heart rate monitor horribly inaccurate?

[tcjohnsson]

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.

You're right... it doesn't matter if it's correct every second. But that is not the case whatsoever. The Gear 2 will go more than just a second or two being inaccurate - try 5, 10, 20 minutes or more straight. This completely invalidates peoples' exercise sessions (caloric expenditure feedback) when they may be pushing "hard" for only 10-20 minutes out of their entire daily workout. I'm going to illustrate the gross inaccuracies of the Gear 2's HRM for you with the following images. I am wearing both the Mio Alpha and the Gear 2 very tightly against my wrist (see my skin creasing up along side of the watches on the first image) and wearing them so the sensors are facing the more sensitive underside of my wrist as some suggested I do. There were no wild movements - all exercise is done in a controlled environment and my hands/wrists were being very still holding the treadmill's safety bars and HRM sensors. Note that the Mio Alpha was compared to the Zephyr and Polar chest HRMs and they would always be within 2-3 bpm of each other. Consistently. The Mio is extremely reliable. I also tried swapping the two on another test so that Mio was closer to my hand and the Gear 2 was further from my hand. Both tests yielded the same gross inaccuracies.

The first image shows me driving to the gym (taken immediately after a quick walk to my car). Note I'm reading 72 bpm on my Mio Alpha which is consistent with my Polar and Zephyr chest strap HRM but we have a whopping 138 bpm on the Gear 2. Note that I am sitting in my car driving (slightly elevated at 72 bpm because I just briskly walked to my car) - not running at a relatively fast pace as a 138 bpm rate would suggest. Note the elapsed time as I started the exercise app (hiking) earlier in the day.



The second image shows me on a treadmill walking at a very fast pace on a 14% incline. The Mio has me at 121 while the Gear 2 thinks I'm just sitting around at 73 bpm! You can see the treadmill rubber band track below the watches. Note the elapsed time at 2:17:48.




Here on the third image I am running on the treadmill at a quick pace on a 14% incline (just stopped quickly to take the pic). You can see the perspiration forming on my arm. Note the elapsed time of 2:22:47. The Mio has me at a fair 139 bpm (the treadmill HRM showed me at 138 bpm; sorry tried to include in pic to throw it into the comparison but once I took my hands off the sensors it disappeared). The Gear 2? Yup, nailed it. WAAAAAY OFF at 84 bpm.



Do you see how grossly inaccurate this device is? I hope this shows some of you that the device is not just utterly useless - it's an insult to those that bother using this feature at all.

Finally, I wanted to add that the caloric expenditure calculation on the Gear 2 is also horribly inaccurate (actually more inaccurate than the HRM believe it or not) - this is completely exclusive of the broken HRM. Despite the huge discrepancies evident in my images above, the Gear 2 did report the data while I was on a stairmaster for about 30 minutes and it was within 25-30 bpm accuracy for most of the duration. Check out the last image where it shows my total caloric expenditure over the 50-minute period at the gym which included mostly medium to high energy output. What did I burn? 76 CALORIES!! I burn that much just walking around the mall for 30 minutes. The gym Stairmaster's computer depicted a caloric burn of 270 calories alone (I ascended 146 stories). The Gear 2 was monitoring my heart rate the ENTIRE time. So not only is the HRM useless, the algorithms used to extrapolate the HRM data is grossly inaccurate too. Everything about this device from a health-tracking perspective is a major failure.

 

[ihbsbA]

lol...in this case, I'd actually suggest that you return it and try another unit. Mine is not this far off...

 

[tcjohnsson]

lol...in this case, I'd actually suggest that you return it and try another unit. Mine is not this far off...

I thought about that but based on other forum posts many others are receiving the same grossly inaccurate HR data from their Gear 2 and Fit. The chances of that many "defective" units out there is slim to none. The engineering/design/implementation just doesn't work. Simply put, Samsung rushed this to the market without testing it. The health/fitness-tracking industry is huge and Samsung just fell flat on its face trying to get a piece of it. I'm still holding out hope that Samsung can fix this with a firmware/software update.

 

[JacksonEdwardHarrison]

I thought about that but based on other forum posts many others are receiving the same grossly inaccurate HR data from their Gear 2 and Fit. The chances of that many "defective" units out there is slim to none. The engineering/design/implementation just doesn't work. Simply put, Samsung rushed this to the market without testing it. The health/fitness-tracking industry is huge and Samsung just fell flat on its face trying to get a piece of it. I'm still holding out hope that Samsung can fix this with a firmware/software update.

It's not so much what you say dude, it's how you say it. Frustrated posts are one thing, but constant fury-filled rants are another. I suppose the following will be considered a personal comment and I will probably get in trouble for saying it, but what the hell. I bet your single and live alone. And if you're not, I bet you are a royal pain in the *** to live with. Not sure how anything or anyone could live up to your expectations. Bless your heart man, and may God bless your inner circle.

 

[markbc]

Have used the Neo heart rate function for the past four days, three times to the gym and with biking or walking around town.

While moving -but with a steady arm the results I get are almost always accurate. Conversely, testing the pulse while my arms are in motion -say on an elliptical, or perhaps running, doesn't work well. By pausing a second and capturing the pulse during a heavy session I can get pulse rates that agree with the machines I've used at the gym.
-- Also at home the pulse counts were dead on with a blood-pressure/heart beat machine we have here.

It's just not meant to be the monitor-while-in-the-stress-exercise mode. Those sports bands would be better for that.

Considering all the other good things the watch does, this limitation on how to use pulse monitor (and the stupid way Samsung has botched the S Health transition for all users of prior phones) is (are) endurable.

I still like the watch overall!

 

[anon(52425)]

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.

Yeah, because some random dude on the internetz 2-star review is the definitive answer on the Gear 2 HR accuracy.

 

[ihbsbA]

Originally Posted by ihbsbA
lol...in this case, I'd actually suggest that you return it and try another unit. Mine is not this far off...

===========

I thought about that but based on other forum posts many others are receiving the same grossly inaccurate HR data from their Gear 2 and Fit. The chances of that many "defective" units out there is slim to none. The engineering/design/implementation just doesn't work. Simply put, Samsung rushed this to the market without testing it. The health/fitness-tracking industry is huge and Samsung just fell flat on its face trying to get a piece of it. I'm still holding out hope that Samsung can fix this with a firmware/software update.

I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but Samsung rushes everything to market, lol.... I know this and I'm still a fan. They are the most innovative and until that changes, I am willing to take chances with their goods.. If you're not comfortable, wait until the third or fourth Gen... Being an early adopter has many cons...

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[Civuck]

I've found my Gear 2 HRM to be very close to the gym treadmill HRM. This doing 30 minute runs.

 

[itinj6]

It's not so much what you say dude, it's how you say it. Frustrated posts are one thing, but constant fury-filled rants are another. I suppose the following will be considered a personal comment and I will probably get in trouble for saying it, but what the hell. I bet your single and live alone. And if you're not, I bet you are a royal pain in the *** to live with. Not sure how anything or anyone could live up to your expectations. Bless your heart man, and may God bless your inner circle.

Honest reviews, especially the negative ones, are extremely important to the forums. Maybe you won't see so many comments suggesting people to return their devices if reviews like this were more prevalent. Instead they have to worry about people like you taking stabs at their personal lives. Seriously??? Just embrace the fact that this watch isn't all it was made out to be by Samsung and allow the negative reviewers to do their thing without your negativity towards them. Being a fan boy doesn't help the cause. With more negative reviews and less purchases, maybe it will put a fire in Samsung's *** to fix the existing problems and remove the false advertising.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[itinj6]

You're right... it doesn't matter if it's correct every second. But that is not the case whatsoever. The Gear 2 will go more than just a second or two being inaccurate - try 5, 10, 20 minutes or more straight. This completely invalidates peoples' exercise sessions (caloric expenditure feedback) when they may be pushing "hard" for only 10-20 minutes out of their entire daily workout. I'm going to illustrate the gross inaccuracies of the Gear 2's HRM for you with the following images. I am wearing both the Mio Alpha and the Gear 2 very tightly against my wrist (see my skin creasing up along side of the watches on the first image) and wearing them so the sensors are facing the more sensitive underside of my wrist as some suggested I do. There were no wild movements - all exercise is done in a controlled environment and my hands/wrists were being very still holding the treadmill's safety bars and HRM sensors. Note that the Mio Alpha was compared to the Zephyr and Polar chest HRMs and they would always be within 2-3 bpm of each other. Consistently. The Mio is extremely reliable. I also tried swapping the two on another test so that Mio was closer to my hand and the Gear 2 was further from my hand. Both tests yielded the same gross inaccuracies.

The first image shows me driving to the gym (taken immediately after a quick walk to my car). Note I'm reading 72 bpm on my Mio Alpha which is consistent with my Polar and Zephyr chest strap HRM but we have a whopping 138 bpm on the Gear 2. Note that I am sitting in my car driving (slightly elevated at 72 bpm because I just briskly walked to my car) - not running at a relatively fast pace as a 138 bpm rate would suggest. Note the elapsed time as I started the exercise app (hiking) earlier in the day.

View attachment 114053

The second image shows me on a treadmill walking at a very fast pace on a 14% incline. The Mio has me at 121 while the Gear 2 thinks I'm just sitting around at 73 bpm! You can see the treadmill rubber band track below the watches. Note the elapsed time at 2:17:48.

View attachment 114055


Here on the third image I am running on the treadmill at a quick pace on a 14% incline (just stopped quickly to take the pic). You can see the perspiration forming on my arm. Note the elapsed time of 2:22:47. The Mio has me at a fair 139 bpm (the treadmill HRM showed me at 138 bpm; sorry tried to include in pic to throw it into the comparison but once I took my hands off the sensors it disappeared). The Gear 2? Yup, nailed it. WAAAAAY OFF at 84 bpm.

View attachment 114058

Do you see how grossly inaccurate this device is? I hope this shows some of you that the device is not just utterly useless - it's an insult to those that bother using this feature at all.

Finally, I wanted to add that the caloric expenditure calculation on the Gear 2 is also horribly inaccurate (actually more inaccurate than the HRM believe it or not) - this is completely exclusive of the broken HRM. Despite the huge discrepancies evident in my images above, the Gear 2 did report the data while I was on a stairmaster for about 30 minutes and it was within 25-30 bpm accuracy for most of the duration. Check out the last image where it shows my total caloric expenditure over the 50-minute period at the gym which included mostly medium to high energy output. What did I burn? 76 CALORIES!! I burn that much just walking around the mall for 30 minutes. The gym Stairmaster's computer depicted a caloric burn of 270 calories alone (I ascended 146 stories). The Gear 2 was monitoring my heart rate the ENTIRE time. So not only is the HRM useless, the algorithms used to extrapolate the HRM data is grossly inaccurate too. Everything about this device from a health-tracking perspective is a major failure.

Thank you very much for this honest review and all the obvious time and effort you put into it. Tired of the fan boys taking stabs at negative reviewers because they don't agree with it. Perhaps more people like you would bring better products to the end user. Instead, the fan boys allow Samsung to get away with this crap watch they produce.

This is the only post I see with real world examples with pics. I'm gonna have to believe your review over the others.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Phil Lewis1]

I would agree the HRM in the Gear 2 is far from accurate... I have a chest band HRM and checked its calibration against while walking the treadmill at my cardiologist last july. That was extremely accurate throughout the cardio stress test I did last summer from rest up to 155BPM. I compared my NEO to my chest band last night on the treadmill at the gym and it was way off even at rest. When resting I showed 55BPM on the NEO and 72 on the chest band. When walking on a 15% incline for 15 mins at 4.2 MPH the chest band had me at 119-132 BPM. The Neo HRM had me at 72 consistently. Clearly a good deal of work is still required on the HRM. I have no idea if its a hardware fix or correctable in software.

Phil

 

[ihbsbA]

Just used mine today alongside my Polar - it started out really bad, then after time, it got more accurate. I then swiveled the watch to the underside of my wrist and it maintained within 3 bpm for the remaining 20 minutes I used it....

 

[U4icLab]

In cycling mode, my HR was within +/- 5. It was my reported speed that was incredibly crappy. It reported me traveling 87 mph next to my 3 year old.... Come on firmware update! Others that have more experience with samsung products (I'm coming from Apple), do you think this will be resolved with software and how decent is samsung in pushing updates? Thanks!

Posted via Android Central App

 

[thegame161]

How do you know how accurate it is? Common sense?

 

[dorrien12]

There is a Gear Fit section you may get your questions answered if you post in that folder.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using AC Forums mobile app

 

[tcjohnsson]

How do you know how accurate it is? Common sense?

Read the unbiased reviews by athletes/fitness enthusiasts - ALL negative. Tons of blogs on the internet touting how inaccurate the heart rate monitor is. Try DCRainmaker's review of the the Gear Fit. Ouch.

 

[thegame161]

Read the unbiased reviews by athletes/fitness enthusiasts - ALL negative. Tons of blogs on the internet touting how inaccurate the heart rate monitor is. Try DCRainmaker's review of the the Gear Fit. Ouch.

I was under the impression it's where you have it on your wrist. And needing to keep still for it to be accurate

 

[jpriest007]

I was just at the doctors office. Their heart rate monitor gave the same reading as the watch. The nurses even ran the test again, which matched again. The watch must be behind the wrist bone to take the measurement and you must remain still. As for all of you that are having problems with the exercise reading. When you start your selected exercise you must remain still while the watch takes your initial heart rate you will then see a three second countdown. It will then say start walking or the exercise you selected. My friend had some of the same problems I've seen listed in this thread. He thought that you just pressed a button and immediately started whatever exercise you wanted. Which I think is the root cause to many of the problems listed in this thread. I hope I have not offended anyone as that was not the intention.

Posted from my Galaxy Note 2 via Android Central App

 

[1812dave]

I was under the impression it's where you have it on your wrist. And needing to keep still for it to be accurate

doesn't matter where u have it on your wrist; if you are active you can FORGET ABOUT ACCURACY--it's out the window like a canary let out of its cage. Mine is dead accurate when holding still--accurate as in perfect. Same with the wife's watch. crazy numbers when moving around; accurate when still. that's just the way it is with this technology at the moment.

 

[thegame161]

doesn't matter where u have it on your wrist; if you are active you can FORGET ABOUT ACCURACY--it's out the window like a canary let out of its cage. Mine is dead accurate when holding still--accurate as in perfect. Same with the wife's watch. crazy numbers when moving around; accurate when still. that's just the way it is with this technology at the moment.

Not just that but when we used the healthy kios at work you need to keep still at that too. I think that's normal