heart rate monitor horribly inaccurate?

[grabaka]

anyone else have a gear 2 with a horribly inaccurate HRM when exercising? sometimes it will randomly show 50 bpm at high intensity and then 170 bpm while cooling down. Not sure if I have a defective unit or the HRM on these things is just a novelty and not actually useful like a standard HRM you wear on your chest. Also, anyone know if they plan on a mode for exercises that dont involve moving around like resistance training/aerobics?

 

[ironsoulreaver]

It has to be placed on your arm at a specific spot. I get accurate readings by holding the phone by the band on the balls of my wrist. lol

it seems like the more I use it the better it works.

 

[JacksonEdwardHarrison]

anyone else have a gear 2 with a horribly inaccurate HRM when exercising? sometimes it will randomly show 50 bpm at high intensity and then 170 bpm while cooling down. Not sure if I have a defective unit or the HRM on these things is just a novelty and not actually useful like a standard HRM you wear on your chest. Also, anyone know if they plan on a mode for exercises that dont involve moving around like resistance training/aerobics?

Try wearing the watch upside down (so the heart rate monitor reads the bottom of your wrist where the veins are instead of the top) when you work out? Just a thought. Wonder if it would make a difference.

Sent from my SM-P600 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[RU55]

Hey
I'm experiencing the same problem. I went hiking today and at times it peaked at 170 bpm whilst standing calmly taking in the views! Disappointed as the HRM was one of the main motivations for purchasing the watch. Expected better tbh. I did find that it worked slightly better when fastened tighter to my wrist.
I'll try Jackson's suggestion n wear it upside down to see if that helps.

 

[Trent9810]

Mine is pretty good. I think it depends on how you wear it.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Civuck]

Mine seems accurate and consistent

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[jordo487]

Switching between the gear and phone, they seem about the same and accurate. I have not used either yet in a heavy workout/exercise environment though.

 

[Hielko]

I used it while doing some heavy exercises and compared it with the hrm of the fitness machine. They measured almost the same all the time, just a minor difference (less than five).

 

[anon(52425)]

anyone else have a gear 2 with a horribly inaccurate HRM when exercising? sometimes it will randomly show 50 bpm at high intensity and then 170 bpm while cooling down. Not sure if I have a defective unit or the HRM on these things is just a novelty and not actually useful like a standard HRM you wear on your chest. Also, anyone know if they plan on a mode for exercises that dont involve moving around like resistance training/aerobics?

I'm a medic and it's pretty close for the most part. And the S5 is even better in my experience.

 

[mustc]

I experienced the same exact thing yesterday at the gym. However, as my workout continued the variability seem to calm down. I don't know this, but I wonder if it is self-correcting over time. Even if that is the case' that would still be a problem.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[JacksonEdwardHarrison]

I am wondering (no proof) if this has to do with how tight you wear the band? That is, would the HRM be very accurate if the watch never loses contact with your skin (tighter band), but be less accurate if the band is a bit loose and the HRM is able to occasionally fall away from your skin? Just a thought.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[ihbsbA]

I am wondering (no proof) if this has to do with how tight you wear the band? That is, would the HRM be very accurate if the watch never loses contact with your skin (tighter band), but be less accurate if the band is a bit loose and the HRM is able to occasionally fall away from your skin? Just a thought.

Posted via Android Central App

This seems to be correct -- from my experience.

 

[tcjohnsson]

I should have listened to that 2-star review on Amazon stating how useless the HR monitor is. It's only good for getting the pulse once while standing perfectly still and that's it. Forget about getting anything within +/- 50 BPM accuracy if using while exercising. I really hope Samsung plans to fix this... the HRM is clearly broken.

 

[Hielko]

This is not my experience as I already stated earlier in this threat. I did heavy exercises. The fitness app makes the hrm work continously. Measures were ok, with low rates and high rates (up to 180). Compared to the hrm of the fitness machine in the fitness club. And yes, the fitness app is intended for outdoor exercises, but you can use it indoor for continuous hrm if you want.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[tcjohnsson]

For those people that state the HRM works fine, have you ever owned a Polar, Zephyr or Garmin HRM chest strap before? Or the Mio Alpha wrist-worn HRM? I have owned 4 HRM over the last 16 years and have used them extensively; I can pretty much accurately gauge my HR within +/- 10 BPM just by how much I'm physically exerting at the moment. I would surmise the Gear 2's HRM data you are reading is highly inaccurate and you just aren't aware of it. No offense to those that haven't owned and used other HRM monitors but from the feedback I'm reading here and on other forums, those that say it works fine never used a reliable chest strap or Mio Alpha HRM before. They just have nothing reliable to compare it to so they think it works fine. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Gear 2's HRM is highly unreliable to the point where Samsung should cease all health tracking benefit advertising of their product. It's that bad.

 

[ihbsbA]

For those people that state the HRM works fine, have you ever owned a Polar, Zephyr or Garmin HRM chest strap before? Or the Mio Alpha wrist-worn HRM? I have owned 4 HRM over the last 16 years and have used them extensively; I can pretty much accurately gauge my HR within +/- 10 BPM just by how much I'm physically exerting at the moment. I would surmise the Gear 2's HRM data you are reading is highly inaccurate and you just aren't aware of it. No offense to those that haven't owned and used other HRM monitors but from the feedback I'm reading here and on other forums, those that say it works fine never used a reliable chest strap or Mio Alpha HRM before. They just have nothing reliable to compare it to so they think it works fine. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Gear 2's HRM is highly unreliable to the point where Samsung should cease all health tracking benefit advertising of their product. It's that bad.

I own and use a Polar on a daily basis. My HRM seems to be very close during the three events I've used it, but I haven't tried it at the gym yet.. Are you using it on "Exercise" mode? it doesn't matter which one you choose, it will go into a constant mode where the HRM is on the entire time. That's when it seems to even out and be more accurate. Also, turn the watch to where the monitor is on the underside of your wrist..have you tried that?

 

[kilofoxtrot]

I have been wearing the watch upside down for the past two exercise sessions and have been very satisfied. BPM measurement has been consistent and steady. An added benefit, you dont have to rotate your wrist as much to get your reading.

There's a reason they take your pulse on the underside for your wrist.

 

[grabaka]

Yeah, I am coming from owning a polar hr monitor which seems to be wayyyy more accurately on a second by second basis.

I think the gear is "ok" for (1) overall heart rate monitoring - ie after your workout is down, it seems to average close to what your actual heart rate/calories were and (2) spot checking heart rate using the heart rate function. BUT on a second by second basis, the gear appears to be horribly bad.

 

[ihbsbA]

Just curiously, I am a numbers geek, too, so I get the "second by second" basis "want to know" thing, but the truth is - Heart rate monitoring really goes by an average. Can you tell me why it matters that your heart rate is EXACT every single second? It really doesn't, if we think about it. It's nice, for those of us used to a Polar, to see EXACT numbers..but at the end, it matters what you maintained during the workout, not what it was at 37 minutes and 12 seconds in to it. Maybe we need to rethink how important the exact accuracy is and stop being so OCD. Myself included.

 

[grabaka]

it actually matters a lot - maybe not for the casual exerciser, but for those that are optimizing their fitness, there are a lot of reasons you want to know your hr on a second by second basis if you use hr as a metric to determine your output, for example in high intensity interval training or if you are working within a particular heart rate threshold (e.g. building your base, building vo2 max) etc.