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

Optical heart rate not accurate

Former Member
Former Member

I've long suspected that the optical heart rate sensor (wrist) of my 945 is giving very inaccurate readings.

Now that the ConnectIQ data field is available which makes it possible to use a hr strap and the optical sensor at the same time, I have finally been able to test it. Did a 30 minute treadmill run yesterday and here is an image showing the result. Grey is OHR - red is the hr strap (Garmin HRM-Run).

Initially, the OHR was far too low, but after a while it actually is higher than the HR strap. Kind of useless...

  • I always go with a strap for activities. I'm not sure if any of the optical heart rate meters out there are good at high BPM and high movement (could be wrong). That's cool that you can do this now with the ConnectIq field.

  • OHR doesn't work for everyone, but the major user controllable factor is watch positioning and placement. The watch should be high on the fleshy part of the wrist, well away from the wrist bone (this is higher than most people normally wear a watch), and the band should be pretty snug. I find I have to have the band 1-2 notches tighter for accurate HR while running, than I do for 24/7 monitoring.

    That graph tracks the peaks and troughs pretty well, but is consistently overmeasuring. My guess is that the watch is moving on your wrist with your cadence, and you may want to tighten the band.

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago

    The very. very first thing you have to make sure, when comparing two graphs, is, that the axis are aligned.

    In fact, that OHR doesn't look too bad in my opinion. I can't really compare because axis are not the same, but it looks as if both are in the same ballpark (~180) in the end.

    When it comes to intervalls or if you want very good accuracy, you have to go with the strap. OHR technology is just not there, but it's good enough for steady runs or recreational athletes who don't do much with the HR anyway..

    First couple of minutes are a little bit off, but that is what you see with all the manufacturers. I don't see a malfunction here.

  • Indeed the graphs aren't the same.  It seems to me the OHR just integrates on longer period, that is the OHR does sliding window averaging, which increases robustness however has an effect of less sensitivity and some delay.  

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 5 years ago

    Do you record this with the downloadable datafield Auxilliary Heart Rate?

  • Each graph/data source uses a different scale. They are offset and use different ranges also. If you use the grey numbers on left to read the grey graph, then compare the red graph using its own scale on the right it seems ok. Hard to tell as I’m on my phone screen now though. 

  • As noted, if you have the same axes then they are pretty much the same. If you want a comparison of WHR with strap here's one from a bike ride on Sunday:

  • @philipshambrook I had the same experience as you during an activity. Have you ever checked how your OHR works outside of sport activities? This is how it performed for me. Have you tried checking the accuracy outside of activities?

  • For me a slow run with my HRM-run strap got an average hear rate of about 140 bpm while if I use the OHR of the 945 I am at about 170 bpm, I don't have this problem with the OHR from my Vivosmart 4 which is more or less in the same "zone" as the HRM-run.

    Also for sleep tracking with the 945 I don't get any "deep sleep" while with the Vivosmart 4 I got a few hours.

  • I also noticed that sleep tracking is pretty bad. I don’t usually wear it at night anyway so it doesn’t bother me. But I tried it last night and it said I had 29 minutes of deep sleep, which I’m sure must be wrong.