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

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to rmullins08

    this is not only about the quantified scientist.

    your fellow forum colleagues are reporting the issue https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/running-multisport/f/forerunner-955-series/325155/what-is-going-on-with-the-hr-readings-since-14-13

    the issue is definitely there and reached the tube

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to Milky Way

    different catch, different moments, maybe at that time, when 255 was tested HR sensor library was "less" messed up.

    who knows

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to 7419217
    7419217 said:
    no, you did not catch the news, try it again.

    You started the post and assume we should watch video? The graph you gave does not explain what was the source of HR for Garmin. Maybe you should try to explain in your own words what was compared and what you think the issue is.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to jmto

    Well, watched 1 hours his videos and I don't still know what was your point. There's Fenix/Epix video for the new sensor.

    One could also argue that even how quantified scientist he is, there's just sample size of 1 and I don't know what people expect from optical HR. 

    I use strap if I want accurate HR. Sleep phases are gimmick. 24/7 HR is ok for optical. I think my original comment stands.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to jmto

    I tend to agree.  Optical HR is OK, but I usually always wear a HR strap for accuracy.  Nothing new here...HR strap has always been more accurate than optical HR.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to KJE5059

    Keep repeating that HR strap is reliable, wow ok we all knew this already, this is not the point here. You don't need to teach this to anyone.

    Garmin is paid to deliver a feature which is: wrist HR monitoring while doing activities. That's the league where those wrist watches are playing now. If you put the strap in the equation, well, that's another game (and another product).

    So, what the video shows is that there are other watch models on the market which can deliver decent/optimal HR data with wrist optical readings.

    This is the point.

    here's a drawing on the sand for better understandings

    Maybe those lads with the Apple watch are happier with a very reliable data, while Garmin guys stands there with an erratic HR chart.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to 7419217

    And you keep relying on a single reviewer with a single sample size to say the wrist HR isn’t good.

    optical HR is very user dependent. Skin tone, hair, tattoos can all influence it. The majority of reviews out there on this 955 praise the HR accuracy. I did 4 months of runs with the wrist and chest strap using a data field to capture both. Apart from tough intervals they were identical. I’ve got hairy arms and had the same results when using an Apple Watch with that  

    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/05/garmin-forerunner-955-solar-review.html#heart-rate-accuracy

    https://youtu.be/Rsxx-4TqBj4?t=792

    https://youtu.be/gsd0KskCDfA?t=652

    youtu.be/TQb9IIBXymc

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to rmullins08

    No, wrong. I'm not relying on a single reviewer. I will not link again the other forum thread with tons of users with erratic HR charts. And my experience if does it worth something.

    Linking happy experience isn't proving anything in particular.

    Or, maybe, we should think of a sensor quality issue? There are both 100% happy users and users with issue.

    HR issue is there yet, even after you linked those happy people.

    I don't believe the skin tone, hair, tatoo story. I mean there are corner cases but it's not my case, it can't be. Nor can be the case of the yt guy.

  • 0 over 1 year ago in reply to 7419217

    The thread you linked was on a prior firmware and didn’t even make it to a second page of people commenting. Product forums by their nature bring out more complaints. 

    yes there are people who get good results and people who don’t. We are relying on a green light shining through our wrists and a sensor to try to pick up blood flow through that, all while exerting effort in an activity. Where the watch fits snugly on the wrist will depend on each person, how comfortable they are with it being snugger, how hard they move their arms, sweat, temperature.

    how have your confirmed your accuracy issues?

    you don’t believe that skin tone can have an influence on optical heart rate? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36376641/