several potatos
New member
- Oct 6, 2014
- 427
- 0
- 0
Heart Rate Extremely Inaccurate, Microsoft Says Band is Entry-Level Device
- Thread starter SteveVII
- Start date
I don't think it gives the read out on the band non stop during a workout. I noticed it would be way off compared to my Suunto but would eventually show a reading that was usually very close to what my Suunto displayed. It may be due to the fact I got the band a little loose fitting so I don't snap the bnd during dynamic movements. I will do more workouts and compare it with my Suunto to see if it is able to give consistent, accurate readings. Since I do not download my workout data from my Suunto to my compooter everyday, the Band seems to be able to track my daily routine and activities well enough to keep me satisfied.
Hi There. What number did you call? Did you call answerdesk for assistance with this? As a previous support agent that handles MS technical support calls I can tell you right now that it was not MS that answered you but a partner callcenter that's probably located in India, Philippines, the U.S., there's even one in Latin America. MS does not have in-house tech support. When I worked as a tech for them I was always honest with the customers and did my best to resolve all issues since the primary reason I took a job as their tech was because I wanted to advocate microsoft products so much. My call time suffered but all issues resolved and my surveys are high. All the while my supervisors would be screaming at me to end the call. Unfortunately about 90% of my former colleagues are only concerned with getting you off the phone or chat in the least amount of time or palming you off to another agent to get their call times low as it's a metric for their stats. Partner support agents have no information on the band as of yet. If you want to get the official diagnosis on your device, I would suggest you go to a microsoft store for assistance, they're real microsoft employees. Chat and phone support is not handled directly by MS and might just fib you to get you off the phone quicker.
I wish I could say I am absolutely shocked that people treat second hand comments in an internet forum as if they were speaking directly to the CEO. Once again, anything said here is coming through the filter of another person and unless they are running a recorder it is not word for word. You also have no context for anything said. If you have concerns call up support. Three days on the market and people are believing claims on the internet instead of going to the source. Probably not a record but still impressive.
I honestly think if someone came on here and said Microsoft support told them it works better tracking the heart rate of a bigfoot than a yeti, there would be a long thread on Microsoft yeti discrimination.....
Last edited:
Perhaps you might want to do a search on "heart rate chart" before saying something so silly. Depending upon age, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a heart rate in that range during intensive aerobic activity.
- Oct 30, 2014
- 38
- 0
- 0
JoJoe...I definitely understand what you are saying. This band would be perfect for someone like my mom who has no clue what the hell is going on with her body. No awareness of her heart rate, steps, sleep, never responds to texts, etc. If that's how it was marketed, then I totally get its appeal.
I feel that Microsoft has really advertised this as an all in one band using a new wave of advanced health technology. Did you read this page (http://news.microsoft.com/features/...ss-and-productivity-insights-a-glance-away/)? They specifically call out how the other heart rate devices suck and theirs is much better due to extensive R +D. However, as many have tested, those other devices that "suck" have been more accurate than the band when exercising. As someone who was looking for this to be a health-first device, I may be better off with something else. I'm still going to give it a chance, but if the heart rate continues to be this far off, I just can't use it as a device for training, unfortunately.
I feel that Microsoft has really advertised this as an all in one band using a new wave of advanced health technology. Did you read this page (http://news.microsoft.com/features/...ss-and-productivity-insights-a-glance-away/)? They specifically call out how the other heart rate devices suck and theirs is much better due to extensive R +D. However, as many have tested, those other devices that "suck" have been more accurate than the band when exercising. As someone who was looking for this to be a health-first device, I may be better off with something else. I'm still going to give it a chance, but if the heart rate continues to be this far off, I just can't use it as a device for training, unfortunately.
BobLobIaw
New member
- Feb 22, 2013
- 498
- 0
- 0
I was hoping this was the thread where people post comparative data directly from their devices to determine accuracy. Greyskytheory did so in another thread (Ambit - Band) and it looks like there is a little bit here (Joe920). I'm trying to take OP seriously but with the absence of his actual graphs and the subterfuge from a predictable source I find this thread to be disappointing at best right now. Hopefully it will improve if the FUD stops.
BobLobIaw
New member
- Feb 22, 2013
- 498
- 0
- 0
Dude, I spent like 15 minutes piecing this together for the community, a bit more appreciation please!
Yeah, there is a ton of appreciation from me. I just wish people other than you and Greyskytheory had submitted raw comparative data so that we can analyze the issue correctly instead of having to sift through a bunch of biased hyperbole.
I have 42 minutes of tennis heart rate data vs. the Polar Loop.
MS Band:
144 ave
168 high & 80 low
Polar Loop (w/ chest strap):
162 ave
183 high & 131 low
The Band stopped recording after 42 minutes (!) which I did not realize at the time. There may have been a notification interruption or 2. I wonder if that caused a pause.
I used the Band's GPS and it said I covered 1.07 miles, which is cool to track for tennis, but I'm not sure it was on for the whole period. It let me start without GPS and then GPS kicked in at some point later. This was actually one of the notifications I remember, and it was like 20 minutes or something after I had started!
The graphs actually look similar in shape when you compare the 42 min period,, but the MS graph is extremely smoothed out - rolling hills vs. the jagged peaks provided by Polar.
Maybe the band works better for plain running, with less arm movements than tennis. That's what I was originally excited to use for - low HR training for running - but I feel like I can't trust it now. The active heart rate reading being intermittent is another strike against it for that use.
It fit tight (with display on inside of wrist), so I don't think that was the problem. Other than the HR being totally inaccurate, the other con for me is the comfort. It just feels tight and kind of sweaty. I wouldn't want to wear it 24/7. I wear the Loop more loose and it hasn't been a problem, plus the Loop feels lightweight in comparison.
I'm not really surprised about the HR. I asked 2 phone reps, a chat rep, and the retail store sales person if the HR was accurate and they all said yes, but I didn't trust them since there was no documentation anywhere. I agree with earlier comments that the documentation or even basic descriptions of what it's supposed to be able to do are completely lacking. I guess that adds to the discovery experience...I also agree that blog article was misleadingly optimistic about the HR technology. It did give me hope. Oh well. It's a cool device and I see the potential for all kinds of great features. This thread probably saved me a call to tech support. Sounds like that won't get anywhere.
Note: the HR numbers above are for the same 42 min. period. I was able to get that on the Polar website. The screenshot below has a longer time period for the Loop, so the numbers won't match. Also, I wasn't able to get a screenshot of the Band Summary numbers. The Summary page had the GPS map but no other graphs. I had to go to the Splits to get the graphs.
MS Band:
144 ave
168 high & 80 low
Polar Loop (w/ chest strap):
162 ave
183 high & 131 low
The Band stopped recording after 42 minutes (!) which I did not realize at the time. There may have been a notification interruption or 2. I wonder if that caused a pause.
I used the Band's GPS and it said I covered 1.07 miles, which is cool to track for tennis, but I'm not sure it was on for the whole period. It let me start without GPS and then GPS kicked in at some point later. This was actually one of the notifications I remember, and it was like 20 minutes or something after I had started!
The graphs actually look similar in shape when you compare the 42 min period,, but the MS graph is extremely smoothed out - rolling hills vs. the jagged peaks provided by Polar.
Maybe the band works better for plain running, with less arm movements than tennis. That's what I was originally excited to use for - low HR training for running - but I feel like I can't trust it now. The active heart rate reading being intermittent is another strike against it for that use.
It fit tight (with display on inside of wrist), so I don't think that was the problem. Other than the HR being totally inaccurate, the other con for me is the comfort. It just feels tight and kind of sweaty. I wouldn't want to wear it 24/7. I wear the Loop more loose and it hasn't been a problem, plus the Loop feels lightweight in comparison.
I'm not really surprised about the HR. I asked 2 phone reps, a chat rep, and the retail store sales person if the HR was accurate and they all said yes, but I didn't trust them since there was no documentation anywhere. I agree with earlier comments that the documentation or even basic descriptions of what it's supposed to be able to do are completely lacking. I guess that adds to the discovery experience...I also agree that blog article was misleadingly optimistic about the HR technology. It did give me hope. Oh well. It's a cool device and I see the potential for all kinds of great features. This thread probably saved me a call to tech support. Sounds like that won't get anywhere.
Note: the HR numbers above are for the same 42 min. period. I was able to get that on the Polar website. The screenshot below has a longer time period for the Loop, so the numbers won't match. Also, I wasn't able to get a screenshot of the Band Summary numbers. The Summary page had the GPS map but no other graphs. I had to go to the Splits to get the graphs.
Attachments
UncleGrandpa
New member
- Nov 20, 2013
- 112
- 0
- 0
At $199, the Band is an entry level fitness band. It is in the same category as the Garmin Vivofit and the yet to be released Fitbit Surge. What is impressive about the MS Band is the features included in device and potentially the amount of data generated by all those sensors. It sets the bar high for fitness bands in the $150-250 price range. It might even give the Apple Watch Sport edition some serious competition.
The Band isn't competing against high end performance devices like the Garmin Forerunner 620 which costs > $400. Even the Forerunner 301 which I bought nearly 10 years ago cost more than the Band and I'd be surprised if the Band matched it on hrm and gps performance. The 301 has a chest hrm so I think it is going to still be more accurate than the Band at least for the next few iterations.
That said, this is MS's first release so there will be things to fix and improve. The real value in the Band will be in the software and data analysis. It has the potential to collect all sorts of data that my 301 doesn't generate. I'm eagerly anticipating when MS releases its second iteration (guessing early to mid 2015). I just hope it won't be priced a lot higher than the first gen Band!
The Band isn't competing against high end performance devices like the Garmin Forerunner 620 which costs > $400. Even the Forerunner 301 which I bought nearly 10 years ago cost more than the Band and I'd be surprised if the Band matched it on hrm and gps performance. The 301 has a chest hrm so I think it is going to still be more accurate than the Band at least for the next few iterations.
That said, this is MS's first release so there will be things to fix and improve. The real value in the Band will be in the software and data analysis. It has the potential to collect all sorts of data that my 301 doesn't generate. I'm eagerly anticipating when MS releases its second iteration (guessing early to mid 2015). I just hope it won't be priced a lot higher than the first gen Band!
Last edited:
so here's my theory. as far as i know, there are only two ways to truly measure heart rate: actually taking a pulse or actually measuring/tracking the electrical activity of the heart (ekg, for example).
as i understand it, the chest bands actually pickup on your heart's electrical activity so they tend to be accurate. that's also why you wear them over your heart. it sounds to me like these optical sensors don't actually measure your heart rate. it seems like they work by some kind of algorithm with data the sensor reads from how the light beam responds to your veins or capillaries. so it's not measuring electrical activity from the heart or counting your pulse.
i have no idea how the algorithm and the light sensor interact, but this seems like it would clearly be a less reliable method than the medical standards. it seems like the light sensors work more like the calories burned estimators. you tell the device your height, weight, sometimes age, and sometimes real biofeedback (tell it you're working out at 20% of max for 20 minutes, for example) and it'll give you a calories burned estimate. the problem, however, is that we know you can't really verify how many calories you burn. you track that by completely different means--elevating your heart rate to a certain point and keeping it there, taking x number of steps, a hard weight training workout, et cetera, in combination with diet, monitoring what's going into your body. heart rate, on the other hand, can be easily verified and is an important metric. unlike calories burned estimates, inaccurate heart rate readings are worthless, particularly when we have a less convenient yet medically accepted means of measure it--simply taking your pulse. pretty all marketing that i've seen for any light sensor heart monitor don't say what's actually happening and over-promise wildly. maybe microsoft has made the same mistake.
hopefully, however, the band can be made more accurate via software updates. one important thing to keep in mind, however, is that optical sensors are NOT measuring your heart's electrical activity so in that sense they never will be truly accurate. you can be in afibrillation and not even feel it even if you are taking your pulse, but an ekg will pick that up immediately. and these light sensors don't appear to actually count your heartbeats, either. so i think it's important to keep in mind that what we're truly getting here is more like a calculation than a reading.
as i understand it, the chest bands actually pickup on your heart's electrical activity so they tend to be accurate. that's also why you wear them over your heart. it sounds to me like these optical sensors don't actually measure your heart rate. it seems like they work by some kind of algorithm with data the sensor reads from how the light beam responds to your veins or capillaries. so it's not measuring electrical activity from the heart or counting your pulse.
i have no idea how the algorithm and the light sensor interact, but this seems like it would clearly be a less reliable method than the medical standards. it seems like the light sensors work more like the calories burned estimators. you tell the device your height, weight, sometimes age, and sometimes real biofeedback (tell it you're working out at 20% of max for 20 minutes, for example) and it'll give you a calories burned estimate. the problem, however, is that we know you can't really verify how many calories you burn. you track that by completely different means--elevating your heart rate to a certain point and keeping it there, taking x number of steps, a hard weight training workout, et cetera, in combination with diet, monitoring what's going into your body. heart rate, on the other hand, can be easily verified and is an important metric. unlike calories burned estimates, inaccurate heart rate readings are worthless, particularly when we have a less convenient yet medically accepted means of measure it--simply taking your pulse. pretty all marketing that i've seen for any light sensor heart monitor don't say what's actually happening and over-promise wildly. maybe microsoft has made the same mistake.
hopefully, however, the band can be made more accurate via software updates. one important thing to keep in mind, however, is that optical sensors are NOT measuring your heart's electrical activity so in that sense they never will be truly accurate. you can be in afibrillation and not even feel it even if you are taking your pulse, but an ekg will pick that up immediately. and these light sensors don't appear to actually count your heartbeats, either. so i think it's important to keep in mind that what we're truly getting here is more like a calculation than a reading.
mhc48
New member
- Nov 8, 2010
- 327
- 0
- 0
I can't attest to the accuracy as to actual count, but having just come back from a combo walk and run to test my Band, I can say that the Band did not appear lose lock at any time and that the displayed heart rate both in real time and in the charts closely tracked the intensity of what I was doing, quickly matching whether I was walking or running, and the HR decreasing when I slowed down my running pace.
I will say that at one point I thought I saw my displayed HR on the Band go about 4 or 5 beats higher than show up as the Max on the chart when I got home.
I will say that at one point I thought I saw my displayed HR on the Band go about 4 or 5 beats higher than show up as the Max on the chart when I got home.
Dis you try this while wearing another fitness tracker to compare the data between the two?
mhc48
New member
- Nov 8, 2010
- 327
- 0
- 0
No, that's why I said that I can't attest to the accuracy of the actual count; I had nothing to compare the numbers to. But I don't need another tracker to know when I'm walking vs. running or when I deliberately slow my pace. In those instances the Band quickly reacted to and displayed a change in my HR. I did this on a 2 mile straight, flat boardwalk, so that I wouldn't have to worry about traffic, variables or distractions while I checked the Band.
DC Rainmaker provides very in depth reviews of fitness products and one of the devices he has reviewed is the TomTom GPS watch with Optical HRM. It uses the same basic technology as the Band to measure heart rate, the green lights and optical sensors. He found the TomTom (optical) when compared to his Garmin (chest strap) was spot on, it even did better than the chest strap in some cases. He shows the graphs side by side, and they are almost identical. So that tells us that the optical HRM technology works, and it has the capability to be accurate at least for running.
So the question is: Why does the Band seem to be struggling? Is it a cheaper HR sensor, is it getting light interference. (The TomTom "seals" to your wrist better to block the light from outside) Is it a software bug? Or is it accurate but just not displaying in as much detail as the other devices in the graph? Thoughts?
Here is the article talking about the TomTom HRM TomTom Cardio Runner & Multisport with Optical Heart Rate In-Depth Review | DC Rainmaker
Click on "Optical Heart Rate Sensor Accuracy" from the side bar to jump to the relevant section.
So the question is: Why does the Band seem to be struggling? Is it a cheaper HR sensor, is it getting light interference. (The TomTom "seals" to your wrist better to block the light from outside) Is it a software bug? Or is it accurate but just not displaying in as much detail as the other devices in the graph? Thoughts?
Here is the article talking about the TomTom HRM TomTom Cardio Runner & Multisport with Optical Heart Rate In-Depth Review | DC Rainmaker
Click on "Optical Heart Rate Sensor Accuracy" from the side bar to jump to the relevant section.
sanva
New member
- Nov 2, 2014
- 9
- 0
- 0
I think you need to change the title of your post to "for you its inaccurate". I just went for a run this morning with my motoactv watch/garmin chest strap hr monitor and the microsoft band.
Overall they both matched up with min/max and average heart rate for the complete 40 minutes. I even waitied 10 minutes after the run for the cool down and they both were in sync.
now when i was running were there times one read different than the other? Sure but ones on my wrist and ones on my heart within some time when i looked down they were in sync.
I am very happy with the readout as I was eager to test after reading this post last night.
If anything the GPS took a while to capture under some cloud cover that is my only gripe.
Check it for yourself guys before believing someone trying to make a claim for all of us.
Overall they both matched up with min/max and average heart rate for the complete 40 minutes. I even waitied 10 minutes after the run for the cool down and they both were in sync.
now when i was running were there times one read different than the other? Sure but ones on my wrist and ones on my heart within some time when i looked down they were in sync.
I am very happy with the readout as I was eager to test after reading this post last night.
If anything the GPS took a while to capture under some cloud cover that is my only gripe.
Check it for yourself guys before believing someone trying to make a claim for all of us.
Similar threads
- Question
Latest posts
-
This 3K OLED laptop with Snapdragon X is under $600
- Latest: Windows Central
Trending Posts
-
This 3K OLED laptop with Snapdragon X is under $600
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
-
I played Split Fiction with my brother, and I found that it's a must-play co-op game
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
Members online
No members online now.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram