PULSE OX Readings Low

I routinely get readings at 95%.... its my understanding that your normal pulse ox should be near 100%. (Maybe that isn't correct)

Have others found the same or do you find the Instinct's readings are accurate?

Top Replies

LeslieSnipes over 3 years ago +2

Yep, mine are low. Normally around 93-95 % , I used a finger based pulse ox the other day which read about 98% while the instinct was showing 94%.
sspanak over 3 years ago +1

It's the same as with reading the heart rate - the watch should be strapped tightly to you wrist and you shouldn't be moving if you want accurate results.

This is the first generation of oxygen…
Gonzo over 3 years ago in reply to cpdearie +1

I can't speak with accuracy but I would imagine any of these watches is not going to be that accurate compared to a pulse ox that goes directly onto your finger.

All Replies

0 Dumbquestion over 2 years ago in reply to Gonzo

I wouldn't mind if my Garmin instinct solar had a"reasonable" reading, but mine's about 8 to 12 points off; 82 to 87 at night, and my Mobvoi Ticwatch Pro 3 pro reads 97 to 100. I've worn them at the same time on each arm, and switched arms. I've compared it to a finger reader. Mines just too far off and inconsistently off to just math it right. Bummer. Does anyone know if the Garmin instinct solar 2's reader is any better?

0 1246907 11 months ago

I made the major mistake of relying on my Garmin watch for accurate pulse-ox readings. In fact, I made several trips to the doctor (Both cardiologist and pulmonologist) only to have the latter tell me those wrist pulse ox watches are all garbage. Then he proved it. Put two different pulse ox devices on my ring and middle fingers of opposite hands and had me compare readings from my Garmin watch several times using both wrists and several tightness fittings. Over the course of 40 minutes I took about 30 readings and not a single one was similar. The Garmin always shows lower in some cases by 8%. Both fingers shows almost identical. My fingers were reading 98-99 and 99-100 or both identical. The Watch was always 92-97. Even if you took three readings back-to-back-to-back in rapid succession, you got readings all over the place. For reference I am a white male with not very hairy wrists and no history of heart problems or respiratory issues.

Then the Pulmonologist told me that he sees lots of people who come in with false scares of low pulse ox readings and fears of Hypoxemia every month to the point where he now askes if they are wearing a garmin or other company watch!

They should just remove this feature. Seriously.

0 trux 11 months ago in reply to 1246907

1246907 said:
They should just remove this feature. Seriously.

I have a fingertip pulse oximeter, and it shows me consistently the same values as my Instinct, usually 98-99%. There are simply people for whom it works, and others where the reading is low. The reasons may be a thicker ephidermis, dark skin, tattoos, bad fit, low haemoglobin levels, peripheral vasoconstriction, etc - all of that will influence the reading. Personally I would not like to have the feature removed, but you are free to disable PulseOx completely, if you think it does not offer any help.