Resting Heart Rate inconsistent between Fitbit and Google Fit

[Mcav75]

Using Health connect, it is highly apparent that the way that Fitbit calculates Resting Heart Rate is out of step with most other systems that are in the main, similar to each other.

For example, on Google Fit, my Resting Heart Rate is always lower than on Fitbit, despite using exactly the same data. The difference isn't always consistent either. For example, here are my RHR for the last week on each platform:

Google Fit: 47, 48, 47, 50, 46, 49, 48

Fitbit: 52, 52, 53, 52, 53, 52, 53

It would be nice if Fitbit were to outline the l why their calculation is such an outlier.

[LZeeW]

@Mcav75   Both Fitbit and Google Fit use proprietary algorithms to calculate resting heart rate.  24/7 heart rate monitoring with an optical heart rate monitor is relatively new.  There is no clinical standard for calculating resting heart from an 24 hour measurement.  You can't say which is right or which is wrong.  The only thing you can say is that they are different.

[Mcav75]

Yet, Fitbit is the outlier still.

You may wish to note that, at no point did I say that either is right or wrong. I also didn't suggest that there is any form of clinical standard for calculating RHR from a 24 hour measurement. 

What I did say was that most other platforms are consistent in their reporting, providing comparable results using the same data. Fitbit, however,  is the outlier, compared to the other platforms. I enquired as to why there's such a consistent difference, when other platforms are providing similar results with the same data.

I find it rather strange that you'd put words into my mouth when they are literally there to read over and again. 

[JohnnyRow]

@Mcav75 I don't think it is fair to accuse @LZeeW of putting words into your mouth either, if you examine carefully what she said, only that you can't say which is right or wrong; only different.

I would perhaps attribute the difference to Fitbit's having access to 24 hour heart rate data unlike most other sources, some of which just say to take your pulse first thing in the morning upon waking, even neglecting the fact that you might have just been startled by an alarm clock.

[Mcav75]

"...despite using exactly the same data."

Exactly. The same. Data.

Yet you suggest I read more closely. I suggest you take that advice yourself.

[Alvc22]

The discrepancy bothers me as well since the difference in my case is larger.  

Fitbit: 71, 71, 71, 71

GFit: 62, 63, 62, 62

Almost 10 points. 

[Mcav75]

It's now rather easy to compare various platforms by using Health Connect and Fitbit is constantly the outlier across multiple fitness platforms. Google fit and Garmin for example are pretty much the same. It's only Fitbit that records a higher RHR. 

At least it's a reliable reading and you can broadly calibrate for it. 

That or just take Google Fit as the more reasonable reading.

[Tytusmk]

Ironically, I stumbled on this post because I think that Google fit tracks way to low rhr. According to google for I should probably be dead (rhr in the high 30s) whereas Fitbit, which I have been using for years, tracks me consistently around 50.