Heart rate sensors different?

[x-evil-x]

Not that anyone one would know yet but do you think the sensors are different/better? Ive always had issues with accuracy during a weight training workout. Cardio seems to do better but majority of the time i look at my wrist its scanning and takes forever. Often times a weight training workout would read average heart rate of 84 which is way off.

 

[Newtons Apple]

I know I will be scorned for this but they need to use the same sensors that are in my FitBit. Even worn loose it still does my HR with ease. Can not tell you how many times I was out running and look at my AW and it was not tracking my HR. Back to FitBit.

 

[x-evil-x]

Ive heard fitbit can give inaccurate heart rate readings. Just because theres a number on the screen most the time doesnt mean its correct. You ever test yours? 10 second test is easy to do

 

[Julien]

....Often times a weight training workout would read average heart rate of 84 which is way off.

As has been stated MANY times optical doesn't work well for weight training. Constricted tissue make blood flow inconsistent and harder to detect. This is a physiological limitation that won't be easy overcome. If you want more accuracy you will need to use a strap. Also weight training is an anaerobic activity so HR is not that relevant to caloric burn. I just set to Other and don't pay attention.

 

[x-evil-x]

As has been stated MANY times optical doesn't work well for weight training. Constricted tissue make blood flow inconsistent and harder to detect. This is a physiological limitation that won't be easy overcome. If you want more accuracy you will need to use a strap. Also weight training is an anaerobic activity so HR is not that relevant to caloric burn. I just set to Other and don't pay attention.

i understand that but searching for 10 minutes while i am resting not moving is just a horrible experience.

 

[Julien]

i understand that but searching for 10 minutes while i am resting not moving is just a horrible experience.

Again you have 3 choices:

• Mostly irrelevant to weight training so disregard and move on
• Pair a BT HR strap
• Continue allowing it to stress you

Also I would say it is likely the same hardware used since Apple didn't tout 'magically new and improved with 50% more accuracy".

 

[x-evil-x]

It doesnt make or break my workout but it would be "nice" to have a little more accurate information. Especially the speedier readings. Not sitting there for 35 seconds steady for a reading to maybe pop up.

 

[Newtons Apple]

Ive heard fitbit can give inaccurate heart rate readings. Just because theres a number on the screen most the time doesnt mean its correct. You ever test yours? 10 second test is easy to do

Yes I have tested it multiple time and it has been quite accurate. The AW is accurate also but only if it can maintain a reading. I own two Apple Watches and they both suffer the same problem.

 

[Julien]

Yes I have tested it multiple time and it has been quite accurate. The AW is accurate also but only if it can maintain a reading. I own two Apple Watches and they both suffer the same problem.

Are you lifting relatively heavy (60% to 80% of 1RM)?

 

[BarracksSi]

Do you feel dizzy? Is the room turning gray?

No?

Your HR is fine. Stop obsessing over it.

 

[Newtons Apple]

Are you lifting relatively heavy (60% to 80% of 1RM)?

?

When running I am lifting one leg after another. I wear my watch on my arm.

 

[tivoboy]

As has been stated MANY times optical doesn't work well for weight training. Constricted tissue make blood flow inconsistent and harder to detect. This is a physiological limitation that won't be easy overcome. If you want more accuracy you will need to use a strap. Also weight training is an anaerobic activity so HR is not that relevant to caloric burn. I just set to Other and don't pay attention.

I have to say the OTHER workout on my AW1 is much better now with woS3 latest build.. I get pretty constant HR and better overall readings.

 

[Julien]

Not that anyone one would know yet but do you think the sensors are different/better? Ive always had issues with accuracy during a weight training workout. Cardio seems to do better but majority of the time i look at my wrist its scanning and takes forever. Often times a weight training workout would read average heart rate of 84 which is way off.

Just reread you post (or fully read for the first time). It appears that you may not be using the Workout app and instead trying to manually check. If so this presents even more challenges since it is looking for your HR from scratch. You shoulder best results run the Workout app in Other when weight training (or any anaerobic exercise) and this will run the HR monitor in real time. While it will still encounter misreadings especially during constriction weight loads it will allow constant HR monitoring.

Same applies for cardio (aerobic) and try and match the type of cardio with the closest Workout type.

 

[BlueMoon63]

Watch OS3 has been very accurate and I can go two hours golfing without losing a pulse once. I've posted the graphs. However, I apparently was a lucky one who didn't have too many problems with OS2 either but it was never as good as OS3.

Surprisingly, my primary workouts are weightlifting and I have never had trouble with losing my pulse and I lift heavy. On average with OS2, I wouldn't lose a pulse once in an hour unless maybe super heavy weighted dips. Heavy bench press never lost a pulse either.

With OS3 except two betas, I have not lost a pulse more than once in two hours. Beta 5-6 and now GM have never lost a pulse for me.

 

[Julien]

About to walk out the door and go do back. I will keep display on HR (it is usually on Calories) and tighten band and see if it keeps a constant HR reading.

 

[x-evil-x]

Just reread you post (or fully read for the first time). It appears that you may not be using the Workout app and instead trying to manually check. If so this presents even more challenges since it is looking for your HR from scratch. You shoulder best results run the Workout app in Other when weight training (or any anaerobic exercise) and this will run the HR monitor in real time. While it will still encounter misreadings especially during constriction weight loads it will allow constant HR monitoring.

Same applies for cardio (aerobic) and try and match the type of cardio with the closest Workout type.

This is always while running the workout app in other. Not manually checking my heart rate.
Even though I've came out of the workout app with it searching for my heart rate for a while and manually checked and it found it. I've tried a few different things. This has happened on two different apple watches also.
[doublepost=1473357448][/doublepost]I always have mine on heart rate while in the workout app. Low average for workout (other) but the stair stepper is accurate.

 

[Julien]

This is always while running the workout app in other. Not manually checking my heart rate......always have mine on heart rate while in the workout app. Low average for workout (other) but the stair stepper is accurate.

Your graph seems to show a fairly consistent HR readings and only a few short complete dropouts. As I said several times optical is not going to be accurate in weight training. Also your average HR in weight training is going to be an over all low number because your HR is only elevated right after a set and if in good condition (and your avatar indicates) your heart should recover quickly. Keep in mind you spend most of the time recovering between sets when weight training. Again HR is unimportant/meaningless metric unless you have a medical condition that needs monitoring when lifting. The only anaerobic activities that benefit from HR monitoring are things like sprints, intervals, HIIT, X-Fit, etc.

Out of curiosity what is it you are looking for in your HR when weight training and what conclusions do you hope to surmise?

I always run mine in Other when weight training but NEVER look at it (at least in the last 1+ year). I use a Garmin 620 in all cardio but also run my Watch in the appropriate mode. I consider my Garmin the 'official' cardio activity recording and my Watch as my general overall fitness tracker.

I just did weight training for today (worked back) and keep on HR and subjectively observed the following. Started to also wear my Garmin today as an objective control measure but didn't (too many watches and distractions for weight training and old age forgot it in the car).

• Lost pulse about 7 times observed but never took more than about 30 seconds to reestablish
• 4 of the 7 times was doing relative exercises and only 3 times with absolute exercises
• Readings were all over the map right after a heavy set (saw as low as 41bpm) as expected
• I recover quickly and reading settled to about correct within a few seconds after a set
• My average HR was recorded at 88bpm and I did a 46 minute workout
• For reference I did road bike 20 miles this morning (and I dislike biking) which will elevate HR when weight training later

EDIT: Just for reference I have a friend who has the Wahoo TICKR BT HR strap and paired with their Watch. It is a good product at a good price.

http://www.wahoofitness.com/devices/wahoo-tickr-heart-rate-strap-1

 

[lordofthereef]

Ive heard fitbit can give inaccurate heart rate readings. Just because theres a number on the screen most the time doesnt mean its correct. You ever test yours? 10 second test is easy to do

My Blaze seems to be pretty on point. I never really test for weight training but I have for cardio. I'm not anal about it or anything. I tested about a dozen times over the first few weeks and it was close enough that I haven't worried about it for some time.

Couldn't comment on response time though. It may very well take some time to realize heart rate is changing especially for something like sprints (or weight training) where it's not a steady state.

 

[x-evil-x]

Your graph seems to show a fairly consistent HR readings and only a few short complete dropouts. As I said several times optical is not going to be accurate in weight training. Also your average HR in weight training is going to be an over all low number because your HR is only elevated right after a set and if in good condition (and your avatar indicates) your heart should recover quickly. Keep in mind you spend most of the time recovering between sets when weight training. Again HR is unimportant/meaningless metric unless you have a medical condition that needs monitoring when lifting. The only anaerobic activities that benefit from HR monitoring are things like sprints, intervals, HIIT, X-Fit, etc.

Out of curiosity what is it you are looking for in your HR when weight training and what conclusions do you hope to surmise?

I always run mine in Other when weight training but NEVER look at it (at least in the last 1+ year). I use a Garmin 620 in all cardio but also run my Watch in the appropriate mode. I consider my Garmin the 'official' cardio activity recording and my Watch as my general overall fitness tracker.

I just did weight training for today (worked back) and keep on HR and subjectively observed the following. Started to also wear my Garmin today as an objective control measure but didn't (too many watches and distractions for weight training and old age forgot it in the car).

• Lost pulse about 7 times observed but never took more than about 30 seconds to reestablish
• 4 of the 7 times was doing relative exercises and only 3 times with absolute exercises
• Readings were all over the map right after a heavy set (saw as low as 41bpm) as expected
• I recover quickly and reading settled to about correct within a few seconds after a set
• My average HR was recorded at 88bpm and I did a 46 minute workout
• For reference I did road bike 20 miles this morning (and I dislike biking) which will elevate HR when weight training later

EDIT: Just for reference I have a friend who has the Wahoo TICKR BT HR strap and paired with their Watch. It is a good product at a good price.

http://www.wahoofitness.com/devices/wahoo-tickr-heart-rate-strap-1

i usually do supersets so I'm always going from one exercise to another without much rest thats why 85 average seems way too low. Basically doing one thing walking over to another thing for a different body part then back and forth. Im usually not just sitting around much at the gym unless I'm logging my workout weights and reps (even then thats usually while walking to the next thing). Im just looking for more consistency really and every time i check my heart rate manually its typically over 110 (walking or resting for a second). a lot of the time ill look down and its in the 50s. Im guessing the times it is reading correctly after a high intensity set and its 150ish that its averaging it at the end and ending up in the 80's
[doublepost=1473375802][/doublepost]Here's another day.

 

[BlueMoon63]

I'm beginning to think that I may be in the minority way more than I ever thought before. From golfing to weight training to HIIT, I have never had graphs like those shown here. I don't rest between sets like most - instead, I hop on the treadmill and walk at 4 miles per hour / 5deg incline for 1-2 minutes depending on reps. Even the spikes are accurate for the timeframe during the workout when I was doing burnouts.

I went back to May when I set personal bests for bench (5 x 5 @ 275) and ended the workout with burnouts on chest dips and push-ups.

I feel very lucky it appears and I can't buy the weightlifting causing a problem. However, I think it must just be me. I feel for everyone else. This was even with OS2.

I will say that I have had workouts like those shown by others but nothing that extreme and very rarely.

Added an example from the same week that had problems. I don't even get these spikes with OS3 even when golfing where I expect to lose a pulse from time to time.

 

[x-evil-x]

Your chart seems wayyyy consistent compared to mine. Maybe it just likes your wrists better? Weird too my veins pop out all over my wrists i would imagine i would get better readings than someone carrying a bit of fat.

 

[Julien]

Here is some good info on the limitations of optical.

http://www.wareable.com/sport/optical-heart-rate-tech-the-experts-speak-9763

 

[x-evil-x]

Here is some good info on the limitations of optical.

http://www.wareable.com/sport/optical-heart-rate-tech-the-experts-speak-9763

Good read. Hopefully this version of the watch at least speeds up the process and not just scans for 40 seconds before it wakes up. Even while doing a set i can understand it not reading correctly but the instant you stop and are stationary it should pop up not 40 seconds later.
One of the reviewers said that speed was a factor in optical sensors and they keep getting better so I'm hoping for a speed increase in readings at least.

 

[Julien]

Just for kicks here is todays workout info (haven't paid workout attention to my Watch in over a year). Also BlueMoon63 (or x-evil-x) what is the app? I remember you telling me about a year or so ago and I probably have it but I have trouble remembering things wh...........squirrel!......what was I saying?

First I did chest for 50 minutes (straight sets with 1 compound) and I only noticed it lose HR twice, but as usual the HR readings were inaccurate right after a set. The overall average was 87bpm.

Then I did cardio machines with my Garmin too.

1. Stair Stepper 16 minutes (16:36) AHR 132bpm
2. Elliptical (full) 20 minutes (21:35) AHR 150bpm
3. Stair Climber 16 minutes (16:40) AHR 136bpm

So an Watch average of about 139bpm

Garmin *measured an average of 137bpm

*With Garmin they were all recorded in 1 session and there may be little down time recorded between activities. Also was watching towards the end and I know (because I'm in tune with my cardio and Garmin) it was about to change to 138bpm average.

 

[oftheheavens]

I am interested to see the tear down of AW2