Related

HR reading low - Anyone else?

3536806
over 1 year ago

Sitting here in my chair, so not moving around.

Venu 3 HR = 67bpm
Chest Strap = 84bpm

Venu 3 seems to read low by a varying amount of 5-10bpm

I've tried moving the watch up and down my wrist, same result.
I've validated the result using my pulse and a stopwatch.

Barry

  • 0 over 1 year ago

    I just checked mine manually, 64 bpm. Then I looked at my watch, 62 bpm. Seems pretty close on mine. 

  • 0 over 1 year ago

    The new heart rate sensor has 6 LEDs, they are all active only during an activity, only 2 at rest and the detection is probably like the Venu 2, and this is the reason why I returned the Venu 2... it underestimated rest even for 20 beats 

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to 2836989 
    Garmin watches all have the same flaw, outside of activity the heart rate sucks because
    they turn off part of the sensor or reduce the reading rate. 
    Why not give the user the choice is not clear.
  • 0 over 1 year ago

    Just checked mine for 60 seconds - I counted 52bpm, the Venu 3 had me at 53.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Marco2073

    Thats just not true. Both gen4 and gen5 heart rate sensor has always been incredible accurate compared to a chest strap both in running, Cycling and daily life... At least for me and ive really tested the *** out of gen4

    Only problem i had with gen4 sensor was during weight lifting. 

    I never understood the massive critic Garmin is getting for their accuracy. I have more than 400 activities recorded and compared to a chest strap and the gen4 was 96,2% accurate in average. the newest gen5 is right now averaging 98,7% after 25 outdoor running workouts.

    I guess the accuracy is highly individual based on skin tone, sweats, skin temperature, and other factors 

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to entify

    you probably didn't read people's complaint. Most people do not complain about an incorrect reading during activities, which in some cases evidently exists and is unacceptable for watches of this value. The problem is reading outside of activities where Garmin deliberately, to save battery, halves the reading speed of the sensors, or turns off several of them. Maybe for some the reading will even be acceptable but many are evidently not satisfied and complain about the same defect. I had the Epix 2 and it was embarrassing. Sometimes it took 2/3 minutes to give correct readings. I have read several threads regarding the same defect for the Venu 2 and Venu 2 plus, and recently also with the Epix Plus. Evidently it is a choice, which in my opinion, and many other users, is wrong. Other brands do not apply differences with the reading sensor between rest and activity modes despite having battery life comparable to Garmins. I think it's a real shame, because personally I will never buy a Garmin again for this reason, and I see that many users have returned or sold theirs for the same reason. It's sad to see that in the various threads there hasn't been an official response that gives an answer to the problem, or why the speed and accuracy of the sensor cannot be set by the user in the rest mode.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Marco2073

    Just as many are dumping the AWU to return back to epix 2 pro and Fenix 7 pro as the new sensor is as good as Apples - check out YouTube. Many top Reviewers and testers is impressed how accurate it is. 

    In my experience my watch is really fast to catch up hr changes outside activity and just in daily life.. People forget that cardiac delay is a real thing; you can start move and climb stairs, but you heart rate starts to increase 5-10 seconds after you begin to walk or climb those stairs..

    I i had any problems, delays, wierd readings outside activity i would sure complain as its a expensive watch, but im telling you in a matter of 5-8 seconds my watch pick up changes every time

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to entify

    Io ho riscontrato gli stessi problemi sul Fenix 7,venu 2 e 2 plus...molto spesso durante il giorno sottostima anche di 20 BPM cosa che invece non succede con l'instinct 2 che paragonato con fascia cardio o Apple risulta sempre corretto

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to entify

    Every Garmin watch does have the same flaw in HR that is presented in both activities and rest time:

    The problem is when the confidence level on the HR reading is low (e.g. during weight lifting) then it could go into to guesswork state and it stays there for a prolonged time (10-20 minutes).

    It is reflected in a sudden drop or elevation of HR but then it goes back to normal after a while. 

    Obviously, it depends on a lot on the conditions, so in rest mode, when less leds are working then it definitely have issues with quick changes in HR; in activity, zillion things can cause it.

    It is clearly an algorithmic problem (and not a sensor problem), so it is independent of the sensor / watch and affects every watch and will affect every future watch unless this algorithmic issue will be fixed or a new optical sensor will be developed that can provide accurate reading all the time (it won't happen soon).

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to entify

    Again, the accuracy is there in the 98% of the time.

    But in the remaining 2% it goes nuts - not just a little, but a lot.

    However, because of this 2%, you just cannot trust in your watch.

    If the accuracy is bad, but it is in a reliable range (such as +/- 10%), then the device is a reliable instrument. But even when the usual accuracy is +/-0%, it is not reliable at all when sometimes it is +/- 30%.