Band 2 Heart Rate Issues when using any fitness app

[insight3fl]

NOTE: using windows phone 8.1 on Lumia Icon. Windows 10 Desktop

Well... the problem is pervasive now (I I have done at least 5 more bike ride segments (have used the run app and workout app as well with same results) and the spikes and plateaus of HR running up to 175 BPM is happening with every fitness app use. Just like the chart below, it is very consistent; after a short time the band losses lock, spikes up over 40 BPM or so above normal, then locks in and stays in that range. Either on its own or if I stop the app, it drops back down to lock on a normal reading (see chart) and then once again I can see it loose lock, spike up and lock on again. As soon as I shut down the app, it goes back to normal within a minute or two and stays there. I also confirmed on the stationary bike with built in HR reading that while in the bike program it has the problem, but if I shut down the app and watch the HR on an HR monitor app on my phone and compared to the stationary bike built in HR, it is normal. I completed my last segment today (2 miles) with the bike app off and monitored the HR readings from the band and they ran consistently normal. There is no way (I have compared to my timex strap) that my heart rate goes above 125 or anywhere near 175 even for a second. And to show an average BPM of 133, that is of no use for evaluating my fitness.



I am convinced there is some type of interaction with ME and the apps and the way the HR is locked and calculated. I sure hope someone from Microsoft is reading this as I am not the only one with this problem. I hope there is a software fix before my 30 day return period is up or I am going to have to return it as a fitness band with false HR peak and average readings is worthless as a fitness band. Please Microsoft READ THIS!

 

[poit57]

Are those dips not corresponding with change in speed/intensity? I don't really know why the HR is charted with many plateaus and drastic jumps rather than a smooth line if it is constantly being measured, but it always seems to correspond with my activity level during any type of workouts. I had one Band with a bad HR monitor that measured anywhere from 20 to 50 bpm too high, but during workouts, the peaks still corresponded with my increased efforts.and the valleys would correspond to between activities or when I would slow to a walk while tracking a running activity.

 

[insight3fl]

Are those dips not corresponding with change in speed/intensity? I don't really know why the HR is charted with many plateaus and drastic jumps rather than a smooth line if it is constantly being measured, but it always seems to correspond with my activity level during any type of workouts. I had one Band with a bad HR monitor that measured anywhere from 20 to 50 bpm too high, but during workouts, the peaks still corresponded with my increased efforts.and the valleys would correspond to between activities or when I would slow to a walk while tracking a running activity.

Not really, Most of my ride is pretty consistent... we are totally flat terrain here. Except for a little head wind, My HR should be around 105-115 and may top out at 120 with a hard sprint for a few minutes. The last 1/2 mile on this chart was a push for shelter due to it starting to rain, but I went back to my other rides and there is really no correlation other than when I first start out the stair-step in the chart is pretty similar to several other rides in the beginning.

 

[luxnws]

Neowin had an article about how the HR tracking differs in the original Band and the Band 2.

Microsoft Band 2 provides very different heart rate data than the original

Long story short, their conclusion is that the way the original Band and Band 2 track heart rates really is different. The original Band tracks HR during high intensity cardio workouts more accurately than the Band 2. The Band 2 tracks HR data from less cardio-intense workouts like "weight lifting or yoga" better than the original Band.

Your bike ride wasn't "high-intensity" but the article states, "People who focus on fast running or high-intensity biking probably won't get the most accurate results from the Band 2."

It looks like Microsoft may need to tweak the Band 2 firmware because the HR affects calorie burned too, in these situations underestimating the count for high intensity workouts. Calories burned for lower intensity workouts were overestimated by the original Band but who knows if Microsoft will update the older Band's firmware at this point.

 

[insight3fl]

Neowin had an article about how the HR tracking differs in the original Band and the Band 2.

Microsoft Band 2 provides very different heart rate data than the original
Long story short, their conclusion is that the way the original Band and Band 2 track heart rates really is different. The original Band tracks HR during high intensity cardio workouts more accurately than the Band 2. The Band 2 tracks HR data from less cardio-intense workouts like "weight lifting or yoga" better than the original Band.

Your bike ride wasn't "high-intensity" but the article states, "People who focus on fast running or high-intensity biking probably won't get the most accurate results from the Band 2."

It looks like Microsoft may need to tweak the Band 2 firmware because the HR affects calorie burned too, in these situations underestimating the count for high intensity workouts. Calories burned for lower intensity workouts were overestimated by the original Band but who knows if Microsoft will update the older Band's firmware at this point.

Interesting. I went back and looked at my couple of Band 1 rides (Had a similar issue with Band 1 and returned it after two weeks) and it had the same type of spiking issue for me, but it would peak around 135-140 rather than 170 as the Band 2 is doing for me.

 

[DroidUser42]

For each Microsoft device, I faced the optical heart rate sensor on the inside of my wrist to provide the most comparable results.

However, I've read elsewhere that the optical reader is designed to read capillaries not veins. I find I get better "lock" with the HR sensor of my B1 on the topside of my arm (display in). The very best lock I've had is with the HR monitor toward the side of my arm.

So I suspect the author's testing method is flawed.

 

[HSolo]

So I did a few experiments with regards to the HR monitoring:
On Saturday I did a 10 mile run with the Band on my left wrist (sync'd with my wife's phone.....that would be Leia), and the Band 2 on my right wrist, to compare HR for the run. The HR for the Band was what I expected (around 165 and constant), while the HR with the Band 2 was higher and climbing. Again, the workout was shown as "Strenuous" on the Band 2 (never had a "Strenuous" until Band 2), while the Band was "Highly Improving".
Last night I wore the Band 2 on the outside of my wrist for a 5 mile run. Below you can see the comparison between a run a few days ago with the Band 2 on the inside of my wrist (same distance), and last night's run with regards to HR. Last nights HR with the Band 2 on the outside of my wrist was what I would expect.
Conclusion: Once HR is elevated, the Band 2 worn on the inside wrist does not measure HR correctly. Keep in mind that they moved the HR sensor from behind the clasp, to behind the display. So with the HR sensor on the outside of my wrist rather than the inside with the Band 2, it seems to be measuring correctly. Someone had mentioned that perhaps the pulse through the veins when worn on the inside means that the HR sensor is thrown off. This seems to be the case. I will run with the Band 2 display (and therefore HR sensor) worn on the outside of my wrist from now on.

And the second run was way faster than the first, so if anything, HR would have been even higher, but it's not!
Band 2 worn on inside 5-mile run, followed by Band 2 worn on outside 5-mile run below:

 

[David Gollom]

I've been having issues with HR on Band 2 also. I did two runs and it was reading about 20 - 30 beats high for the first 10 minutes and then settled down and was accurate. Today it was very high and went up to 170 on a run where my HR wasn't over 130.
I've been wearing it on the inside of my wrist. I'll try the outside and see what happens. I love the device otherwise.

 

[Nate Silver]

I'm going to give this a try also (wearing it screen out instead of screen in) and see how it does. If it does work, I'll probably still wear it screen in for regular day to day wear, since that's the way I prefer it, and it seems to behave alright as long as you're not actually in an 'activity'.

 

[HSolo]

I'm going to give this a try also (wearing it screen out instead of screen in) and see how it does. If it does work, I'll probably still wear it screen in for regular day to day wear, since that's the way I prefer it, and it seems to behave alright as long as you're not actually in an 'activity'.

Yep....normal use HR seems fine with it worn "display inside". I ran another 5 mile last night with "display outside", and once more got the figures I was expecting. So I will also be wearing it "display inside" in day-to-day use, then flip it for exercising.

 

[David Gollom]

Ran 3.6 this morning and I tweaked two variables. I wore the screen on the outside and I dressed much more warmly. My hypothesis is when it's cold, blood flow to the capillaries in my extremities is limited causing poor readings. With these two changes the accuracy was very good. I'll do a run over the weekend when it's warm outside and see if I get good readings on the inside of the wrist.

 

[Nate Silver]

Tried wearing mine display out on today's trainer session. No difference, in fact if anything the opening 10 minutes showed an even higher spike. Peak of 175 while spinning easily at around 85 rpm's, putting out around 110 watts power! I don't think so. After that, it settled down and stayed reasonably close to the strap. Don't know what's going on, but something ain't right with the software.

 

[Nate Silver]

Ran 3.6 this morning and I tweaked two variables. I wore the screen on the outside and I dressed much more warmly. My hypothesis is when it's cold, blood flow to the capillaries in my extremities is limited causing poor readings. With these two changes the accuracy was very good. I'll do a run over the weekend when it's warm outside and see if I get good readings on the inside of the wrist.

Yup, cold temps and optical hr sensors don't mix well. Keeping the arm and the Band covered and warm is about all you can do about that.

 

[ajj3085]

Neowin had an article about how the HR tracking differs in the original Band and the Band 2.

Microsoft Band 2 provides very different heart rate data than the original

Long story short, their conclusion is that the way the original Band and Band 2 track heart rates really is different. The original Band tracks HR during high intensity cardio workouts more accurately than the Band 2. The Band 2 tracks HR data from less cardio-intense workouts like "weight lifting or yoga" better than the original Band.

Your bike ride wasn't "high-intensity" but the article states, "People who focus on fast running or high-intensity biking probably won't get the most accurate results from the Band 2."

It looks like Microsoft may need to tweak the Band 2 firmware because the HR affects calorie burned too, in these situations underestimating the count for high intensity workouts. Calories burned for lower intensity workouts were overestimated by the original Band but who knows if Microsoft will update the older Band's firmware at this point.

If its a software change i don't see why they couldn't have run and biking read differently (and more accurately) than the other exercises.

 

[ajj3085]

Ran 3.6 this morning and I tweaked two variables. I wore the screen on the outside and I dressed much more warmly. My hypothesis is when it's cold, blood flow to the capillaries in my extremities is limited causing poor readings. With these two changes the accuracy was very good. I'll do a run over the weekend when it's warm outside and see if I get good readings on the inside of the wrist.

What are you comparing the band to when you say its accurate?

 

[David Gollom]

I'm comparing to 3 years of runs done with my Garmin watch and HR strap. I know my paces and heart rates pretty well on my local runs. I also did a manual pulse check to try to verify.

 

[Nate Silver]

Welp, I don't know what changed, but on today's trainer ride, the Band HR behaved perfectly. The only thing I did differently was to wear my Mio Fuse as a secondary hr sensor instead of the Garmin or CycleOps strap. The Band and the Mio tracked within a beat or two of each other all the way through, and there were no unexplained high peaks. Maybe its healed itself?

 

[Babs75]

Thanks for all your great info, Nate. I am planning on getting the band as soon as the 950XL phone comes out. I follow the forum all the time to see how everyone is doing with the new band. Did you say you wear it on the inside or outside of your wrist? My cardio of choice is Zumba so I will be interested to see how the HR sensor works for that.

 

[Nate Silver]

Thanks for all your great info, Nate. I am planning on getting the band as soon as the 950XL phone comes out. I follow the forum all the time to see how everyone is doing with the new band. Did you say you wear it on the inside or outside of your wrist? My cardio of choice is Zumba so I will be interested to see how the HR sensor works for that.

I prefer to wear mine screen in, though some have reported that they've had better hr results with the screen out. Jury's still out on that.

 

[Nate Silver]

This is typical of what I'm seeing with the hr issue, in this case spikes over 200! My maximum hr is about 165, at least that's the highest I've ever been able to get it. Here, I was spinning very easily and putting out around 103 watts at a cadence of 95 rpm. The Mio Fuse read the hr at this point as 95. As you can see, it usually settles down eventually, and then tracks roughly equivalent to my other hr sensors. It doesn't appear to have as much of an effect on the average hr for the whole activity as you'd think, though (112 for the Band, vs 107 for the Fuse). Its also odd that the ending hr is shown as 147, which is plainly wrong, even when looking at the chart.