How does the 735xt 'calculate' this? I thought it was simply the lowest HR reading of the day, during 'waking hours'? But I've gone a lot lower (c. 6bpm) intraday than a 'typical' RHR reading..does it have to stay there for a certain time before it 'registers' as a RHR, to avoid erroneous readings/dropouts registering as a daily RHR? What's it really doing under the bonnet?
Well to be fair that is not of course the only thing you get (or don't) for your money.
Tim, I understand you defending the 735, but if you bought a new car and the radio didn't work, and I told you "well to be fair that is not the only thing you get (or don't) for your money" I am going to doubt you would think that was an appropriate response.
Frustrating of course when features don't work as well as you hope for. Does any watch from any vendor do RHR well though?
I like your analogy but prefer a slight variant that I bought an expensive car but am a bit disappointed with the radio as the sound is not as crisp as thought it might be.
I like your analogy but prefer a slight variant that I bought an expensive car but am a bit disappointed with the radio as the sound is not as crisp as thought it might be.
Well more like the car has three radios and to get the same station you have to set each of the dials to different frequencies.
I guess the bottom line is that the watch appears to record enough information to have a consistent RHR measurement. You can see that by looking at the HR trace from a typical night while asleep. The issue is that in the three places in the Garmin ecosystem that you can check RHR, they all present different RHR values, which is confusing. It's a software issue first and foremost.
Fixing that would be a great starting point (they can improve the definition/calculation of RHR as required after they get this right).
Afternoon all,
I realise this is a somewhat-tired topic, particularly as we still await the almost-farcial syncronization of watch/GC/GCM environments....but recently my 735 has been reporting some very strange RHR figures, quite different to what i'd expect, and of that in GC/GCM. I think my RHR is probably circa 50, and i try to measure it each morning on waking (merits of which can be discussed elsewhere). The 735 is now logging RHR's of low 40s, and this morning logged 39. There's just no way i have a RHR of 39. In GCM it's logging 50/51/52 amd going up if anything rather than down.
The 735 seems to be logging values that are only touched breifly (and are hence likely to be bogus) - and i thought it had a feature that tried to avoid such things. GC/GCM may be excluding such 'bogus-lows', but it's not obvious.
Anyone seeing anything similar? Thoughts?
John
Afternoon all,
I realise this is a somewhat-tired topic, particularly as we still await the almost-farcial syncronization of watch/GC/GCM environments....but recently my 735 has been reporting some very strange RHR figures, quite different to what i'd expect, and of that in GC/GCM. I think my RHR is probably circa 50, and i try to measure it each morning on waking (merits of which can be discussed elsewhere). The 735 is now logging RHR's of low 40s, and this morning logged 39. There's just no way i have a RHR of 39. In GCM it's logging 50/51/52 amd going up if anything rather than down.
The 735 seems to be logging values that are only touched breifly (and are hence likely to be bogus) - and i thought it had a feature that tried to avoid such things. GC/GCM may be excluding such 'bogus-lows', but it's not obvious.
Anyone seeing anything similar? Thoughts?
John
To be quite honest I don't trust the RHR values that the 735 is reporting at all!
I still cannot make sense of any of the plots that the 735/GC/GCM are reporting as I have no "feel" on which one is "correct" ...
Nor I, if i'm honest. It's just guess work, and shouldn't be really. The point of the thing is to help demystify, rather than the opposite. And it's been quite a while that 735xt/GC/GCM have been doing/showing very different things, i can't work out why it's seeming to take so long to sort out. No doubt at some point it'll settle down... and only then can it be used, i.e. once the methodology is reliably stable.
> I still cannot make sense of any of the plots that the 735/GC/GCM are reporting as I have no "feel" on which one is "correct" ...
For me GC is "best" (i.e it most matches what I expect of a resting heart rate value - minimum "believable" HR in the day), then GCM (the RHR is often too low) then the watch RHR (all over the place).
For me GC is "best" (i.e it most matches what I expect of a resting heart rate value - minimum "believable" HR in the day), then GCM (the RHR is often too low) then the watch RHR (all over the place).
Thank you for being objective Tim! I hope Garmin is reading this as I am sure they trust you more than us ...
