I've had my 235 since 12/16. It came with 3.10/2.20 and I had absolutely no issues with it at all. I expected the optical HRM to be a little off, but it wasn't too extreme and I prefer a HR strap while working out anyway. Prior to receiving my 235, I followed this forum closely and I was concerned with the 3.2x/2.30(40) and reports of the reduced heart rate sampling. I convinced myself that the issue was with the WHR software and not the FW update. I have no other reason for this other than speculation. Two days ago I thought I'd be able to manually install FW3.2x and keep WHR 2.20. BIG MISTAKE! The updates were bundled and I received 3.2x/2.40. I then went ahead and updated to 3.30. I now have the reduced HR sampling as everyone else. But I also have a second issue. Every 9 of 10 HR checks my watch goes to 72 bpm, then adjust to where it should be. After my last two runs, once I removed my HR strap, the watch went to 72, then to the "no heart rate" display before the optical HRM kicked in again. It's as if 72 is set as some kind of default now. My wife has the VivoSmart HR (which has the same HR sensor/Garmin technology) and now she has the same issue after hers was updated. There was another post on that forum with someone having reduced sampling and the 72 reading after their update also. I haven't seen anything more about this and I'm wondering if anyone else is having this issue?
i noted the 72bpm "bug" but knew in the back of my head it was "calibrating" and that it would settle back down to my actual heart rate: but then yesterday i did an 11 mile mountain trail run with 3200 feet of elevation... it really kicked my ass and my pulse was jacked way up into the 70's for most of the day afterwards. now i noticed that instead of going up to 72, it now went up past 80 and sometimes over 100bpm before it settled down. so the calibration seems to be on a sliding scale.
that's okay with me, i just don't like that the watch light turns off before the reading is accurate when you are trying to read your pulse in the dark. you have to hit the light button a few times. it's a minor annoyance.
A heart rate of 71 or 72 had historically been considered to be a "normal" heart rate for the general population, so much so that healthcare providers would just jot down a heart rate of 72 in the observation charts back in the day when they couldn't be bothered to sit for a whole minute counting a patient's pulse rate. It is akin to most people thinking that a blood pressure of 120/80 is "normal".
Nowadays, we know that there isn't really a single "normal" value for any biological parameter. The normal range for blood pressure for a person is generally accepted to be 100-140 systolic and 70-90 diastolic. Similarly, the normal range for heart rate is 60-100bpm.
My speculation regarding this HR=72 "bug" is that a HR of 72 was selected (by the software engineers) as a reference point from which HR estimation can commence. The problem here is that the population that uses a fitness device probably has a lower RHR than the average population (RHR can decrease as low as 33-50bpm in athletes). I think that the software engineers could have selected a better (lower) reference HR to start the estimation from. Better yet, my hope is that they will edit the RHR estimation software so that the estimation begins from that individual's average RHR for the past week. This will hasten the estimation process.
The ideal situation would be to: 1. Commence RHR estimation starting from the average RHR value for a given individual from the past week. 2. Do not display heart rate values on the screen during estimation, because it is obviously causing unnecessary anxiety. Display a blinking heart or a spinning circle or some icon to indicate that estimation is taking place. Once the true heart rate is determined, display that heart rate value.
Either way, this is not a huge problem for me as long as the estimation heart rates are not recorded as being true, but there really isn't a way for me to check that. After using this device for a month, however, this does not seem to be the case. :rolleyes:
A heart rate of 71 or 72 had historically been considered to be a "normal" heart rate for the general population, so much so that healthcare providers would just jot down a heart rate of 72 in the observation charts back in the day when they couldn't be bothered to sit for a whole minute counting a patient's pulse rate. It is akin to most people thinking that a blood pressure of 120/80 is "normal".
Nowadays, we know that there isn't really a single "normal" value for any biological parameter. The normal range for blood pressure for a person is generally accepted to be 100-140 systolic and 70-90 diastolic. Similarly, the normal range for heart rate is 60-100bpm.
My speculation regarding this HR=72 "bug" is that a HR of 72 was selected (by the software engineers) as a reference point from which HR estimation can commence. The problem here is that the population that uses a fitness device probably has a lower RHR than the average population (RHR can decrease as low as 33-50bpm in athletes). I think that the software engineers could have selected a better (lower) reference HR to start the estimation from. Better yet, my hope is that they will edit the RHR estimation software so that the estimation begins from that individual's average RHR for the past week. This will hasten the estimation process.
The ideal situation would be to:
1. Commence RHR estimation starting from the average RHR value for a given individual from the past week.
2. Do not display heart rate values on the screen during estimation, because it is obviously causing unnecessary anxiety. Display a blinking heart or a spinning circle or some icon to indicate that estimation is taking place. Once the true heart rate is determined, display that heart rate value.
Either way, this is not a huge problem for me as long as the estimation heart rates are not recorded as being true, but there really isn't a way for me to check that. After using this device for a month, however, this does not seem to be the case. :rolleyes:
Thanks for all the info. I too think the engineer's are using 72 as a reference point, but who knows? I think starting the HR readings from the average RHR and not displaying values until a true reading is determined is a great idea. If it stays at 72, I guess I can sit around the house and eat poorly until I get my average back to the 72 mark. LOL.
