Heart Rate Way Wrong

Sorry, I didn’t mean to be condescending, but this topic is probably the one that historically has been generating complaints the most around here, and a bare minimum of reasearch should reveal that you probably can’t retire the good old strap just yet if you want accurate and reliable heart rate monitoring.

Well thank you for that. So our €900 watch isn't doing what it's supposed to do, and we should be akoy with that, just because you already knew it?

The heart rate moniutor on the F5x Plus is pathetic. It gives me 85 BPM when my WHoop straps and my chest monitor say I'm doing 180 BPM. THis is not just a little off, it's just totally not working at all.

I have exactly the same problem with the Fenix 5X Plus. Even during running it suddenly drops heart rate to half. Changing wrist doesn't change anything. Watch was exchanged, same problem. I will sell it and it's my last Garmin.

well, but to be honest, there is a difference between expecting an unreliable or unaccurate HRM and having an HRM, which drops from what should be 120 to the resting heartrate of 60 after one hour hiking. Beside that, why have other, much cheaper models from garmin a much more reliable HRM? If you go through the posts, the complains aren't about inaccurate HRM, like 20 beats off, it is more like showing half of the real HR, this has nothing todo with the usual HRM complains we all read several times.....

Bernhard_Winter said:

why have other, much cheaper models from garmin a much more reliable HRM?

I don't have any scientific evidence, but it has been suggested that the Fenix, and especially the 5X, is worse than i.e. the Forerunners due to their size, weight etc, which sounds quite plausible to me. 

The price of the watch doesn't say anything about the quality/capability of the OHR, in many cases it's the exact same sensor in both expensive and the cheaper models, i.e. F5 vs VA3, or the F6 vs FR945 vs FR245. The price difference is due to everything else you won't find on the cheaper models.

It's simple - my Fenix 5x+ OHR simply doesn't work around 160 bpm and above. I'm not happy about it but for me personally 1)  it does everything else really well and 2) in doing some research many OHRs don't work accurately or correctly at higher heart rates. BTW I'm not defending Garmin in any way - this is a _very_expensive watch and users have the right to expect it will work as advertised.

As my HR goes into 160 and above the Fenix drops down into the 60's, then 50's. If I stop and my HR recovers as it passes into the 150's the Fenix starts coming up and eventually they synchronize again. I've had this happen in multiple sports (rowing, hiking, etc). Perhaps it is picking up a harmonic or beat frequency or something - or perhaps its a limitation of the hardware itself. It would be nice if it's NOT a hardware limitation and if Garmin could fix it in S/W.

And no its not a matter of wrist placement or band tightness - I've tried every combination and nothing helps.

I have not seen enough conclusive posts about other brands by multiple people to believe any OHR sensor works at high HRs - it seems everyone ultimately uses a chest strap. Thoughts?

Correct...mostly. There is improvement with the later devices - F6, Marq, 945 - that give hope for the future of WHR for 'active' activities. But for older devices with the first generation of hardware, sorry but it's unlikely to get much better.

And do remember, Garmin have always recommended a strap for activities.

Hmmm. When a normal WALK (not run) with correctly adjusted wrist band (I proved it with Garmin staff directly) leads to a sudden drop by half it is not acceptable for a watch like this ... and always wear a strap? Just for a walk? There are lots of other issues with the 5X Plus. VO2 max is just half of what measured at doctor, wearing the watch during VO2 max test. SpO2 measurements often don't work. Watch resets to standard watch face and settings every view days (it's my second 5X Plus after replacement by Garmin - thus systemic failure), and with every update new issues of some not properly working sensors. The sleep tracking is a joke, far from reality, even my Ionic is way better in this. As I am nearly 60 with some cardiac challenges, reliable data are important for me - I do not get it with this watch. The only functions I really appreciate is all GPS related stuff and a proper sports tracking (excepted heart rate). And I agree with you, I do not expect any improvement, especially after the 6 series is launched. 

6157427 said:

When a normal WALK (not run) with correctly adjusted wrist band (I proved it with Garmin staff directly) leads to a sudden drop by half it is not acceptable for a watch like this

Certainly agree with that. But most of the complaints about optical heart rate are about activities. Yes some people do have issues at low intensities but they are few and far between. In which case there needs to be clarity about skin tone and skin surface artefacts such as tattoos, excessive hair, scarring.Sadly, articles like this - 

https://www.wareable.com/sport/optical-heart-rate-tech-the-experts-speak-9763 

and even Garmin's own advice:

https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=xQwjQjzUew4BF1GYcusE59&productID=641479&searchQuery=The%20Heart%20Rate%20Sensor%20on%20My%20Watch%20Is%20Not%20Accurate&tab=topics

are ignored or deliberately overlooked because some people just will not accept the limits of the technology.