment they'll settle on something.

Agree and disagree.

- Yes, the definitions can be a bit arbitrary. The most important thing is that whatever the definition, the results are measured/displayed in a consistent fashion so we can use them directionally. (Am I the same, better or worse on this measure.)

- Also agree we need the definitions. Professionally, I do Software/Web/App Product Management. That means I'm the business person that decides what my app/site/software needs to do and what we will change/add/delete from it. There are one or more people at Garmin doing this function for the trackers and GC...and they ultimately make the decision on whether an algorithm gets changed, as here with RHR. Unfortunately, Garmin has a nasty habit that to my mind is a measure of absolute professional incompetence by the Product Management group; it happens so often I'd be firing people if these folks worked for me.

For anything like this RHR calculation- where the customer would see new data- the customers MUST always be notified that there is a change and also be provide resources to describe the old algorithm and then what it changed to.

While I don't know how Garmin is handling (not handling actually) this - it's ultimately the responsibility of the Product Management Group to communicate all changes both as updates to the customers as well as updates to their own customer service groups in even more fine detail. Sometimes that group may write up the notes and get them to someone else to publish them.... but I place the blame squarely on Product Management. (I'm tempted to figure out from linkedin who the hell runs this group and ask them why they are F***ing with their customers and have so little respect for us).

It's a simple task that takes little time. I'm boggled that we've seen this with RHR and also BMR in the month or so I've had my VAHR...not to mention all the issues with other Garmin devices that are similar but for which I don't read the other forums to find.

Garmin are changing how things are measured and not being consistent about it nor communicating the changes. Hopefully once they've finished with their experiment they'll settle on something.

We could debate the merits of whatever precise algorithm they choose, but that is OK as long as it is consistent with itself and the customer base knows what the algorithm is, as you've said. But they shouldn't be changing algorithms on the regular as they are all over the place!

Experiments are for internal use.. or perhaps an alpha or beta test. You don't release seemingly random changes repeatedly and impose the experiment on the entire customer base.

Garmin has not earned much trust from me yet... clearly

0 gadgetrants over 8 years ago

- Yes, the definitions can be a bit arbitrary. The most important thing is that whatever the definition, the results are measured/displayed in a consistent fashion so we can use them directionally. (Am I the same, better or worse on this measure.)

- Also agree we need the definitions. Professionally, I do Software/Web/App Product Management. That means I'm the business person that decides what my app/site/software needs to do and what we will change/add/delete from it. There are one or more people at Garmin doing this function for the trackers and GC...and they ultimately make the decision on whether an algorithm gets changed, as here with RHR. Unfortunately, Garmin has a nasty habit that to my mind is a measure of absolute professional incompetence by the Product Management group; it happens so often I'd be firing people if these folks worked for me.

For anything like this RHR calculation- where the customer would see new data- the customers MUST always be notified that there is a change and also be provide resources to describe the old algorithm and then what it changed to.

While I don't know how Garmin is handling (not handling actually) this - it's ultimately the responsibility of the Product Management Group to communicate all changes both as updates to the customers as well as updates to their own customer service groups in even more fine detail. Sometimes that group may write up the notes and get them to someone else to publish them.... but I place the blame squarely on Product Management. (I'm tempted to figure out from linkedin who the hell runs this group and ask them why they are F***ing with their customers and have so little respect for us).

It's a simple task that takes little time. I'm boggled that we've seen this with RHR and also BMR in the month or so I've had my VAHR...not to mention all the issues with other Garmin devices that are similar but for which I don't read the other forums to find.

We could debate the merits of whatever precise algorithm they choose, but that is OK as long as it is consistent with itself and the customer base knows what the algorithm is, as you've said. But they shouldn't be changing algorithms on the regular as they are all over the place!

By coincidence, I'm working at a company much like the situation we're discussing (I'm one of the guys who designs and tests the algorithms). So, the one key point I see missing from your otherwise convincing argument is that product managers -- who in my experience lack the training to fully understand what the algorithms actually mean -- like to think that what they are building is proprietary. I hear this notion a lot.

What that means, unfortunately, is that Garmin should therefore be relatively tight-lipped about what they compute and how they compute it. I owned the first-gen Microsoft Band and saw the exact same thing. Lots of hype about things like "recovery time," "resting heart rate," "VO2max" and my favorite, "Sleep Restoration." But absolutely no explanation for how they're defined or measured. In fact, the way that Microsoft's help team flat out ignored, redirected, or otherwise suppressed questions about the measures that the device reported (e.g., "The definition is what is printed on the website." Duh!!!) were simply astonishing.

While I agree with you 100% about the folly of tinkering and changing things (and worse, not providing meaningful changelogs), in the case of Garmin, who is operating in an otherwise viciously competitive business landscape, I think their product managers are understandably paranoid and working from a different playbook. Of course I don't agree with that strategy, but then again I'd rally that they all went open-source!

-Matt