Fenix 5 report too low heart rate at any intervall training.

Hi,

is there anything that can be done to this issue? At this point wrist HR is unusable to me. It does not give any sensible readings if i do any other than basic running exercise. Few weeks ago I forgot my chest strap at home from my ice hockey practice. Week after that i got chest strap with me at practice again. I knew that wrist HR would not be as accurate as chest strap but the difference is so huge that there is no reason to even use wrist hr at my training.

Point is that even thought wrist hr has it limits there is no excuse to be this wrong:

Wrist Hr
AVG HR 128bpm Max hr 177 Training effect because of these 2.8 and calories 680C

Chest strap
AVG HR 154 bpm Max hr 195 Training effect 4.6 and Calories 880C

Both practices were identical and my fitness levels were about the same (these would make only few bpm difference anyway). I'm not fittest person in the world but I know my data and that chest strap reported HR is almost spot on what it should be. I have noticed this same behavior when i do interval running. Basically you can't do any interval running with hr rates with the watch.

Something else i noticed is that after a shift i took watch of my wrist and it did not drop heart rate even if it was off from my wrist over 5seconds.

I know where i should were the watch to get any sensible data out of it so that is not the problem here.

When the watch also has GPS issues and Altitude meters report floors climbed when i stay still and sit at my chair there is something seriously wrong here. It is 500e watch here at Finland so I do have really hard time to believe that these are "features" and not flaws.

0 Gnl_Jakes over 6 years ago

I think it's you who doesn't get it or isn't listening. As pointed out already, different watch designs, different weights and different sensors. Just because you're seeing the problem with your watch and not with Apple, Fitbit, or whomever, doesn't make it a programming problem. I'm sure there are people out there who say their Fenix 5 oHRM works much better than their Apple, Fitbit, etc. ever did.

Does this mean now that the defects on the garmins should not be highlighted?

AshotJP many products are over-marketed but the fact is that the OHR DOES work - it just doesn't work to the level that you expect or want. If you can find somewhere in Garmin's advertising and specifications an assertion that the OHR will be accurate to within x% of the true heart rate for all excercise types for all people then I'm sure you have a very good case to take to advertising standards authorities etc - but if not then .... Also I suggest that you re-examine your own logic and thought processes before suggesting that some people are "paid" to write these words - I wish I was because I'd make a fortune responding to people that seem unable to understand the limitations of OHR technology.

I'd be grateful if you could show me where in the Garmin literature it sets your expectation that OHR measurement will be accurate to within a specified margin. By the way I'm not saying there's not room for improvement but only that these issues are not confined to Garmin but affect most OHR devices currently on the market. The problem with changing the algorithms to overcome one issue is that it may well cause other issues. However you are obviously unhappy with your device so return it as not fit for purpose and buy another device that will work for you and let us know how you get on :)

JSRUNNER_ , you are just to generous condecendance/infantilisation. Rather just refrain from posting when you don't have anything to positively to contribute! Or aply so manners when you do reply.

0 JSRUNNER_ over 6 years ago

Gnl_Jakes I don't think a lesson in manners from yourself is very appropriate given the tone of your postings - perhaps time for self-examination on your part.

Of course it's worth highlighting defects to Garmin and information may help them improve the products. My comment above is simply asking the poster to show where the specific level of accuracy claimed is actually documented so that he can then make the appropriate case.

0 Gnl_Jakes over 6 years ago

Gnl_Jakes I don't think a lesson in manners from yourself is very appropriate given the tone of your postings - perhaps time for self-examination on your part.

No self-examination needed. I only become this way in the presence of unjust and inappropriate condecendance towards a respective and just cause. I am sure that you do have a positive contribution to make, but your attitude towards others is appalling. Go and look at all of you posts! Try to apply the knowledge that you do posses in a more subtle, malleable way that is less unsavory and just outright disgusting.

Gnl_Jakes Of course it's worth highlighting defects to Garmin and information may help them improve the products.

So why be like you are when they do?

Gnl_Jakes My comment above is simply asking the poster to show where the specific level of accuracy claimed is actually documented so that he can then make the appropriate case.

NO!!!! YOU ARE CONDESCENDING!!!

0 JSRUNNER_ over 6 years ago

Gnl_Jakes why is it condescending to ask someone for documented support for their statements - when they quote accuracy definitions and industry standards and then cannot support them

As regards highlighting defects to Garmin - the forum does not directly do that - this is a user forum not a garmin support site

0 Former Member over 6 years ago

Does this mean now that the defects on the garmins should not be highlighted?

I don't think you're following me. You have no idea the complexion of my skin. You don't know the muscular build around my wrist or how much body hair I have on that part of my body. You have no idea how much I perspire. You don't know how loosely or tight I wear my watch and how much movement it has on my wrist. I have no idea about any of those things about you. These are just a few of many factors that affect the oHRM. Therefore, we can be using the exact make and model watch and have different degrees of inaccuracies with HR. One of us may great results while the other's is very poor. So, what defect needs to be highlighted in this case? There is no oHRM on the market that works with the same precision on every single person.

0 Former Member over 6 years ago

why is it condescending

Because you didn't insert frolicking ponies, colorful balloons and twinkling stars to your post. Failing to do so, and having an opposing view, makes you a threat. You're obviously condescending or a Garmin employee. Perhaps both? Anyway, as stated before, it you don't agree with someone, you shouldn't be posting on an open public forum.

0 simonsev over 6 years ago

My Fenix 5 has gone from similar to Fitbit Charge-3 to totally random and (barely above resting) inaccurate after the 12.40 update, with exactly the same exercise routine week to week.

Let's see what the next update does.

Have been doing some experimenting, my F5 seems to be only acting randomly when in an excercise mode, if I start the excercise, say treadmill, without actually activating the activity, heartrate rises up normally, get to excercise level, 5 mins or so, then start tracking it seems to record normally.

that would indicate it is software related maybe?, it is trying to filter something within the activity tracking which is messing up the system “starting from cold” is what it seems like to me.

0 JSRUNNER_ over 6 years ago

simonsev interesting experiment - sounds plausible that it is excercise related and that Garmin are adjusting the algorithm used for that activity type to try and fix the irregularities that people are seeing - unfortunately for you it seems to have made things worse. Unfortunately on the forums what we see mainly are the cases where things are not working well for people It would be great to be able to see an overview of how well (or not) the functions work for people across the whole population of users. I guess garmin have the same issue they will have beta testers but those will only represent a minute portion of the overall user base. Maybe they should consider developing an error reporting function within connect whereby you could flag an activity as anomalous - select form a variety of categories of error - e.g. GPS track, OHR heart rate isssue etc and then send the activity to support. That would cerainly give them more data to work with and a better idea of the scale and extent of each issue in the user base.

0 simonsev over 6 years ago

simonsev interesting experiment - sounds plausible that it is excercise related and that Garmin are adjusting the algorithm used for that activity type to try and fix the irregularities that people are seeing - unfortunately for you it seems to have made things worse. Unfortunately on the forums what we see mainly are the cases where things are not working well for people It would be great to be able to see an overview of how well (or not) the functions work for people across the whole population of users. I guess garmin have the same issue they will have beta testers but those will only represent a minute portion of the overall user base. Maybe they should consider developing an error reporting function within connect whereby you could flag an activity as anomalous - select form a variety of categories of error - e.g. GPS track, OHR heart rate isssue etc and then send the activity to support. That would cerainly give them more data to work with and a better idea of the scale and extent of each issue in the user base.

I would be prepared to guess that all the manufacturers are more or less using the same hardware, same as phones for example, software will be the key difference. The main difference for me between the Fitbit Charge 3 and F5 is that the FC3 is 24/7 just operating as an observer, gets (needs?) few updates and has been very consistent for me (as was the Alta HR before it) . The F5 mostly does very well, I also do a lot of weekend walking with the F5, both "logged" as an activity and with it just as an observer, it mostly shows similar results to the Fitbit +/- 20%, which is fine for a leisure device(s) in my mind and it will only get better as more data is gathered and they iron out the bugs. Considering how far the systems have come in 2 years, again, same as phones for example, we will have fully 80-90% accurate units within the next 2 years for sure!

I would be interested to see the age breakdown on those who are most vocal on the (perceived) faults, personally I think the unit overall is so good with so many features that this likely causes less patient folk to focus on one item which irritates them and we all do get very OCD about our fitness stats when pushing hard and seeing rewarding benefits.

Also just as a quick wildcard, optical fingerprint sensors on Samsung s10 replaced with ultrasonic senors..............................hmmmmm

0 JSRUNNER_ over 6 years ago

@simonserv I think DCRAINMAKER talks a bit about the different sensors used but there is a limited selection. Agreed software is a huge factor but also the positioning and the weight of the unit have quite a big impact. I find the OHR on my 5+ to be poor where I have used it for activities - which has only been for slow walks as I use a chest strap when training. Whilst the innaccuracy is an irritation I only really use the OHR for the 24/7 monitoring and don't try and use it to measure or guide training sessions. I'm sure the software will improve but the optical method is always at a disadvantage when it comes to HR measurement being remote from the heart and needing to work around so many different variables from one user to another across a huge range of very different activities.

As for age - are you suggesting its the younger or older users that are more impatient :)