The algorithm behind resting HR

OK believe what you like. You are not measuring anything though and do not have access to the full data set so not sure how you are drawing any conclusions you are simply looking at a reported data chart. Just out of curiosity how do you know the chart is right without the data and the RHR is incorrect? How do you know that the chart is reporting only the minimum value during a 2 minute time period and the 1 minute average for RHR does not result in 59? Without the actual data I do not see it as possible to draw any conclusions honestly, but hey I am just an engineer, what do I know.

Oh I believe it's in their FAQ, however, when given the choice I trust the data over the documentation. Professional habit - the only truth lies in measurement (that you have done yourself, preferably) ;). This screenshot is just one example. I have multiple datasets with half-hour periods 10 bpm below the stated RHR...

I remember, that I read, that the RHR (might be for the web version), is not taken into account, when you are sleeping.

You might well get a lower heart rate when sleeping, but that's not necessarily your true resting heart rate. You need to be awake.

And there lies the problem. Some define the RHR as your lowest HR when you're awake, others define it as your absolute lowest, including when you're asleep. So when you're asked to input your RHR into the latest and greatest training program calculator, you often have to guess which RHR they want or just accept that we're all so different anyway that any standard formula's not going be so accurate that a few bpm difference in RHR is going to matter anyway.

I think Garmin should clarify this...

Resting heart rate used in calclulations such as the Karvonen formula used to work out heart rate reserve is from awake at rest. It's the one you input into any calculator. There could be quite an effect on calculations for heart rate reserve. A high resting rate coupled with a low HRmax greatly reduces the heart rate reserve (HRmax-RHR), thereby narrowing the ranges for exercise. We are all different.

It's not a problem. It's just people not understanding the metric.

I am unaware of any use of lowest heart rate obtained during sleeping for anything other than bragging rights.

I think Garmin should clarify this...

They have done (as posted earlier by Chimpware):

https://support.garmin.com/faqSearch/en-GB/faq/content/F8YKCB4CJd5PG0DR9ICV3A

I am unaware of any use of lowest heart rate obtained during sleeping for anything other than bragging rights.

Yet that's what Garmin have decided to capture as RHR :rolleyes:

OK believe what you like. You are not measuring anything though and do not have access to the full data set so not sure how you are drawing any conclusions you are simply looking at a reported data chart. Just out of curiosity how do you know the chart is right without the data and the RHR is incorrect? How do you know that the chart is reporting only the minimum value during a 2 minute time period and the 1 minute average for RHR does not result in 59? Without the actual data I do not see it as possible to draw any conclusions honestly, but hey I am just an engineer, what do I know.

Good question, I should have clarified in my original reply. I actually measured my heartrate independently using a chest belt on my old Ambit 2 and a Fitbit. I exported all datasets (i.e. not just looked at the graph online) into Matlab and compared them. Long story short - the measurements agreed within reasonable error margins expected of optical HR sensors. So in conclusion I can say that a) the data reported by garmin makes sense and roughly matches other sensor's data and b) that the reported RHR is apparently not derived from the data in the way stated in the FAQ, since the stated RHR values simply do not agree with the data. When three different devices including the Fenix consistently yield a heart rate of 50 over a 10-minute period and Garmin states my RHR as 60 then I know I cannot trust that calculation. Cheers from a fellow engineer :)!