Heart Rate inaccurately low during almost all exercise

Same here. Each and every time I start my hiking expedition it never reflects my correct heart rate.. Here's what I do to fix it: I push myself hard for 3-5 minutes until my heart rate is elevated. Then I stop walking to eliminate any watch movement, and press it into my wrist hard and wait until it recognizes my correct heart rate.. This takes anywhere from 30s to 3 minutes. If it takes a full 3 minutes, I have to start walking again so my heart rate doesn't settle out... pretty annoying to be honest. But it's worse to make it all the way to the top and then find out it hasn't been reading the heart rate properly for the previous 45 minutes!

So what can we do about this? I have the same issue and it is very frustrating, not to mention unbecoming of a “fitness tracker” that costs $300+ and doesn’t accurately track fitness

Not much until they fix the software. If they even fix it at all.

Same issue with steady state long distance cycling.  Shows 50% of actual heart rate then jumps to actual and then back again.  Apple Watch heart rate monitoring is FDA approved.

@garmin

recall this item and replace the heart sensor with something more reliable or send out a functional software update to help the sensor work.

This is poor quality whe it's one of the major selling points of the watch.

3126833 said:

Fitbit is faaaaar superior with workout recognition and heart rate monitoring. I never had an issue with precise heart rates and I used several different models for several years.

Ditto. I'm finding Fitbit Charge superior to Instinct Crossover in terms of HR tracking. I got Crossover to supplement and potentially replace the Charge but I'm not trusting Garmin right now.

In a week that I have owned Crossover, 2 out of 3 actual activities have dubious HR data. 

First recorded run had HR about 20bpm lower than expected. This resulted in Garmin Coach telling me to run faster in week 1 than my end goal pace as apparently I can do 4:20 pace at 140bpm for 5min. Fitbit had me blowing up at 160+bpm (true to how I felt), just idling there on the other wrist, not tracking an activity as such.

Repeat of the same benchmark run had a matching HR trend to Fitbit and how I felt. Only trustworthy piece of HR data so far I think.

Then reviewing HR last night after a steady 200W ERG Zwift ride, for the first half of the ride HR was more like 40 bpm lower according to Crossover than the strap and Fitbit. This time Crossover was not recording an activity.

So far, not a ton of confidence about anything Garmin suggests performance wise.

doctordarko said:

Repeat of the same benchmark run had a matching HR trend to Fitbit and how I felt. Only trustworthy piece of HR data so far I think.

Rather get a HRM strap for a few bucks. A watch with an optical sensor, regardless of brand will never be accurate anyway. Some models may work better in some situations than others, but will fail in a different situation, or with a different person. If you check the web, it is full of complaints about all brands, Apple and Fitbit not excluding.

If you are serious about your HR-based training, there is no way around a chest strap. You can get a 3rd party strap for a bargain, but I highly recommend the HRM-Pro that brings many more features, including the Running Dynamics, Store & Forward feature, improved pace and distance logging, and others.

BTW, I am one of the lucky persons, for whom the internal optical HR sensor of Instinct and Instinct 2 always worked well. I rarely get any cadence lock with it, and the HR is reactive, showing changes in HR instantly without any delays reported by some. Not sure why it is - may be because I use the proper fit and position, or more likely because good hemoglobin levels, because of thin epidermis with only light tan, well pronounced veins, etc.

trux said:

Rather get a HRM strap for a few bucks. A watch with an optical sensor, regardless of brand will never be accurate anyway.

I am well aware of the limitations of the wrist sensors and do not expect them to perfectly line up with the chest strap I use for cycling. However, I do expect a reasonably 'smoothed' HR data captured on the wrist regardless of the activity, hassle free. At least that is what I have grown accustomed to over the years.

I do not want to think about manually starting a cardio/bike/etc session (to maximise sampling rate and good HR data) every time I run up the stairs at work, hop onto the indoor trainer or go kick a football with kids. 

So when a 3x more expensive watch does a half as good job as what I have right now, it does not fill one with joy and happiness. 

doctordarko said:

However, I do expect a reasonably 'smoothed' HR data captured on the wrist regardless of the activity, hassle free. At least that is what I have grown accustomed to over the years.

Well, frankly told, I am accustomed to it too, with my Instincts. Over the years I have couple of them already, so I just did a brief test while climbing some floors using all of them. I started an activity on some of them, and let others in the smartwatch mode without any activity running.

I do have also multiple accounts, so can separate the data from individual devices. The HR data from all devices is perfectly consistent and coherent. It looks practically identical on all of them despite that I used both wrists, and some of the watches were quite far up on the forearm.

The following graph is the output from the watch recording an activity. I started with the HR around 75, going down a floor first, so it took 20s before the HR rose to 100 bpm, but as you see on the graph it reacts instantly on the climbing with high HR, and drops down quickly when I walk down.

The all-day HR graph (zoomed to the concerned section below), shows very much the same data, also reacting immediately, although you have to keep on mind that it shows 2 minutes HR averages, so the peaks and downs of individual floors are smoothed out. It shows exactly what I expect from it, and it corresponds what the other watches show too, regardless of the mode used.

That told, I believe you that it does not work well for you, but it does not mean it is the standard. If you do not find a way to make it working satisfactorily, then I recommend sticking with a model that works well. We are all different, and what works for the majority, does not necessarily work for everyone, so you best use the device that works well for you.