Inflated heart rate reading

[jtlapp]

PLEASE READ BEFORE RESPONDING. Don't just react to the photos. I wore the Charge 2 by itself and the Ionic by itself before doing this test. It was their crazy differences that inclined me to then put them on at the same time -- and the crazy difference remained. Further experiments revealed the true source of the problem, as I explain in my updates below.

I've been wearing my Ionic for a few days. The heart rates I see are not similar to those I saw on the Charge 2. I can be standing in place typing at the computer, look at my watch, and see a heart rate of 130.

I decided to put some juice in my Charge 2 and go for a walk with both. I took 14 photos of the watches over the course of a hilly mile. The heart rates were only once the same. They often differed by 10, with the Ionic higher. And sometimes the differences were crazy. (See images below.)

I tried making the Ionic extra snug half-way through the walk, but the readings remained crazy. For example, I could be at 100 on the Charge 2 and 120 on the Ionic upon cresting a hill, and then hit 90 on the Charge 2 and 150 on the Ionic upon subsequently reaching the bottom of the hill.

Is something broken, or am I doing something wrong?

UPDATE #1: After more testing with a second Ionic and the present Ionic worn higher on the wrist, I found that the Ionic and the Charge 2 more closely agree on the HR when the Ionic is worn at a distance from the wrist bone. Fitbit recommends that it be worn at least two fingers above this point. Because Fitbit also recommends that the Ionic be worn loosely, Fitbit's own recommendations imply that the device will not give a reliable HR while walking with the hands swinging down at the side. Even so, the Ionic usually reports higher numbers than the Charge 2 when worn higher on the wrist. Finally, at least one person is happy with their HR numbers when the Ionic is worn low on the wrist.

People have also replied to this thread with their own experiences getting unusually high HR readings on the Ionic. I don't mean to summarize their findings here.

UPDATE #2: Apparently it is known that the devices can interfere with each other when worn on the same wrist. Mind you, I wore one device and got crazy numbers and multiple devices and got reasonable numbers on all by the bottom watch. The purpose of the test was to find out if the watches were broken. What the test told me is that the watches were not broken, but are more accurate higher on the wrist. The test told me that despite any interference there might have been. (Besides, I'm unable to peform the test on both wrists, because one hand must hold the camera.)

Moderator edit: edited title for clarity

[jtlapp · Accepted solution]

I have an update. I took my hilly 1 mile walk with a Charge 2 and two Ionics. I placed yesterday's Ionic higher on the wrist.

I owe people an apology. I have been wearing the Ionic in the wrong location all this time. It must be high up on the wrist in order for it to get accurate readings. In order to comply with Fitbit's requiring to wear it loosely, this means that you have to walk with the hands held up, not swinging at the sides.

The following walk shows the result from letting the hands swing at the sides. The Charge 2 and yesterday's Ionic are higher up on the wrist and closer in HR. The new Ionic at the lower wrist kept loosing the HR and regaining it. However, I never saw crazy numbers like I did yesterday (150 after walking down a hill, increased from 140 before walking down -- both of which were wrong).

Even so, the Charge 2 and Ionic that were higher on the arm (and snug to remain there while walking), sometimes differed greatly (e.g. 82 on the Charge 2 vs 103 on the Ionic).

In conclusion, I'm doubtful that any of these devices gives us a reliable number, but the number is more reliable higher on the wrist. Apparently different watches (of the same model) vary in their reliability lower on the wrist.

[mlindgren]

I've experienced this spike at the beginning of some of my runs as well:

[ComitanDan]

You have to hold your arm up while doing anything for the Ionic to have a reasonable heart rate or it'll slide down too low on your wrist?  I've not found that to be true.  Even if it were doesn't everyone find that to be crazy?  I've a microsoft band and a whaoo tickr and both are considerably lower.  I can't get the Ionic to register under 74 even relaxed in bed.  I was in the hospital yesterday for an exam and the EKG registered 61 while I was sitting.

[jtlapp]

I have this problem with two different Ionics -- can't let it near my wrist. My Charge 2 does fine in the same location. Maybe I have two duds?

[shipo]

---

@ComitanDan wrote:

You have to hold your arm up while doing anything for the Ionic to have a reasonable heart rate or it'll slide down too low on your wrist?  I've not found that to be true.  Even if it were doesn't everyone find that to be crazy?  I've a microsoft band and a whaoo tickr and both are considerably lower.  I can't get the Ionic to register under 74 even relaxed in bed.  I was in the hospital yesterday for an exam and the EKG registered 61 while I was sitting.

---

If the Ionic moves around on your wrist it is at least two notches too loose.  Wearing it too loose will negatively effect the accuracy of the HRM.

[WavyDavey]

---

@jtlapp wrote:

I have an update. I took my hilly 1 mile walk with a Charge 2 and two Ionics. I placed yesterday's Ionic higher on the wrist.

I owe people an apology. I have been wearing the Ionic in the wrong location all this time. It must be high up on the wrist in order for it to get accurate readings. In order to comply with Fitbit's requiring to wear it loosely, this means that you have to walk with the hands held up, not swinging at the sides.

The following walk shows the result from letting the hands swing at the sides. The Charge 2 and yesterday's Ionic are higher up on the wrist and closer in HR. The new Ionic at the lower wrist kept loosing the HR and regaining it. However, I never saw crazy numbers like I did yesterday (150 after walking down a hill, increased from 140 before walking down -- both of which were wrong).

Even so, the Charge 2 and Ionic that were higher on the arm (and snug to remain there while walking), sometimes differed greatly (e.g. 82 on the Charge 2 vs 103 on the Ionic).

In conclusion, I'm doubtful that any of these devices gives us a reliable number, but the number is more reliable higher on the wrist. Apparently different watches (of the same model) vary in their reliability lower on the wrist.

---

I appreciate you taking the time to test this. I would question how valid a test it is.  I can't see where your wrist bone is in the photo, but it looks like at least two of the trackers aren't being worn to Fitbit's instructions, which I'd expect would make problems with the HR signal. This shows how difficult it is to test trackers simultaneously because the environment (how they're being worn) isn't the same.

[jtlapp]

As I said, I thought I was testing Ionic devices for proper function. It turns out that I was testing them for how well they functioned at various placements on the wrist.

The tests demonstrate (with photo proof) that the Ionic is unreliable anywhere near the wrist bone.

I didn't take photos of the Charge 2 in this location, but the Charge 2 does much better near the wrist bone. I was used to the Charge 2 numbers. Seeing greatly different numbers on the Ionic are the reason I did these tests.

To repeat, these photos prove that the Ionic reports meaningless HR numbers when the device is worn near the wrist bone.

[PaulIsh]

First week almost over of using Ionic, total Calories almost 4,000 less than average week of previously using Fitbit Surge. Is the Ionic more accurate? Was the Surge way out? Have checked profile settings and everything was transferred over when setting up Ionic and replacing Surge, so same details as before.

Anybody else experiencing this??

Heart rates pretty much same as the old Surge, just Calories differing substantially?

[WavyDavey]

---

@jtlapp wrote:

As I said, I thought I was testing Ionic devices for proper function. It turns out that I was testing them for how well they functioned at various placements on the wrist.

The tests demonstrate (with photo proof) that the Ionic is unreliable anywhere near the wrist bone.

I didn't take photos of the Charge 2 in this location, but the Charge 2 does much better near the wrist bone. I was used to the Charge 2 numbers. Seeing greatly different numbers on the Ionic are the reason I did these tests.

To repeat, these photos prove that the Ionic reports meaningless HR numbers when the device is worn near the wrist bone..

---

Thanks for the clarification.  It proves it for you, but is that the same for everyone?  I can wear the Ionic almost on the wrist bone and still get good HR. Does that mean it doesn't matter where it's worn? No, it just means my Ionic doesn't care as much about placement as yours apparently does. It's also closer to what my chest strap reports than my Charge 2 was.

We've seen test like these before, but usually it's comparing two trackers, which are worn on different arms at the same time.

[jtlapp]

I'm glad the Ionic is working out for you near the wrist.

As shown in the pictures, I tested with two different Ionics. The one higher on the wrist provided more accurate numbers, in agreement with the Charge 2, as shown. The same Ionic worn low on the wrist was crazy, while it became more reasonable when moved higher on the wrist.

So the craziness holds for at least two different Ionics on me when worn near the hand. Maybe a third Ionic would behave differently. Maybe they behave differently on other people.

I guess the most I can definitively say is that some Ionics on some people won't provide a useful HR when worn near the wrist.

In any case, other people on this thread have been confirming crazy HR numbers on the Ionic in various circumstances.

[bbarrera]

Before Ionic started shipping, Fitbit provided Ionics to the press for review. Fitbit was careful to instruct reviewers not to wear two trackers on the same wrist because it causes accuracy issues. DCRainmaker has been saying that for years. 

Don’t test two trackers on the same wrist. Any results are not valid. 

[jtlapp]

It depends on what you're testing. One Ionic by itself near the wrist provides absolutely wacko heart rates. Therefore any test that shows better numbers with the Ionic worn higher on the wrist accurately demonstrates that the Ionic is better worn higher on the wrist. This test does that.

It was not possible for me to simultaneously photograph both wrists for comparison purposes. This is what I had to do, and it gave me the information I needed.

[dgb2n]

I have experienced exactly the same pattern as others during running.  Big spike at the beginning for about a mile or even more an then it seems to settle out and track better.  Makes me wonder if it is similar to chest straps that don't get a good signal until you get some moisture from sweat.

But the previous graphs of a big spike and then settling are exactly what I'm experiencing.

Wouldn't be too upset if they could add the software to connect to an external bluetooth HR strap.

[MassiP]

That's why I rub some water on my wrist and than I put on my Ionic tight, before going to a run. I know it sounds strange for an optical reader, but with this method I usually get normal readings from the beginning of the workout.

[AmyTan]

I find the same! My ionic constantly reads my pulse as over 100 sometimes 120 when I’m at rest!! My heart rate is 70?

[shipo]

---

@AmyTan wrote:

I find the same! My ionic constantly reads my pulse as over 100 sometimes 120 when I’m at rest!! My heart rate is 70?

---

How snug do you wear your Ionic strap?

[AmyTan]

Hi! I have read the forums so have tried different approaches. I’ve worn it tight, loose, high on the arm and am still getting strange results. I’ve never been able to have an R.E.M. sleep pattern monitor either 😕

Amy Tanner

[shipo]

---

@AmyTan wrote:
Hi! I have read the forums so have tried different approaches. I’ve worn it tight, loose, high on the arm and am still getting strange results. I’ve never been able to have an R.E.M. sleep pattern monitor either 😕

Amy Tanner

---

Yeah, the whole Sleep Stages thing is pretty hit and miss; I posted a log yesterday where it worked 10 out of 31 days for me.

[AmyTan]

It’s pretty accurate with my time awake / asleep. Honestly I’m not the fittest person but I’m average. My results are being skewed by 9 hours of fat burn because it thinks my pulse is over 112 near on constantly. My pulse is normally 68-74 and my blood pressure is low 90/70 normally so I wonder if that’s it?

Amy Tanner

[ghostzr]

@shipo I though Elite runners can easily get really high cadence. https://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/the-great-cadence-debate

But anyways, I have the same problem with the heartr ate. Walking from my couch to pick up my clothes from dries can reach 85.