Next was a cross country race - while it looks like it might be cadence lock, I would have expected HR and cadence to be in the same range for a lot of the race, although I can't be 100% sure - maybe it was for some of it and then it settled down.
GC: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1010007916
No offense but that is most definitely cadence lock. Your HR should and would never fluctuate 8 beats within such short periods of time at that intensity. Never! That HR track is garbage.
As an example, here is a 10 mile race on Strava of mine : http://www.strava.com/activities/164629611/overview
Mind you this was a 10 mile race so the time is much longer and the effort is even lower than your XC race yet my HR only fluctuated 3 beats during the entire race, that is how even the effort was. HR does not change as quickly and abruptly as your log indicates, that track does not represent anything of real value unfortunately.
How do you raise a ticket? I've been experiencing this cadence lock on most of my runs. Frustrating as I'd like to give training to HR a go but havent had one good session with this watch yet.
i think alot of people think they are having cadence lock when they arent!
I've been thinking the same thing lately.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. -- S. Freud
Yes, cadence lock is a real thing with optical HRMs, and it certainly does happen with the 235. It'd probably happen less if you move the oHRM off the wrist and further up the arm, and I imagine the Mio and Schoshe folks simply have more mature systems to sort out HR from all the other stuff. The optical HR trace is also pretty noisy (high variance), but that's an artifact of the technology and whatever smoothing Garmin is or is not doing to the signal.
Let's not forget that we're measuring an effect (light reflectance changes) of an effect (skin blood volume changes) of an effect (pressure waves, after travelling down the arm) of the heart muscle contractions (heart beat). In contrast, a chest strap is literally reading the electrical impulses that cause the heart muscle contractions. Can't get much more direct without poking something inside. Is it any wonder that this physiological game of Broken Telephone isn't as accurate as an actual direct measurement?
Just my opinion here, but if someone needs a low variance HR graph they need to stick to chest strap HRMs, or stick with a Mio or Scoshe worn well above the wrist, and preferably above the elbow. Same if you need super-quick reactivity to HR changes (short high intensity intervals). In contrast, when you're looking for average HR and time-in-zone figures from your workouts, with in-workout guidance of effort (and can accept using your noggin to discern a real reading from a bit of noise), then the 235's oHRM does fine.
The nice thing is the 235 lets you very easily use whichever you prefer for a given workout; if it sees an active paired ANT+ HRM it'll use that instead of the internal oHRM, otherwise it just uses the internal oHRM. So if you're going to do intervals, strap up and go. When going for steady endurance building runs just leave the (cold/wet) strap behind and the oHRM gets the job done.
I've been thinking the same thing lately.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. -- S. Freud
Yes, cadence lock is a real thing with optical HRMs, and it certainly does happen with the 235. It'd probably happen less if you move the oHRM off the wrist and further up the arm, and I imagine the Mio and Schoshe folks simply have more mature systems to sort out HR from all the other stuff. The optical HR trace is also pretty noisy (high variance), but that's an artifact of the technology and whatever smoothing Garmin is or is not doing to the signal.
Let's not forget that we're measuring an effect (light reflectance changes) of an effect (skin blood volume changes) of an effect (pressure waves, after travelling down the arm) of the heart muscle contractions (heart beat). In contrast, a chest strap is literally reading the electrical impulses that cause the heart muscle contractions. Can't get much more direct without poking something inside. Is it any wonder that this physiological game of Broken Telephone isn't as accurate as an actual direct measurement?
Just my opinion here, but if someone needs a low variance HR graph they need to stick to chest strap HRMs, or stick with a Mio or Scoshe worn well above the wrist, and preferably above the elbow. Same if you're doing short high intensity intervals, but be cautious in expectations due to cardiac lag; actual HR will lag effort a bit, and any HR measurement that smooths the reading (i.e. optical HRM) will add further lag to getting reading. In contrast, when you're looking for average HR and time-in-zone figures from your workouts, with in-workout guidance of effort (and can accept using your noggin to discern a real reading from a bit of noise), then the 235's oHRM does fine.
The nice thing is the 235 lets you very easily use whichever you prefer for a given workout; if it sees an active paired ANT+ HRM it'll use that instead of the internal oHRM, otherwise it just uses the internal oHRM. So if you're going to do intervals, strap up and go. When going for steady endurance building runs just leave the (cold/wet) strap behind and the oHRM gets the job done.
