[Q] Real time Heart Rate tracking problem ?

[qdh1502]

Hi, I have a problem with the heart rate sensor. It don't work correctly and show a random number (60, 56, 110, 60, 60, many result with 60 ...). I did 2 tests many times : on my hand and without my hand => random result.
I decided to test it with a belt heart rate ANT+ (very good, accurate product) and have a real different. The G watch R heart rate in realtime capture have a big problem. The value change from 110 to 70 in five seconds ... And it's not possible to use it when running. Sometime (1 time per 5 ?) it show the good value ...
Another big problem is that isnot possible to show more than 140 heartrates when running ... is it the contact problem ???
I think this is a problem general with the sensor of this watch.
Do you have notice that ?
Note that I tested with application : Sport Gear Tracker, Endomondo, Cardiograph, SensorBox for Wear

 

[dersie]

No problem for me, works almost same measure in same condition, between 70 and 79 every time in normal way.

You do not move and stay immovable during the measure.

 

[Darnell_Chat_TN]

First I'll say, I've never had issues getting readings above 140 when expected.

The watch heart rate monitor works best when you're not moving and it's never going to be as accurate as a chest belt monitor. The watch monitor offers convenience and a general ballpark reading for your workout. Try it for an entire workout. The values will fluctuate, but the overall average may be somewhere in the ballpark of what you might expect. It really all depends how you're holding your arm and the motions you're doing. I've found mine works best for walking actives, but not as well when I'm weight training.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

 

[qdh1502]

No problem for me, works almost same measure in same condition, between 70 and 79 every time in normal way.
You do not move and stay immovable during the measure.

OK, when I don't move, it's okay for cheking heart rate. Sometime it show 60, I think this is a default value when the sensor don't capture well.
But my need is the "real time" heart rate tracking for running. And it's not working well.

 

[qdh1502]

I found this and I understood why it cannot show more than 140bpm during "real time tracking"
http://www.cnet.com/news/how-accurate-are-wristband-heart-rate-monitors

 

[TheKaser]

Well, it's not very accurate for me either

 

[Darnell_Chat_TN]

I found this and I understood why it cannot show more than 140bpm during "real time tracking"
http://www.cnet.com/news/how-accurate-are-wristband-heart-rate-monitors

That explains it best. Like I was saying, the watch is not going to beat chest monitors and will only give you a ballpark average at best. The watch monitors were not "made" for monitoring during activity.

A good way to cross check heart rate is to use Runtastic's Heart Rate Monitor app. I've found it does a very good job, but it is only snapshot. But a chest monitor is always best.

I've found the watch gives me a sufficient enough overall picture. Although I've found that the "R" gives me lower readings during activity than the Samsung Gear Live does. The Gear Live was giving me values that were too high during activity and the "R" gives me values that are too low during activity. But the ballpark changes give a well enough picture. I can see 55 minutes on the treadmill is working my heart more than 30 minutes of weight training.

I would have thought that watches would have the heart rate sensor on the bottom part of the strap. So they could read pulse from the bottom of your wrist. But I guess that would cost more .

I'm Denzel Washington brown and it works well enough for me.

 

[dersie]

OK, when I don't move, it's okay for cheking heart rate. Sometime it show 60, I think this is a default value when the sensor don't capture well.
But my need is the "real time" heart rate tracking for running. And it's not working well.

60 is normal value if you are relax. 70 is common value.

 

[Darnell_Chat_TN]

60 is normal value if you are relax. 70 is common value.

With the "R", the value never goes below 60 and some people do have pulse below 60.

 

[dersie]

With the "R", the value never goes below 60 and some people do have pulse below 60.

I will test with later, when I take my beta Blocker my Heart Rate is about 48 pulse

 

[qdh1502]

60 is normal value if you are relax. 70 is common value.

I don' agree with you. Human heart rate is between 60 and 80 at relax (for a professional sportif => less than 60). I have normally 68 when relaxing (test with a real professional machin).
With my GTW, it show many time 60 ... and why not 59 or 61 ???

 

[Darnell_Chat_TN]

I will test with later, when I take my beta Blocker my Heart Rate is about 48 pulse

Or just try it with the watch not on your wrist. Even with no pulse to read at all, it will show a value. I just got the Android 5+ updates. And just tried. It showed a pulse of "52". So maybe that's the new minimum. And that was testing while holding the watch in the air. I tried it with the watch laying flat on a table and it read "70" [emoji15] .

This is certainly not a tool to use when checking for signs of life [emoji1] .

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

 

[dersie]

I don' agree with you. Human heart rate is between 60 and 80 at relax (for a professional sportif => less than 60). I have normally 68 when relaxing (test with a real professional machin).
With my GTW, it show many time 60 ... and why not 59 or 61 ???

So 60 is in the 60-70 interval no ?

 

[Darnell_Chat_TN]

Just an FYI. I got a new watch band for my "R" and it holds the watch to my wrist a bit more snug than the stock band. Now, my heart rate readings during workouts are better than with the old stock band. So, this may be something some of you may want to try, in order to improve readings.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

 

[ei05035]

The Sensor

I've actually been developing for the LG Watch R using its sensors (about 14 sensors or so are reported by the API). One problem is that accessing the heart rate sensor can't be done correctly as the Google API documentation suggests it should (ditto for the Step Detector sensor). Furthermore, the sensor events for the HR sensor will return not one float (as in, readings in bpm as expected) but a list of sixteen numbers!! (your guess here is as good as mine). I'd expect this from a shoddy brand, but LG? Come on!

However, what was most astonishing, is that the sensor is reported by the API as a "PIXART_PPG" . A PPG ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoplethysmogram ) is actually a very accurate sensor by definition, way better than the usual LED + Camera combo. Still, most of the events fired by the sensor return 0.0 (actually, a list of 16 zeroes. Sometimes the third number is set to something believable).

I'm actually pondering about contacting LG and asking them about a couple of things : a) Why didn't they update the way you access their sensors when the lollipop update was released and b) Why is their PPG so unreliable?!

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[frozenokie]

Response from LG?

Did you every get a response from LG?
Optical wrist sensors aren't inherently unreliable if it's a good sensor and the design seals out external light. Mio makes reliable wrist strap sensors, off the actual physical sensor in the g watch r is good, it should work better than it does.

ei05035 - I know this is an old thread, but did you contact LG? Did you get a response?