Related
Options

Epix not capturing any high heart rates

bdav
7 months ago

FW 19.41

I’ve had my Epix  gen2 for about a month as an Apple Watch 5 replacement. I do a very similar PT session regularly, and I’m generally in tune with where I’m at HR wise. 

A typical session might be 5-10% Z5, around 20% Z4, and a blend of the rest. The Apple Watch typically picked this up no problem. No tattoos, pale skin, wearing it plenty tight. 

The Epix barely sees Z4, let alone Z5. I see intense exercise sat at 90bpm, and it dropping to 65 sometimes in the rest. I wore a strap today with the Epix, and saw my normal numbers as I’d expect. Wife does the same class sometimes, and sees sensible numbers on her venu2. 

The Epix barely works as an exercise watch if the HRM doesn’t work. Are many others experiencing the same?

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to 7017726

    I noticed this on a F6 for the first time. Used Cardio in the beginning for Cross Trainer trainings. But the special activity is much better wrt OHR readings.

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to Dr Phil

    You are still treating all HR issues as if they are same. They are not.

    There are issues with HR that started occurring frequently in 2024 (such as very low HR during first 10-20 minutes into a run or HR dropping suddenly down to 50 bpm in the middle of the workout for no reason and than spiking back up, etc.), which affect range of Garmin watches (and was extensively reported for Forerunner 255,256,955,965, Epix, Fenix 7). On such user reports, you posted always same reply as if it is OHR limitation or user error. But you never replied to the question why same users with same watches started having those HR issues in 2024?

    The answer you gave here could be applied to any problem in Garmin watches. For example, it would be like saying to people that have battery drain issue after software update that it is really not due to software update because someone had battery drain issue before. Clearly faulted logic.

    Moreover, in first link you posted as defense of your logic (forums.garmin.com/.../hr-accuracy-issues---specifically-xc-skate-ski) user reports the problem saying: "average hr was ~110 bpm on an outing I know I was pushing 180/190 the whole time" to which you reply him to get a chest strap and gave same "These issues have been well documented and discussed ever since the first Garmin came out with optical heart rate". Do you really think it is normal for Garmin watches to be so bad at HR tracking (to record average HR 110 instead about 180)?

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to Vizi

    Adding my personal experience, I must admit that I have always experienced HR issues (when running) with OHR sensors (not only with my current Marq Gen 2, also with other Garmin watches), especially in cold(er) circumstances. That's why I always wear a strap when doing sports where I really want good data.

    I also use an Apple Watch Ultra, which I wear often during the day and on runs as second watch, without HR strap. The recorded HR is usually spot on - exactly the same as what my Marq says (with HR strap). Nevertheless, I have also had issues with the AWU in colder circumstances, and more often than I would like, the AWU sometimes shows no HR during exercise.

    With the Garmin Marq Gen 2, my experience is that when I do not use a strap (not often), the first 30 minutes of my run the HR is always way too low. After a while it settles in. During walks (then I never wear a strap), I often notice HR that is (way) too high.

    Bottom line, I do not really trust the accuracy of Garmin's Elevate V4 HR sensor in general.    

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to aleksiz

    I think the problem with the newer Garmin algorithms is that they try to guess heart rate although the measurement is faulty. IMHO the better approach is to ignore the faulty data like your Apple Watch does.

    That said my Fenix 6S Pro never had such issues, but my Epix Pro has for some weeks. Possibly the reading got worse because of colder weather, but the software doesn't help.

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to 2b2bff

    I asked ChatGPT about it, and this is its response (in part), comparing Garmin watches with others.

    Why Other Brands Perform Better

    • Apple Watch:
      • Focuses heavily on consumer-grade activity tracking with robust algorithms for OHR. It uses advanced machine learning to interpret data.
    • Polar:
      • Known for heart rate monitoring, Polar’s sensors and algorithms are fine-tuned for high accuracy.
    • Coros:
      • While less popular, Coros watches often show fewer reports of OHR issues, potentially due to a more streamlined algorithm focus.

    What Garmin Could Do Better

    • Algorithm Refinement:
      • Garmin could deploy more frequent updates to specifically address OHR issues under common use cases like treadmill walking and stationary cycling.
    • User Testing:
      • Broader beta testing with diverse users could help refine their algorithms for more real-world accuracy.
    • Transparency:
      • Acknowledging the problem more directly and outlining a roadmap for fixes could boost user trust.

    For now, Garmin users experiencing these issues often rely on external chest straps or arm bands for consistent heart rate monitoring. If you're still encountering these problems despite following best practices, it might be worth raising the issue directly with Garmin support for a detailed response or workaround.

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to 7017726

    No offense, but I don't care about what any of those so-called AIs give as an answer. Polar's HR sensors on the watch are not better, only their straps are known to be exact.

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to 2b2bff

    When you say Polar is no better, do you mean it is off by several bpm or do you mean off by 30-50 bpm for extended times. Or, like yesterday on a 20 minute row (Concept 2 machine), my HR was fine for the first half, then dropped from 130-40 to under 110, going as low as 104 during last five minutes even as I upped the intensity.

    No watch is perfect, though Apple Watch comes close, according to Quantified Scientist. But when you're told your walk was a 'Sprint' workout, or an intense 40-minute workout registers an average HR of 85, we have a problem.

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to 7017726

    Thats why I said my Fenix 6S Pro was better and more consistent with heart rates. But in all other aspects (besides battery life) my Epix Pro is better. Especially pacing was a PITA...

    The times my Epix Pro got HR right, it was really good. This has been about May to October 2024. But lately is more miss than hit...

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to 2b2bff

    I've noticed it getting progressively worse, perhaps not in the amount it is off but more frequently, and in different ways. Such as with my recent rowing workout, where HR began well but in the second half it dropped off well below actual. A manual carotid HR check about 20 seconds after the workout showed it was still above 120, while with the watch it was barely above 100 during the last of the workout. 

  • 0 6 months ago in reply to 2b2bff

    Ok, first run today. Same experience as in the last weeks. HR too low and then after about 18 minutes a sudden jump to the correct HR. That's the proof it is not (purely) hardware related.