Heart Rate Extremely Inaccurate, Microsoft Says Band is Entry-Level Device
- Thread starter SteveVII
- Start date
I went on a ten mile run on Sunday and wore the Band on my right wrist and my Garmin 910XT on my left wrist with a heart rate monitor strap. I was really pleased with how the Band did. The Band was showing 80% battery level when I left and was at 60% when I plugged it in when I got home.
Distance:
Garmin - 10.00
Band - 10.03
Time:
Garmin - 1:36:26
Band - 1:36:38
Average Pace:
Garmin - 9:38
Band - 9:38
Average Heart Rate:
Garmin - 137
Band - 138
Distance:
Garmin - 10.00
Band - 10.03
Time:
Garmin - 1:36:26
Band - 1:36:38
Average Pace:
Garmin - 9:38
Band - 9:38
Average Heart Rate:
Garmin - 137
Band - 138
They didn't say it that way, but I think it's fair to say it wasn't being sold as a "killer" or meant to "rule the roost", but to encourage others to up their game and jump on board. I tend to suspect the REAL product is MS Health along with HealthVault. The Band is intended as feeder device for those apps.
Google tried and closed shop. Apple has yet to launch, and I suspect it will only be for iOS users. I think MS is well-positioned.
Personally, I'm chomping at the bit for a weight scale that will auto-magically sync with it. I know there are other devices that will sync with HealthVault, but they tend to be pricey and I suspect it's a manual style sync.
I would love to see the integration of multiple inputs to my data. I could see myself wearing a band almost all the time, and wearing a chest strap pretty often (and I bet we could get a lot more battery capacity into one).
I was in an area with good sky visibility and relatively flat terrain. It was also clear. Cell reception was good. I uploaded some pics to Instagram with my Lumia Icon with no problems. I also wondered if it might leverage the cell towers. Who knows? Maybe just a fluke.
Sometimes it's just a "bad GPS day" - the third satellite it needs to get a lock just happens to be behind the only obstruction in the area. Or they're all in a line so it can't triangulate.
It makes some sense that it might. Daniel's article on how often it measures the heart rate during exercise suggests it would update the display every second.
If you are seeing accurate heart rates from the Band, what size did you get? How do you wear yours--facing inside or outside? Do you position it between the bone and hand or more on your arm? How tight are you wearing yours?
I have a large. I wear mine between the wrist bone and my hand. My arm is too big to wear it behind my wrist bone. I've worn mine both out and in. I've worn mine very tight--almost restricting wrist movement. I've also worn it just loose enough that I can twist a little on my wrist.
I still suspect of hydration on accuracy. Drinking a lot of water all day tomorrow and will see how it goes during my Thursday morning workout.
I have a large. I wear mine between the wrist bone and my hand. My arm is too big to wear it behind my wrist bone. I've worn mine both out and in. I've worn mine very tight--almost restricting wrist movement. I've also worn it just loose enough that I can twist a little on my wrist.
I still suspect of hydration on accuracy. Drinking a lot of water all day tomorrow and will see how it goes during my Thursday morning workout.
runnerdoctor
New member
I'm confused. I have worn mine for 2 ten mile runs and both times it was 20-25 BPM higher than it should be. I'm very frustrated. It is accurate at resting and sleeping, but as soon as i start running it is way off. I'm wearing a medium and I have tried all wrist positions. I have worn on both wrists. Maybe it just will not work on my wrist?? Very confused. What size are you wearing?
Last edited:
Just did another bike ride. Today the HR performance was just terrible. It kept losing sync and hovered in the 120-140 range on stretches where I know I'm between 150-170. Tried different positions on the wrist too, and facing in and out. Tried holding my hand off the handlebar to see if vibration was the problem. Doesn't look like it. So personally I've decided that for tracking workout performance it's more trouble than it's worth. I might still keep it for sleep tracking and notifications, but for biking I'm back to my ancient Garmin FR305.
On a related note, what are the chances that MS will offer a companion strap for more accurate HR monitoring? To be named the MS BandAid[SUP]TM[/SUP]. I'd buy that.
Edit: screenshot below. The section between the two pauses is a long continuous climb where I'm always well over 150, often approaching 170. Near the end of the ride you see flat sections in the graph that look unrealistic as well, as if it has very few data points.
On a related note, what are the chances that MS will offer a companion strap for more accurate HR monitoring? To be named the MS BandAid[SUP]TM[/SUP]. I'd buy that.
Edit: screenshot below. The section between the two pauses is a long continuous climb where I'm always well over 150, often approaching 170. Near the end of the ride you see flat sections in the graph that look unrealistic as well, as if it has very few data points.
I've done three workouts comparing the band to my Suunto ambit and i posted graphs from both devices measurements. The band is almost worthless at tracking my hr during my interval training. Based on what I've seen here it seems that it doesn't do well tracking quick shifts in hr and in some cases high hr. Could you if at all possible during a follow on workout, post a side by side of your Garmin and the band?
Based on my walk this evening, it's not doing very well even at moderate and steady heart rates. I'll have to gather more information and post results.
I did that earlier in this thread. At the time it did a lot better than this time around, and honestly I can't think of a single thing that was different this time. Now it didn't even track when my HR presumably was steady. I'll do a few more with both band and Garmin and post back. Might take a while though.
I have been spot checking the band against my neck pulse (the gold standard) multiple times during hard long workouts (tennis an biking) and resting. I wear the band snugly, screen down on my wrist proper (proximal to the radial head, ie. above it). It has been very accurate. I do not have any significant adipose tissue and have moderate wrist hair.
Clearly some people are doing well, some are terrible. Just trying to think of the variables here:
- Worn display in or display out
- Worn on wrist joint or wrist bone
- What mode on band (normal, running, or exercise)
- Judging by display (spot readings) or analyzing graphs (which could be averaged)
- If by display, is Band HR locked (full heart) or unlocked (empty heart)
- Left arm or right arm
- What is the reference device
- Biological factors such as skin color, BMI, sweat, etc.
I've been comparing it to a Garmin 910xt for runs between 5 and 10 miles and so far the band has been almost exactly the same as the Garmin. For what it's worth, I wear the band on my right wrist with the display facing in and pretty far below my wrist bone. I think the key is to have the band on pretty tight.
Someone posted this link in another thread, but I think it is appropriate fornthis thread.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/12/7193493/7-minutes-in-hell-workout-microsoft-band-basis-peak
It mirrors my (short) experience with the Basis Peak.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/12/7193493/7-minutes-in-hell-workout-microsoft-band-basis-peak
It mirrors my (short) experience with the Basis Peak.
Microsoft suggested I switch mine out for a smaller one to see if that fixes the issue. I think the sensor in mine is crap or the device has bugs. It's accurate on steady state activities for me but it can't keep up during interval work. It's taking so long to stock up in stores I may just return it and come back for gen2
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
The Fallout revival continues as nearly 5 million players have journeyed into the wasteland in a single day- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram