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

Youtube review by "The quantified scientist" shows a lot of inaccurate data, HR in particular

7419217
over 1 year ago

In this youtube review https://youtu.be/dv5l3tVYl2o?t=476 , "The Quantified Scientist" went trough a lot of data produced by Garmin watch 965 (which is running the same technology as our 955).

And it seems like data diverge quite a bit.

One of the dozens evidence (credits The quantified scientist):

And we should also talk about sleep detection and more.

and generally Garmin are you aware of this?

Can you please have a contact with author of the video, analyze what is reporting in the video, fix the bugs?

ty

  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 1 year ago

     

  • 0 over 1 year ago

    Interested if it also relates to the 955. Same technology doesn't mean same code implementation. Looking at all the bugs and lack of good regression testing I wouldn't be to sure that both watches before the same. 

  • 0 over 1 year ago

    Do you really expect that an optical HR (from any brand) has the same realiability and performance of a chest strap HR? (Polar H10 in particular is considered the "gold standard")

    I've tried different optical HR (not only from Garmin) and they all more or less perform the same (quite good for exercises with steady heart rate, very bad and unreliable for exercises with intervals, changing heart rate, ecc...) - that's exactly why I bought a chest strap HR.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Jochem

    I know that 955 and 965 are not the same watch, I started by saying that but... I hope they share the same code base for the HR sensor, they should have a common library giving out the same result (given the same sensor) on 965 and 955.

    I hope this is the case, if not, well, maybe we know why there are so many bugs and bugfixing is a long nightmare process.

    Basically, they would have the exact same code base for the logic, with a different presentation layer (AMOLED, graphics, animation, resolution etc).

    But we're elucubrating, I don't know if could tell us

    What we know is that there are HR reading issue, I see them all the time forums.garmin.com/.../what-is-going-on-with-the-hr-readings-since-14-13

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Daniele

    If you watch the video you get the answer... spoiler: yes I'd expect a decent precision not random data.

    I don't need random data.

    Other models have much better correlation, near to value 1 (one). So there's margin to be better.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to 7419217

    I am a big fan of the quantified scientist, but I have a hard time worrying too much about the sensor when many of the other sports technology reviewers (DCR, DesFit, Chase the summit come to mind) who tested them extensively showed no such issues.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Daniele

    I mean, the Apple Watch does consistently well (not only with the quantified scientist but I hear and read that overall)... So do ((at least part of) the huwaei watches.

    My hope is the new sensor (as on the latest fenix) combined with a low weight such as the FR series would help a lot... fingers crossed for a/the 975 ;)

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to 7419217

    In that graph you can see better HR readings from the FR 255 than the 965. All of the 255, 955 and 965 have the Elevate V4 HR sensor btw, and as 255 & 955 was released less than two months apart it would make sense they would perform the same. To bad the 955 wasn't included in the comparison.

  • 0 over 1 year ago

    So, optical HR is not good as H10 strap? News at eleven!

    Get yourself HR strap if you are worried about accuracy.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to jmto

    no, you did not catch the news, try it again.