Heart Rate & Zone Minutes

[CAR49ers]

Charge 6 is not even close to my heart rate and zone minutes compared to my Charge 5.  I wore both watches on the non-dominant wrist during a half-hour round of table tennis!  Charge 5 had 64 zone minutes for the period, Charge 6 had zero.  Heart rate max was 155 with Charge 5 and 98 with Charge 6.  So, is Charge 6 deficient, or was many months of Charge 5 data inaccurate?  These numbers are so far apart that there has to be a flaw somewhere, and it seems to be the Charge 6 data.  Please advise, since the next step is to request a new Charge 6 watch.

[JohnnyRow]

 Forget zone minutes - they are just a function of heart rate; go to the basic data.

Look at your heart rate chart for the whole half hour, not just the max which can be one quirky reading.  If they are grossly different, can you judge for yourself which you think matches your effort?

Wear them both on a walk when you can better judge your constant effort, and one on each wrist so they will not interfere with each other to get a truer comparison.

[CAR49ers]

To be honest, I am disappointed that the statistical calculations between the Charge 5 and 6 can be so dramatically different!  I understand that this stuff is supposed to be reasonable approximations regardless of the brand, but I would have thought that within a product any change would be negligible.  I have done multiple comparisons of Steps, Heart Rate, Zone Minutes, etc. with dramatically different results!  So, the question remains; was the Charge 5 date correct and Charge 6 needs an upgrade, or was the Charge 5 date off and the Charge 6 (new and improved) now recording more accurate data?

We may never know!

[KMSG]

I just got a new Charge 6 because my Charge 5 broke. I have noticed that the heart rate and zone minutes during exercise are much less on the Charge 6. Like you, I’m wondering which is more accurate. 

[Aingano]

100% me too!  I'm contemplating returning it next week, am pretty well disgusted with the "upgrade" haha