My new Fenix says that I’m at maximum heart rate when running. I’m barely sweating and can talk without an issue. It seems to work fine when cycling and broadcasting to my 510. For similar levels of effort on the bike it has me at 70%. This is a replacement Fenix for another one I had for a couple of weeks with similar issues. Before this I had a 935 with no issues
I assume you are using the wrist HRM not a chest band. I posted a topic discussing how well the wrist HRM does work for me, about a month or so ago, with a 5x but I guess the same applies to the plus.
The take-away message was that for me accuracy depends on how tight I can make the strap so that the watch doesn't move around when running, without it becoming too uncomfortable. Since then I've backed off a notch on the tightness and still get pretty acceptable results most of the time. If I find that I disagree with the HR measured (and this does happen, sometimes just momentarily, but sometimes for prolonged periods), I tighten the strap and usually it comes good again.
TonyMerritt46 there is alot of threads on here about accuracy of wrist based HR and for many people they get a poor reading particularly when performing more intense activities. If you want to use HR to guide your training unless you are very lucky with wrist based you would be much better off with a chest strap
Your HR data does not need to be many beats out to put you in a different zone and I struggle with people wanting HR data but not bothered if it is 10 bpm out as for trainig purposes it then becomes useless
My 5x+ heart rate sensor is so bad it’s essentially worthless. Yes, I wear it high and tight. It’s unfortunate, as otherwise I love the watch - but I don’t want to wear a strap every time I go to the gym or go for a run. I don’t need it to be totally accurate - just within a few bpm is fine - but it frequently shows half (or double) my actual heart rate. The last straw was a 20-minute row where the 5x+ never did get an accurate heart rate, something even my old Fitbits and Apple watches did after a minute or two.
TonyMerritt46 there is alot of threads on here about accuracy of wrist based HR and for many people they get a poor reading particularly when performing more intense activities. If you want to use HR to guide your training unless you are very lucky with wrist based you would be much better off with a chest strap
Your HR data does not need to be many beats out to put you in a different zone and I struggle with people wanting HR data but not bothered if it is 10 bpm out as for trainig purposes it then becomes useless
If I wanted to opt for a chest strap, I would have settled for a cheaper watch and not a $1100 piece of hardware... Surely one can expect it to perform on some level of accuracy.
The inconsistencies encountered under the same environmental conditions does indicate a hardware defect.
Only settling for a "garmin is making huge strides" excuse is not acceptable.
Gnl_Jakes what do you mean same environmental conditions - if you are saying that all of the things that will impact the reading in two separate cases are the same - movement of the arm, wrist, body type of excercise, body temperature and blood flow at the surface of the body, amount of flexion in the wrist area, amount of sweat or water on the wrist ..... - if these are all the same and you get two significantly different readings then yes you may have a hardware defect - but I don't believe for most people that this is the case. The fact is that OHR from the wrist is a fundamentally flawed way to measure. If you had researched before spending your $1100 then it would have been easy to see that the technology has significant problems in Polar, Suunto Apple and others. If you want accurate HR measurement (accurate enough to be useful for training purposes) then a chest strap is still by far the best option - Optical is bound to be worse as it is trying to measure using a secondary measure at a long distance from the heart. The Fenix has additional problems to some cheaper models (both Garmin and others) I think because it is a substantial and heavy bodied watch this causes it to move in relation to the wrist much more easily during intense exercise.
JSRUNNER_ , that is exactly what I mean.... If the conditions are the same, and it gives two separate readings, there must be something fundamentally wrong with the device... The Fenix 5X plus isn't my first OHR watch, so I have alot of "research" under the belt thank you for your condescendence/infantilisation... I do realise that the tech is far from sublime, but what's even more irritating than a hotshot shooting down relevant quarries form customers (yes, the ones prepared to pay $1100 for a decent fitness watch) highlighting serious defects, is the fact that doing the same activities under the same conditions resulting in poor and inaccurate results (taking into consideration the industry accepted deviances between OHR and chest straps as well as track record of that same bloody device on the same arm, swinging the same way at the exact same tension as before). So please, do me a favour and do not reply in the event that you don't have anything positively contributable.
The point of the matter is, the device is not functioning consistently accurate (please see the above definition for accuracy)...
Gnl_Jakes just shouting abuse doesn't make your case any stronger. Just because you deem the two test conditions to be identical doesn't make it so. I accept that if the firmware has changed between your examples then its possible that the changes may impact your particular case. It's not condescence or infantilisation to point out that OHR devices experience a whole range of issues across the board in Apple, Suunto, Garmin and others. I don't see an above definition for accuracy nor do I see a documented industry standard for accepted deviations between OHR and chest straps. I'm sure it can be improved by Garmin and I'm equally sure that they are working on it but I think its unlikely that it will improve sufficiently to work for all people for all activities.
If you perceive that Garmin is not responding as you want then it seems the obvious option is to return the device as "not fit for purpose" and buy the other "ideal" device that is out there that fulfils your needs.
JSRUNNER_ Seeing that you are the utmost expert, maybe you should do your PHD in "documented industry standard for accepted deviations between OHR and chest straps" and then maybe you can supply the world and especially this forum with relevant insight, not just by throwing a hissy fit by saying "sell the damn thing and buy another thing". And just because you try selling the point of OHR to be as defective as you say it is, does not mean that it is... So stop hiding behind this sentiment and start furnishing the argument with proper and relevant information. If it can work properly within reasonable bounds on other occasions/activities (90% of the time) surely there is fault. And shooting people down for raising such relevant concerns will not aid the plight of hiding the fact for being paid by Garmin... PS. Its people like you that gives forums like these bad reputations.
Gnl_Jakes - seems to me that you're the expert on Hissy Fits. So can you show me the industry documented standard - that's all I'm asking I don't claim to have knowledge of it and would be interested to see it and learn from your superior insight.
Just because it works within reasonable bounds for you 90% of the time doesn't mean that its defective because it doesn't work the other 10%. I'm certainly not saying that there aren't room for improvements but its subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Again I wish I was being paid by Garmin but of course I'm not any more than you are being paid by Garmin's competitors.
I merely suggested you try an alternative device because you are evidently seriously disatisfied with the one you have and the response from the manufacturer and you believe that the device is performing outside of your industry standard
