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

24/7 HR Sampling

I thought I'll put that topic in an own thread. Many people have the perception that Garmin reduced the HR sampling frquency as of FW 3.20. And to many this topic seems very important, yet so much 24/7 HR was one of the main reasons to get that watch.

Discussion about this started in the FW 3.20 thread around here: https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?337137-FR235-Firmware-updates-v3-20-and-v2-30-quot-Sensor-Hub-quot-(2015-12-09)&p=770858#post770858

My last post there about this was: https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?337137-FR235-Firmware-updates-v3-20-and-v2-30-quot-Sensor-Hub-quot-(2015-12-09)&p=771434#post771434

I will post my upcoming findings about this topic here from now on.

The first "result" I might have found: When moving around continiously the HR is read every 10 minutes.

From the last two nights of sleep I would guess so far, that when not moving much HR is being read about twice an hour. I suppose Garmin has implemented some algorythm that reduce "time to next sample" based on movements/steps being registered.

Note that this is just what I see my watch is doing, me registering time and step count when a reading happens.

After I stopped moving around, the next reading came 20 mins later, having made 60 steps in between.


Please feel welcome to post your own findings, graphs etc about allday HR here...
  • I haven't done any in-depth reviews of my HR charts yet, but after seeing this thread me experience with my RHR since the update to 3.2 makes more sense. Over the period of the couple weeks with my 235 prior to the upgrade my RHR was 38 (it's always been low and this is in line with 2 other 24/7 HR monitors I've used in the past), since upgrading my RHR the last 2 days has been 46 and 48. While that might not sound that bad, that's a huge difference if you use those values for calculating HR zones and calorie burn. I agree with what many others have said, let me choose how frequently to check my HR, I'd rather have accuracy than extended battery life.
  • My resting heart rate has also shown an increase since the update. Jumped from 34 to 41. The settings page has the option for "heart rate monitor" 'Auto' or 'off.' I think a 'continuous' option should be added. I would sacrifice battery life for this option.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    i have reviewed my heart rate for the pre- and post upgraded on the FW. it seems the pre-update checks my heart rate more frequency when i move a lot. for the post-upgrade, it seems check my heart rate every 30-60 mins.

    for today, it was checked 7:19am at 92 bpm and it is a flatline till 8:19am.

    i just downgraded back to 3.1 and will check my heart rate tomorrow (full day on 3.1)
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    I'm seeing the same results after "upgrading" to 3.20. Resting heart rate much higher, not sampling heart rate as often. Too much flat line in HR history. I also peek under the watch every so often now and no green lights, meaning no HR being taken. I agree with everyone else; I want the constant sampling at the cost of battery life. It's not even an option now. I can only imagine how bad the smart sample rate is. Must be awful.

    How would I downgrade to 3.10? I liked what I had previous to this update.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    i have reviewed my heart rate for the pre- and post upgraded on the FW. it seems the pre-update checks my heart rate more frequency when i move a lot. for the post-upgrade, it seems check my heart rate every 30-60 mins.

    for today, it was checked 7:19am at 92 bpm and it is a flatline till 8:19am.

    i just downgraded back to 3.1 and will check my heart rate tomorrow (full day on 3.1)


    I just found out that downgrading to the 3.1 does not downgrade the WHRM software altogether. Oh well. it seems i might be stuck at WHRM 3.2
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    I just found out that downgrading to the 3.1 does not downgrade the WHRM software altogether. Oh well. it seems i might be stuck at WHRM 3.2


    Damn. There was a sensor upgrade too at the same time as 3.20. Wonder if there is a way to downgrade that?
  • If anyone finds out how to revert completely back to 3.10 I'd love to hear it. I can't believe they would make this change and still try to consider this 24/7 monitoring? How can it ever get a RHR when it isn't sampling if you are moving? Give me back my constant sampling and actual HR with crappy battery. This isn't a good 'fix' to me.
  • Reading back through some old threads it appears that maybe we could just revert back to 2.20 for the WHR instead of having to revert everything. Would that retain the settings but just put the sensor to the old version? That would be the 'perfect world' solution at this point.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    Yesterday I sent an email to Garmin support asking what their intentions were with regards the HRM issue. I'd urge others to do the same so they take the issue seriously. I'll post the reply when I get it next week.

    It seems to stave off negative publicity about battery life they have just robbed Peter to pay Paul. Now they have upset people like us who want true 24/7 HR/Activity monitoring.

    If it's right as mentioned on this thread that it's now every 30mins, the data is going to be guesswork i.e. I am sitting still at sample A, then get up, play with the dogs and generally wander around for 20mins, then go lie down, it will tell me at sample B that I'm still at RHR, which is wildly inaccurate.

    I have found that by pressing the down arrow to the 'realtime' HRM it seems to spring to life, but should we have to do that to counter the issues Garmin has left us with?
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    Reading back through some old threads it appears that maybe we could just revert back to 2.20 for the WHR instead of having to revert everything. Would that retain the settings but just put the sensor to the old version? That would be the 'perfect world' solution at this point.


    I feel the same way. A feature I really want and had was removed without an option of keeping it. Changing back is something I would like too if anyone knows how.