Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

OHR vs HRM-Run in everyday life: completely useless (for me)

talsela
over 5 years ago

After posting images, videos, and a dry run of a comparison activity between OHR and HRM-Run values on this thread, I've finally worn my HRM-Run for an entire day, starting and ending at home, and including the entire day at the office (10.5hrs). Using a connectIQ app (Auxiliary HeartRate, see discussion here) and a Fit2Txt converter (thanks Former Member) I plotted these two on a graph that show just how completely useless (and partially random) OHR exactly is (for me).

Now some have suggested in that previous thread that OHR sometimes works poorly for specific people based on many factors such as skin complexion, body hair, etc., but I have used the FR645M in the past and actually found the OHR on it (again, for me) impressively plausible, which is why I never put it through such a test. On the 945 in contrast, I noticed that OHR was so off from the very first day (for example, 90-105bpm while laying on the couch) but until now I was frustrated by not being able to show just how bad, except for verbally explaining it or posting  15-second video clips.

Now I know others are suffering from this as well because the thread above has quite some complains, and seeing how acute the problem is (again, at least for me) - I'm wondering if Garmin will pick up the glove or not, even if not 100% of users seem to be affected. This is not a case of a 5-10% variance, this metric is utterly and completely useless to the point that I will just turn OHR off completely because it's just not worth the battery. Former Member I'm asking, once again, that you find the time to look at these stats and supply some kind of response.

If anyone else is interested in running such a test, just let me know, it's really simple.

Edit: I also ran this test during a running activity and the results were completely different: "OHR vs HRM-RUN during running: amazing (for me)"

Top Replies

  • Former Member
    Former Member over 5 years ago +1

    let the wordplay begin Smile

    nice comparison...but

    did you just prove you can not compare these two how you did because one of them is outside it's usecase ?

    1) OHR best for "activity tracking"…

All Replies

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to talsela

    Thank for for the instructions. Could you explain why you extracted TYPE=6? In my case, the timestamps and both HRs are in TYPE=0.
    I skipped your step 2, but looks like I was successful. Here is the graph from a short test:

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to jallamannen

    I can't explain it because I didn't dig deep into the FIT file structure or read the documentation. All I know is that the number of records in both the Type0 and Type6 came to exactly the number of seconds the activity lasted. If your activity lasted ~38 minutes, this should be fine.

    What were you doing while you took these readings?

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to talsela
    talsela said:
    What were you doing while you took these readings?

    I don't exactly recall, but I was probably at home doing stuff around the house

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to talsela

    Thank you for the assistance. Here is my result from almost a full day of comparison. I'm surprised by the results.

    1. Day to day stuff seems quite accurate in this test.

    2. The OHR missed the mark completely during a indoor cycling session. During this activity, I noticed the OHR leds were solid green rather than normally pulsating green.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to jallamannen

    you're welcome. Your results are quite the opposite from my case, where the OHR did a very good job during running but just displayed random HR readings during everyday office wandering around.

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    OHR accuracy seems to be somewhat user dependent and very dependent on how you wear the 945 on your wrist.  

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to fkelsch

    For me specifically that statement doesn't make sense:

    The OHR did an amazing job while I was running (where the watch is actually more likely to move around, right?), but otherwise is about as correct as a broken clock (which gets it right twice a day) - see graph above.

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    Another 20 minute test I made. Going downstairs (70 steps), walking to a copy shop, making copies of some documents, walking back home, climbing up the steps, resting at my computer.

    Notice how there's almost zero correlation between the strap (which gives no clue of being off, or at least can be considered a good candidate for being close to the real HR in all phases) and the OHR.

    And this is a graph that shows the different in % between the two at any moment:

    If you're curious, the average gap is exactly 64,4%

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to talsela

    Did you tried to reach support for exchange? 

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    How are you wearing the watch? can you get some pics on how it sits and looks on your wrist?