Heart rate reporting too high when running

[toddsay]

Throughout the day, and even while sleeping, the heart rate numbers reported by the band2 seem reasonable to me (say, 50-60 at night, 65-80 when awake at rest, and a bit higher when more active). But when I'm running, the numbers climb up into the high 180's and the high end of my reported range extends up to about 189.

Now, I'm over 50 and not running very fast or working very hard (say, 10-minute miles), so I seriously doubt my rate is that high. That actually seems like it would be dangerous if true. But I really don't believe my actual heart rate exceeds 160 or so, and when I pause to check my pulse manually it doesn't seem very high. I believe that on the high end, the band is reporting numbers around 30 bpm too high.

Are others seeing this behavior? I wasn't seeing this issue with the band1.

 

[Werentuckl]

You need to go see a doctor, ASAP. :O O_O

But on a more serious note, have you cross checked with any other fitness band or device, maybe even a sensor core equipped one. Anything? That will give us a better idea overall if you need a doctor or a new band.

-- W

 

[toddsay]

I have only the band1 vs band2 comparison for the same route. Looking at several examples, the differences are not as consistent as I hoped, but the band2 does seem to report about 20bpm higher. See example below. My other reference point is that I had previously compared the band1 to a Garmin watch with chest strap, and found the results "close enough" (that is, band1 vs Garmin).



Update: After input from HSolo, I ran with the band facing outward, and received much better results:

 

[gwinegarden]

It is a well known problem. I see numbers into the 180's when my rate (taken, manually) is in the 120's.

 

[HSolo]

I documented my experiences in a post shortly after Band 2 was released. I was getting the same as you: "At rest" and "Normal" activity the heart rate was accurate (comparable to Band 1). Running and the Band 2 was way higher than Band 1 (compared them on opposite wrists during a few runs). I normally wear my Band with the screen on inside of wrist.

Cause: I believe that because they switched the heart rate sensor from under the clasp (Band 1) to under the display (Band 2), when heart rate is elevated the veins at the bottom of your wrist cause too much "interference" when reading pulse, and cause heart rate to over-read.

Link to original discussion: http://forums.windowscentral.com/mi...s-when-using-any-fitness-app.html#post3297291


Solution: Wear the Band 2 with the screen on the outside of the wrist when running. I switched to wearing it like this (only when running) and now get comparable heart rate (Band 1 vs Band 2).

 

[toddsay]

Thanks HSolo and gwinegarden! I totally missed that thread in my search, and also must have missed the key point back then. I'll definitely try your solution, which sounds very promising.

 

[HSolo]

Thanks HSolo and gwinegarden! I totally missed that thread in my search, and also must have missed the key point back then. I'll definitely try your solution, which sounds very promising.

Let us know what your results are like with the screen on the outside of the wrist. It certainly works well for me.....now about 5 months into using the Band 2 (running 3 times a week) with display worn on the outside of wrist, and I have not had a single strangely high high heart rate. Would like to have additional user confirmation of my findings......

 

[gwinegarden]

I tried it, on the outside, today, while on the rowing machine and still got spikes. Then, when I went on the bike, I, actually, saw dips where my HR was 20 beats lower than actual, for a few minutes, and then the spikes came.

What was really interesting was that, after the bike, I forgot to end the session. I took the B2 off to go in the shower and it recorded my HR as in the 130's during the time it was off(!!).

 

[poit57]

Solution: Wear the Band 2 with the screen on the outside of the wrist when running. I switched to wearing it like this (only when running) and now get comparable heart rate (Band 1 vs Band 2).

Wearing the screen on the outside feels so awkward to manipulate the buttons or look at the screen that I never considered trying it that way for workouts with the Band 2. I did so today on a 4.5 mile walk/jog to test the difference. Twice during my workout, I went into a full sprint to really get my heart rate up. I was surprised at how much the heart rate sensor placement actually made a difference.

I've noted on the attached screen shot the moment when I flipped the screen from inside to the outside of my wrist and the times where I sprinted leading to a heart rate spike. I manually counted my heart beat for 10 seconds after the first sprint and estimated it to be about 150 bpm. The spike with the screen on the outside of my wrist seems to be right on with that count, while the peak with the screen inside was measured at 189 bpm.

 

[toddsay]

It seems like gwinegarden's results are showing that this technique is not helpful for other types of exercise, but my results agree that it helps for running. I've updated my post near the top of this thread to show the new results, same course with the band worn on the outside of the wrist. It's hard to say exactly how accurate the readings are, but it certainly seems a lot more reasonable. There was a fairly high spike near the beginning but after that it settled down to a fairly consistent value, similar to what I had experienced with band1.

My average heart rate recorded for the run was 140 (compared to 148 on the band1 example, and 165 on my original band2 example). The 140's range seems appropriate to me. I'll definitely be wearing it on the outside for running now. Harder to read and use, but certainly more accurate.

 

[Werentuckl]

Try RMA'ing or exchanging the unit? The other option you have is to get a heart transplant. With something that conforms to the W10 and Band2 APIs. I'd recommend going with the latter.

-- W

 

[lankylars]

Anyone have an idea how this affects the UV monitoring? I'd image that it's less responsive or doesn't work at all when the UV sensor is worn inside the wrist.

 

[Nate Silver]

Just tried wearing my Band 2 display up instead of inside wrist today for a treadmill walk and for a strength training session. Seems to have really improved hr values, tracking pretty much in line with my Fenix 3 with strap. Two questions remain: 1) Will it be consistent, and 2) will it also work with indoor cycling? I've been fooled before thinking that activity hr had improved, only to find that the next time it went back to spiking. And it has consistently been the worst with indoor cycling. Don't know whether its because of relatively little body movement in relation to the exertion, or what. Haven't yet had a chance to see how it does with outdoor cycling due to the winter weather. Despite not being a total weenie, I am unashamedly not a cold weather cyclist. Besides, cold temperatures are always challenging for optical heart rate sensors due to cool skin temp.

 

[HSolo]

Anyone have an idea how this affects the UV monitoring? I'd image that it's less responsive or doesn't work at all when the UV sensor is worn inside the wrist.

I can't answer that since I typically run in the evenings......and the rest of the time when I golf, or just wear the Band in casual, I wear it with the screen on the inside (UV sensor on the outside). But logic says that it would be off a little with the UV sensor on the inside of the wrist.

 

[driedl]

I had lots of problems with HR spiking until I switched my band to my non-dominant wrist. I still wear it with the screen facing in but I went from having 30 BPM spikes in pretty much every exercise session to fairly accurate tracking just by switching sides.

 

[Werentuckl]

Yup. I think we can all agree. Transplants are in order.

-- W

 

[DroidUser42]

Tips for wearing your device for accurate HR - from Fitbit: Link. Interesting that they want you to wear "3 fingers" above the wrist bone during exercise. As a community, I don't think we've discussed that idea much.

 

[poit57]

Contrary to my previous post where there seemed to be a clear difference when I turned the Band around in the middle of a workout, I'm not seeing a noticeable difference when comparing long walk/job from last Saturday with the HR monitor on the inside to this Saturday with the HR monitor on the outside. The UV sensor does seem to be less effective with the sensor on the inside. Both were sunny days and recorded around noon.

Inside wrist

• 1h 38m 15s
• 8.16 mi
• Avg pace: 12' 00"
• Average HR: 163
• Peak: 191
• Low: 65
• UV esposure: 55 minutes

Outside wrist

• 1h 27m 32s
• 7.15 mi
• Avg Pace: 12' 13"
• Avg HR: 158
• Peak: 189
• Low: 70
• UV esposure: 19 minutes

The peak heart rate for both of these exercises occurred just before hitting the 3 mile mark around 35 minutes into the run.

 

[Nate Silver]

Same here, I haven't been able to get any consistent or repeatable improvement from wearing the Band wrist-out as opposed to wrist-in. Sometimes it does fairly well, sometimes not. And as I pointed out earlier, indoor cycling is almost guaranteed to produce a wildly wrong spike during the first 10 minutes of the activity. HR should be around 95-100, but Band registers 170 to 190. It puzzles me that when this happens, its almost as though the Band is going off on a 'hunt' for the HR, and only knows how to go in one direction........up. I've seen the same thing with strength training between sets, when hr should be 70 to 80 bpm, yet the Band will start climbing and climbing (while you're at rest) to 150 or more, then suddenly drop back to high sixties. I've pretty well come to the conclusion that the Band is fine for 24/7 tracking, but for pretty much any form of exercise, its so inaccurate so as to be mostly useless. I understand and can deal with the usual optical hr shortcomings, i.e. not much good for short intervals because of lags, but when the whole workout is skewed to the point where calorie burn is nearly doubled, and Max and Avg hr inaccuracies are driving that, where is the training value? There is none.

 

[Asif S]

Wearing the band snug fit, so it does not shake or move (in relation to skin) while running, keeps heart rate locked.
With non snug fit, the rate was higher. With snug fit, it was much lower.
I think the snug fit is more accurate.
Hope this helps.