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...

0 jim_m_58 over 9 years ago

How are the calories burnt compared with the Surge?

Keep in mind that the 230/235 has the Firstbeat analysis for HR and calories calculations, while Fitbits don't. The number are likely different, but I'd trust the numbers on the 235 more.

http://www.firstbeat.com/consumer-products/garmin/

0 philippe.berini over 9 years ago

I personally don't think the FR235 uses 24/7 heartrate for calories calculation, but that is just my opinion/feeling and I could be wrong.

I think the calories for activities are ok, but the active calories for daily steps reported in Garmin connect (daily steps overview, tab Activities) are often rubbish. This applies especially when there was a recorded run on the day, but also on non-activity days the active calories number often seem wrong. I just don't trust those!

0 andlor81 over 9 years ago

How are the calories burnt compared with the Surge?

Compared to Fitbit the calories burned are too low.

0 andlor81 over 9 years ago

Keep in mind that the 230/235 has the Firstbeat analysis for HR and calories calculations, while Fitbits don't. The number are likely different, but I'd trust the numbers on the 235 more.

http://www.firstbeat.com/consumer-products/garmin/

Sorry just to think is still not to know. I intake calories in amount as Fitbit shows me. I hold for longer time my weight with it. So, I don't think that Fitbit is wrong with their calculations. In case of Garmin the calories burned are too low (between 300 to 500 cal per day). I would loose constantly weight with it.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

I compare it over several days with Fitbit Surge.

Sorry if I am stating the obvious but the forerunner relies on you to start an activity e.g. run when you actually do so that it uses HR from the the OHR in auto (or if paired to a chest strap) for the calorie calculation of that activity, otherwise it just counts these as steps at a lower burnrate irrespective of the HR. I believe the surge does some of this automatically (but you cannot pair to a chest strap with a surge). I also do not believe the fitbit uses the HR when merely walking. For running, the burnrate per step is typically twice that of the steps and may be the reason for disparity.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

My calories on the Garmin are between 500 - 800 calories per day less than the Fitbit. Fitbit appears to be using HR to calculate calories and the graph shows the number of calories burned every 5 mins of the day.

The BMR value used doesn't seem to be an issue. In fact when I wake up the Garmin states I have burned slightly more calories than the Fitbit shows. If the Garmin calculation is step based outside of the recorded activities then that could be the issue. For example the Garmin has me at 9686 vs 15699 for the fitbit. If I use the same step to calorie ratio used today for Daily Steps then I would hve burnt another 780 calories which would put thinks about right (or at least the same as the Fitbit). I will wear a pedometer as well tomorrow and compare the 3.

0 philippe.berini over 9 years ago

. For example the Garmin has me at 9686 vs 15699 for the fitbit. If I use the same step to calorie ratio used today for Daily Steps then I would hve burnt another 780 calories which would put thinks about right (or at least the same as the Fitbit). I will wear a pedometer as well tomorrow and compare the 3.

That's a huge step difference. Did you wear them at the same time and on the same arm?

I found the garmin to be pretty good at step counting, propably a bit too high as it does also count other movements as steps.

Note that walking doesn't burn much calories. For me an estimate using some calculators would be about 60 kcal per km. So maybe fitbit is too high?

I also noticed that I get higher calories for a run when using the polar chest strap with the beat app or now with the tickr x. Part of it is missing BMR in garmin activities, though that is not really much.

Since I'm not tracking cal intake I don't care that much about it. But I like to see when I burned some more cals over my bmr, gives me some peace of mind when I go for that tasty little sweet desert :rolleyes:

0 andlor81 over 9 years ago

Sorry if I am stating the obvious but the forerunner relies on you to start an activity e.g. run when you actually do so that it uses HR from the the OHR in auto (or if paired to a chest strap) for the calorie calculation of that activity, otherwise it just counts these as steps at a lower burnrate irrespective of the HR. I believe the surge does some of this automatically (but you cannot pair to a chest strap with a surge). I also do not believe the fitbit uses the HR when merely walking. For running, the burnrate per step is typically twice that of the steps and may be the reason for disparity.

I track with both devices at same time using only OHR (for testing purpose current I don't use my chest strap) for runs and some walks. For tracked activities both Garmin and Fitbit shows nearly same values (distance and calories burned). Because of this I strongly believe Garmin would have nearly same burned calories values for the whole day as Fitbit with higher sample rate.

Fitbit use all time HR to calculate burned calories. In training mode the sample rate for HR is every 1 second and in normale mode every 5 seconds.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

Keep in mind that the 230/235 has the Firstbeat analysis for HR and calories calculations, while Fitbits don't. The number are likely different, but I'd trust the numbers on the 235 more.

http://www.firstbeat.com/consumer-products/garmin/

Whilst I think Firstbeat is obviously a good product it's how Garmin have applied it is more the issue.

I've come from a fitbit worn 24/7, and a Suunto running watch/chest strap, and the Garmin is very comparable to the Suunto on runs, but off on general activity. There is no way it can give you a proper read if it only samples every 30mins.

Plus, the Fitbit used to be on ave 20bpm too low on a run compared to the Suunto, so wouldn't say it was too high.

Whilst I would say that Fitbit isn't hugely sophisticated, they do the basics fairly well.

It's really for Garmin to adapt the Firstbeat technology to offer what they are actually marketing - 24/7 HRM and activity tracking.

0 Former Member over 9 years ago

It's really for Garmin to adapt the Firstbeat technology to offer what they are actually marketing - 24/7 HRM and activity tracking.

To be fair to Garmin, did they say anywhere that they were using the 24/7 HRM to calculate TDEE? They do use the OHR sensor (or chest strap) and FB technology in a specific activity like "run" or "bike" for calories and say with clear accuracy disclaimers, that general activity tracking is by a step counter. Neither would help if you wanted to use it for something like swimming or power lifting etc

That said, IMO they do deserve the heat they get to achieve better functionality from the OHR and be "encouraged" to get some more useful apps using that.