Running Heartrate

@DannyLarkin If you look across these forums (and indeed other fitness forums) you'll see that if you want accurate HR measurements for more intensive activities then a wrist based HRM is unlikely to give you that. You may be able to improve the readings by adjusting tightness and positioning but many people cannot get good readings that way. If you are intending to train based on HR and HR Zones then the only sensible way to go is to get a chest strap. The wrist based is better suited to 24/7 background monitoring and sleep monitoring.

JSRUNNER_ I totally agree, and as you said, this is a general limitation of the (current) OHR technology, not unique for Garmin.

That said, I think it's a shame that the equipment manufacturers is marketing OHR like a fully capable substitution for the good old chest straps.

Has someone has already pointed out to get more accurate HR readings you need a chest strap, however I have found based on my testing that the HR readings are pretty accurate for running and walking activities

Hi All - I just got off a frustrating support call with Garmin on this very issue. I think the whole "OHR isn't reliable" line is a bit bogus as I've had great success with two other vendors OHR for a lot less money.

Case in point - I've been able to have my HR show up pretty consistently as long as I adjust the watch correctly. But the watch has been getting progressively less accurate the last few weeks. My AT is around 195 and with the OHR I've been getting runs where I'm consistent with past (chest-based) data. Lately I can't get the OHR to show above 162 for the same run/pace etc. Yesterday I was really frustrated and took the watch off my wrist (still had my "run" activity going) and for ~5 minutes it was still giving me a HR. So you understand how I was holding the watch (because after it didn't go to zero in 10 seconds I got curious), I wrapped the band under the watch and held the watch between two fingers on the side (by the buttons) so there was no sight or touch of my skin to the bottom of the watch for that duration.

OK that's weird enough, but when calling Garmin support all I got to this was "OHR doesn't work great and for some people doesn't work at all." When I pursued, asking if the 5 minutes was itself a relevant datapoint he said basically no "but I'll create a case if you want. They're just going to say the same thing I am". I reminded him it was a new (and $1k) watch, to which he said it was not, it was "basically a 5 so no, it's tested and proven".

Another datapoint - this is my second one. My first one I couldn't get to go above 143 - it would weirdly go to 142/3 on every run and top out. I did a number of runs, contrasting with another Garmin device that I paired with my chest monitor. THAT support person had me send in the data files for both devices and I got a response from engineering saying something was up with the watch and to return it for a replacement, which I did.

So while I understand that OHR will never be the accuracy that chest is, I'm not 100% convinced that based on what I'm able to get from other OHR devices as well as different, still bad, and DECLINING reliability out of this one doesn't mean it isn't algorithmic or something else.

But from the feedback I just got from their support, they don't seem to be too interested. Now I'm conflicted - keep/work-with-it, replace for another, or get another brand. ARGH because I love the watch otherwise!ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1387013.png

@wcakins : So if you love the watch otherwise, and obviously want good HR monitoring while exercising - why don't you just get simple (and cheap!) chest strap? Yes, I agree there might differences between brands, and probably even firmware versions - however I believe that the such bogus readings as you are describing often is caused by the developers approach to compensate for the unreliable sensor readings.

ActiveJRofficial : I agree to some extent - however I think it's limited to steady-state walking/running. For any activity with rapid changes in HR (i.e. intervals) I think OHR simply isn't good enough. That also goes for other activities with a lot of (wrist/arm) movement and/or heavy muscle activity such as rowing, squash etc.

SAHO you're welcome to your POV but it doesn't for me. If it's indeed the case that chest HRM is essentially required to use the watch as an exercise device and the OHR is basically a Fitbit then they should re-write the copy describing the watch. 1. It's not supposed to be incumbent on the user to drop > $1,000 and be ok with the fact that the product doesn't do what it states it does. 2. Offer a "workout bundle" (like they did with previous models) with a chest HRM - obviously people paying in this range are serious and thus get them what they need. 3. When talking to Support, being dismissive of the very technology in your flagship product is weird, patronizing, unhelpful and probably not serving the needs of your engineers who need that feedback? Especially when the issue is, "your product states it will do X, that doesn't work and you're now telling me I'm basically an idiot to expect it to". This is compounded by the fact that I have had experiences with much cheaper competitor products with similar technology that have "effective enough" OHR functionality for me.

I don't need "perfect". I tested/benchmarked the other devices against my fenix 2 with HRM when I bought them and they were proximal to my HR and AT that it was useful for me. I bought this with a similar expectation. But 30-60 bpm variances, and then showing HR for *5* minutes after taking the watch off is a far cry from a tweak to an algorithm. At least one of those is a major bug and with the other, the feature isn't fit for purpose (as described for the product). You seem willing to excuse that. I do not, and my frustration was compounded by the way Support handled my issue(s).

So while your suggestion is completely fine for you and others, my motivation is to *not* have to lug around a bunch of stuff when I travel, thus it is a drag for me in a premium product that pitches itself otherwise. You may apologize for these features in the flagship product, that's fine. I choose not to. My point in indicating that I *like* the watch is to say that it's a rational objective frustration in something I like otherwise.

I recently did a 6 minute interval as part of my TrainAsOne training plan. I forgot to grab my HRM-run before leaving the house and just decided to stick with the ORH from the 5x Plus. It turned out pretty well and ramps nicely as i rolled into the interval. It also responded well to my recovery shuffle at the end. YMMV, but for me the results were pretty comparable to what I'd expect out of my chest strap. ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1387455.jpg

wcadkins : I understand your frustration, and I fully agree that based on the marketing we should be able to expect better performance from the OHR. As said in an above post I think it's a shame that Garmin (and others!) are marketing OHR to be just as good as a chest strap.

However, my point is simply that a quick Google search will reveal that it's quite common knowledge that OHR at the current state of the technology is NOT capable to replace the chest strap just yet, and my personal view on that fact is that I have "come to rest" with the approach that OHR is fine for 24/7 monitoring, while once I head out for an exercise I will put on the chest strap.

I don't say that I accept or excuse the way Garmin is selling the technology as something it cannot deliver, I just acknowledge the way things are and choose to spend my energy on something else.

Thanks to everyone for responding.

I agree that wrist based HR is not going to compare with chest rate.

my point however is the dramatic inconsistencies.

for example if I was running and at 150 OHR and it said 135, I can chalk it up to the tech.

However for the walk to record a higher heart rate than the run seems extremely inconsistent.

I'm wondering where the error comes from. If it's buggy code then after spending £1000 I'd hope that future code developments will improve interpretation of readings.

If it's hardware however then the Fenix 5x Plus seems extremely overpriced. It means that it's sensors and design is pretty poor and doesnt deserve a premium.