Heart rate monitor accuracy when walking/standing

[joesaa]

I've had my Urbane 2nd for a couple of weeks and really like it, however I've noticed one issue regarding the heart rate monitoring that makes me wonder if there's something wrong with my watch.

I've gone running a few times with the urbane and both a chest strap and MIO Link HR wrist monitor. Turns out the urbane is quite close in readings to the other devices when I'm running, but when I slow to a walk or stand for a while, the urbane's readings fall way down to at least 65 BPM less than the others.

Has anyone else noticed this?

It almost seems the urbane's HR is being linked to movement, wherein readings are not processed if movement is less than a threshold.

Really disappointing if this is the case since I want accurate readings through the entire workout including resting intervals.

I haven't found any info on the Internet or settings that might relate to this issue.

Any insights would be much appreciated.

-Joe

 

[StimulatorCam]

Which app are you using?

 

[N4Newbie]

The wrist is the absolute worst place to try to obtain reliable heart rate data, even more so if relying on "optical" sensors. In the situation you describe, it is quite possible that blood flow in the wrist drops dramatically during your post-workout cool-down. Even so, I think a 65 bpm discrepancy is really odd.

A good chest strap with electrolyte gel applied to the pads is, and probably always will be, the Gold standard in heart rate measuring.

​Optical HR accuracy: The experts speak

 

[scaots]

If I stay still it seems close enough for me. Any movement seems to affect it.

 

[joesaa]

Which app are you using?

I've used the LG Health App, Cardiograph app, and the Sport Gear Tracker App. All seem to give the same result, so it seems to be an OS level issue.

 

[joesaa]

The wrist is the absolute worst place to try to obtain reliable heart rate data, even more so if relying on "optical" sensors. In the situation you describe, it is quite possible that blood flow in the wrist drops dramatically during your post-workout cool-down. Even so, I think a 65 bpm discrepancy is really odd.

A good chest strap with electrolyte gel applied to the pads is, and probably always will be, the Gold standard in heart rate measuring.

​Optical HR accuracy: The experts speak

Yes, I'm aware chest straps have been considered the most reliable choice. However, wrist based HR monitors have come a long way, and they are quite accurate and reliable. As I mentioned in my OP, I have a chest strap and a MIO wrist HR paired with a Garmin Vivoactive that I have simultaneously used to compare to the LG. The MIO and Chest strap are virtually identical in readings at all times, except for a slight time delay discrepancy which is to be expected since it takes more time for blood to flow to the wrist with each heartbeat.

Having clarified that, I can say that the LG gives good readings when running at a steady pace compared to the Chest Strap and MIO. It's only during moments of walking and standing that the LG severely deviates from the MIO and chest strap. I don't know if it's the change in movement, the position of the arm, or some power saving feature that kicks in (although the light keeps pulsating on the LG).

The wierd thing is that as scaots has noted, any one time reading I take while I'm sitting/standing still will be accurate. In other words, when not excercising and if I'm still and start up the fit app to take a one reading, then it will be a good reading. Perhaps the LG has difficulty in adjusting for dramatic changes in movement when the HR is continuously monitoring?

 

[joesaa]

The wrist is the absolute worst place to try to obtain reliable heart rate data, even more so if relying on "optical" sensors. In the situation you describe, it is quite possible that blood flow in the wrist drops dramatically during your post-workout cool-down. Even so, I think a 65 bpm discrepancy is really odd.

A good chest strap with electrolyte gel applied to the pads is, and probably always will be, the Gold standard in heart rate measuring.

​Optical HR accuracy: The experts speak

Thanks for the reply.
I'm well aware that a chest strap is considered the optimal choice. However, wrist based HR monitors have come a long way, and are quite accurate.

As I mentioned in my OP, I have a chest strap and a MIO wrist HR paired with a Garmin Vivoactive that I have simultaneously used to compare to the LG. The MIO and Chest strap are virtually identical in readings at all times, except for a slight time delay discrepancy which is to be expected since it takes more time for blood to flow to the wrist with each heartbeat.

Having clarified that, I can say that the LG gives good continuous readings when running at a steady pace compared to the Chest Strap and MIO Link. It's only during moments of walking and standing that the LG severely deviates from the MIO and chest strap. I don't know if it's the change in movement, the position of the arm, or some power saving feature that kicks in which cause the LG to give off readings (although the HR lights keep pulsating).

The wierd thing is that as scaots has noted, any one time reading I take while I'm sitting/standing still will give a good reading. In other words, when I'm not excercising and if I'm still and start up the fit app to take one reading, then it will be a good reading.
Perhaps the LG has difficulty in adjusting for dramatic changes in movement when the HR is continuously monitoring?

However, this should not in itself be a wrist vs chest strap issue, given that the MIO has no problems giving accurate continuous readings with changes in pace/movement.