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

[bbarrera]

@LeBrok why did HR drop from 130-140s to almost 100 before the sprint? If you were really steadily spinning at 70rpm up until the sprint, then HR wouldn't drop like that.

I cycle a lot, around 5 days a week for 6-12 hours. Surprised that changing your body position results in 10bpm difference in HR (140 w/o resting arms, 130 resting arms). I'd be interested to see what a chest strap tells you about HR after you are well into a 60 minute routine and then compare different positions. I see maybe a couple bpm between riding in the drops vs riding on handlebars in aero position vs riding while sitting up.

Step count is one of the worst ways to compare activities like walking and cycling. I can walk 4+ miles in an hour, HR average of 120bpm, and get 8000+ steps. I can't get my HR above 130 when walking around here (flat, no hills). Last night I did an hour on stationary bike, HR average of 144bpm, and achieving that HR would take running which result in more than 8000 steps.

Your 3900 steps aren't close to "actual" (whatever that means to you). Think about it, when you walk lets say you start with left leg in front. It takes two steps for left leg to be back in front. Now think about 1 rpm on bike, if you start with left leg in front it takes 1 revolution for left leg to be back in front. So a really simple conversion ratio is 2 steps per rpm.

Lets take your 65 minute ride, multiply by 70 rpm and multiply by 2 steps/rpm. Do the math 65 * 70 * 2 and that results in 9100 "steps" and so 3900 is less than half "actual" and thats not considering your HR while spinning is likely higher than walking (my example above) and therefore highly likely if you had same HR (running) your step count would be more than 10,000.

Step counting is the wrong way to compare impact of walking, running, cycling, and swimming on training and improving your fitness level for aerobic endurance activities.

Hope that helps.

[LeBrok]

@bbarrera

The dip was due for me taking 2-3 minutes off to make notes, meaning a little rest.  It was my periodic fitness check run, so I made notes.

When I rest my arms and elbows on a handlebar my torso rests too, so the body core muscles work less, and it causes 10 bpm drop in my HR. Conversely, 10 bpm higher when I'm sitting without touching the handlebar and have to balance my upper body.  It makes sense.

I don't have a chest strap.  Ionic reading is extremely close to HR monitor built in my bike.  So most likely they both point to the right HR.

I'm not too concerned with step/cycle count.  At least Ionic acknowledges leg movement even being on my wrist.  In the future the company might base bike cycle counter on this.  Having HR and leg movement the algorithm could calculate the distance we supposedly rode on a spin bike.

Cheers

[bbarrera]

---

@LeBrok wrote:

@bbarrera

The dip was due for me taking 2-3 minutes off to make notes, meaning a little rest.

---

Thanks, thats what I figured but have seen some strange HR readings from time-to-time while spinning with Surge, Blaze, and Apple Watch. In general the Blaze and AW do a good job estimating HR while spinning, but every once in awhile they lose the beat for a minute or two. Haven't tried the Ionic yet, too many missing features still so I'm still waiting. From everything I've seen, with an exception for spiking early during runs, Ionic HRM looks to be an improvement over Blaze.

My road bike is on a smart trainer, and during "on" intervals I switch between 3 positions (drops, hoods, handlebars) roughly every minute or two. In the "off" intervals I typically sit up and drink water. Yesterday I did a 60 minute workout consisting of a warm up, followed by 7 intervals of 6 minutes "on" / 1 minute "off." Took about 20 minutes to completely warm up and have my HR reach steady state during the 2nd "on" interval. Around the 29 and 35 minute marks you can see larger drops closer to 6-8bpm, otherwise its usually 2-3bpm:

(the chart above uses Zwift estimated speed, and by comparing power-vs-speed on rides outside and inside I've found Zwift has a good physics engine with fairly accurate speed estimates. Zwift uses your weight, power output to pedals, and changes in virtual elevation. So going up a 6% grade at 220 watts I see basically the same speed outside as in Zwift, and same for flat sections of road)

But HR response varies by individual, and your position changes may be quite different from mine. So while 10bpm is a bit high for me, its how your body works on your spin bike.

While you might not be concerned with step/cycle count, I wouldn't call your Fitbit step count accurate and I certainly wouldn't call it amazing. Step count is a really bad way to measure the fitness benefits of cycling, swimming, rowing, and other non-step based endurance activities. Fitbit is all about steps, and some people get discounts based on steps, but that doesn't make 'equivalent steps' right for non-step endurance activities.

Thanks for sharing details.

[LongRunNick]

Sent from my iPad

[LeBrok]

@bbarrera

I see you are very experienced guy and willing to share.Thanks.

I had my Ionic a bit loose yesterday, and it was going crazy even when I was walking.  This never happened with Charge 2.

[bbarrera]

@LeBrok do you ever ride outside? I'm interested in hearing about HR accuracy in the more challenging outside riding scenario.

[MattFitbit]

Hi everyone! 

Just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you all for providing such detailed reports with your Ionic heart rate experiences. 

I have forwarded your feedback to our partner team as they are currently looking into similar reports. 

For those who may be experiencing an inflated heart rate with Ionic, I would recommend taking a look at this article for some best practices on how to improve heart rate accuracy. 

Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions. 

[LeBrok]

@MattFitbit

Thank you for communicating that Fitbit is listening to our problem.

I'll be glad to allow technical crew to look into my account and all data, if they need such permission. 😉

[LeBrok]

" do you ever ride outside? I'm interested in hearing about HR accuracy in the more challenging outside riding scenario."

@bbarrera 

I didn't ride with Ionic yet.  Quite a winter here in Calgary, Canada at the moment. 😉

I had few ventures with Charge 2 through last summer.  Small old mountain bike though.

[LeBrok]

" do you ever ride outside? I'm interested in hearing about HR accuracy in the more challenging outside riding scenario."

@bbarrera 

I didn't ride with Ionic yet.  Quite a winter here in Calgary, Canada at the moment. 😉

I had few ventures with Charge 2 through last summer.  Small old mountain bike though.

[OldGramRunning]

Been using ionic daily since 12-25-17 and on every run, I've seen the ionic heart rate spike up as high as 198 (from a rate of 110)  particularly at the start of the exercise and sometimes stays inflated for 10 minutes or so before it drops back down.  This is during a normal run (not sprints or anything like that).  Previously had a charge 2 and didn't experience anything that extreme.  Hope Fitbit is working to correct this issue as I see others have had the same problem.  Can't imagine my heart ever beats that fast!

[Rrovar]

Tell me about it mine at one point spiked at 210 I even went to get checked out lol

Sent from my iPhone

[DrWho]

Ionic is a piece of junk for intense exercise. I get HR of 180 for moderate runs. Wearing it loose or tight doesn't make any difference. I have reset it and still no difference. I have owned multiple Polar and fitbits over several years.  I know my HR for most runs. Ionic fails measurably on all runs. If they don't fix it in next two weeks I am returning this useless device.

[Rrovar]

They are rubbish pal iv tried 2 now and both the same I got worried when one session showed peak bpm 210 they say it's a software issue! Going to get a garmin

Sent from my iPhone

[SunsetRunner]

I checked my iconic today with my Samsung Health and ionic was 20 beats higher while exercising that's a big difference.

[BenThere]

Noob here, just got my Ionic a couple weeks ago.  Started noticing the inaccurately high HR readings when doing vigorous exercise right away.  Example: spent time today on an elliptical machine and is showed crazy high rates to start of >170 which is impossible or I wouldn't be here to type this.  The machine was reading 135 max through the entire time, and ~120 when the Fitbit read 170.  I tightened, loosened, repositioned, dried...… did everything I could to improve the readings to no avail.  Even after I quit working on the elliptical machine and went to do some flies on a Hammer machine, it was reading 160 - 210.  

Not too happy with the device right now.....  Not at all.  

[Jamesey]

I just picked up my ionic yesterday from Bestbuy. Same issue. My heartbeats was over 200. I tried everyone’s recommendations from this thread and others. Totally erratic compared to charge 2, flex 2, and Apple Watch. Faulty senor or software issue? 

[thunderwagn]

Faulty device software is my guess. Just like all other Ionics. Probably released to soon without ironing out all the bugs and actually delivering a reliable product. Charge 2 is leaps and bounds a better fitness tracker compared to the Ionic. 

[BenThere]

Pretty disappointing, right?  Spend that kind of money to monitor your health, especially when exercising, and it won't do it accurately.  And it seems like Fitbit has us all on ignore.  

I have no idea what the problem is, and from reading this thread it doesn't appear that Fitbit does either, or if they do, they have no intention to make it right.  

Fooled around with it this weekend at the gym with a couple elliptical machines, and got consistent heartrates from the sensors on the machines, but the Fitbit was reading way high.  It also told me my heartrate was over 140 just pushing weights on the Hammer Strength bench press machine!  Sitting on the machine, I could monitor my pulse myself at ~90.  The Fitbit becomes a useless tool with that kind of inaccuracy.  

Too bad, I like the darn thing otherwise...…..but it's just not doing what it's sold to do.  

[Jamesey]

My worry is they sourced a poorly designed HRM sensor and it will never be fixed. These issues still exist from last year. Shouldn’t take 6+ months to fix a software issue unless there is a problem with the hardware.

Sent from my iPhone

[Jamesey]

Agree 100%. I can finally see my numbers outside during daylight, but now they are wrong.

Sent from my iPhone