10-07-2017
16:49
- last edited on
02-20-2018
16:20
by
MattFitbit
10-07-2017
16:49
- last edited on
02-20-2018
16:20
by
MattFitbit
Has anyone else noticed that the Heart Rate sensor is very inaccurate? Currently my Ionic is showing that my heart rate is in excess of 120, while at the same time my pulse ox machine (a medical device) is saying it's 82. The Samsung health app is inline with what the pulse ox is saying. I'm not sure if I have a defective Ionic or if others are having the same issue. ( Note: Sorry if there are any spelling errors, I am tryping around my cat, who has decided to sit directly in front of the screen)
Moderator edit: edited title for clarity
12-05-2017 04:07
12-05-2017 04:07
@Tim31415, I seriously doubt it the Ionic is picking up on cadence. Why? Two reasons:
In spite of the above two points nine times out of ten, my initial heart rate when I run spikes upwards of 210 beats per minute before it settles down into a more reasonable range (typically 120 to 160 depending upon how fast I'm pushing my pace).
12-05-2017 06:00
12-05-2017 06:00
@shipo, ok the numbers you mention suggest it is not the cadence it is picking up.
I'll suggest another theory then: when I had an Alta HR I noticed that when I put on the Alta HR it sometimes reported twice my heart rate (i.e. 90 instead of 45), which typically settled to the correct value within a few minutes at most (typically less). I can understand such behaviour, since it is difficult to distinguish between the harmonic of a signal and the signal itself (without getting into technical details).
Perhaps something similar might be happening in your case, i.e. starting with a HR of 105 (which is misreported as 210). Then your HR increases to a level where double the value would become unlikely (for any age!), and it is reported as the correct HR.
Just a theory though. And if it is true I do not see a solution...
12-05-2017 09:33
12-05-2017 09:33
After having initial issues with what I thought was just a loose band I still get inaccurate readings particularly when I am exerting myself at near my max. Otherwise it seems to be pretty good.
I do not know how to explain this but after a couple months now this has been a consistent finding. My normal runs are what I expect as far as HR. My up tempo runs cause it to become unreliable.
I am 60, my max HR should be in the 160 range. On an up tempo run yesterday I get the result below.
Band was tight under my sleeve. Something is wrong with this for certain. I am patiently waiting for a firmware update to hopefully fix this issue. Looks surprisingly close to my cadence though...
12-05-2017 09:43
12-05-2017 09:43
I didn't even have mine on for 4 hours yesterday and my heart rate was going above 200!
12-05-2017 09:44
12-05-2017 09:44
@MonteC, keep in mind there are no "should bes" when it comes to heart rate; the 220-Age formula is based upon universal averages an should in no way be applied to any given individual.
12-05-2017 22:24 - edited 12-05-2017 22:25
12-05-2017 22:24 - edited 12-05-2017 22:25
Interesting thread . . . I'm trying the Ionic, Samsung Galaxy sport, and the Garmin vivoactive 3. I have to say I'm about to give up on the Ionic. What's strange though is it constantly shows my heart rate way LOWER than it actually is. On a 20 min run it is constantly 20-30 BPM low and often loses The heart rate altogether. The other 2 devices nail my heart rate the entire time, always within 5 BPM of my chest strap. After today's firmware update, I was starting to warm up to the Ionic but there is no way I can live with it being that inaccurate.
I've tried everything. Tighter band, looser band, different places on the wrist. The results for hr are always way low.
12-06-2017 02:53
12-06-2017 02:53
I understand. Those of us who are saying fitbit has an issue with the HR function of the Ionic have tried everything suggested and to no avail. Having 2 prior Fitbits with no issues this is disappointing. I may be sending mine back and moving away from being a loyal fitbit customer. What they should concentrate on is he known issues and NOT worry about adding new things until they get the old issues fixed- but they did a new upgrade only to add more features like clock faces etc. spend that time fixing known issues- unless they don’t know how.
12-07-2017 02:14
12-07-2017 02:14
FitBit need to fix it... looks like they are not there... no official reply from FitBit of this problem that I know of.. realy big disappoinment...
👎
12-09-2017 19:32 - edited 12-09-2017 19:33
12-09-2017 19:32 - edited 12-09-2017 19:33
Same problem here. My Ionic shows HR 20 beats higher than my Charge 2. During today's run had my average rate at 170 and max at 205, and I'm 52! Should have been 150 and 170 respectively. At rest it shows 80 instead of 60.
Reading of my run was way choppier than with Charge2, on a very easy and steady run.
12-13-2017 10:10
12-13-2017 10:10
Its wildly inaccurate. On my Turbo tonight my hr level went up to 140bpm. The charge 2 showed 110 bpm and only after about 10 mins of showing 85 bpm. Very dangerous to rely on such discrepancies.
12-13-2017 11:27
12-13-2017 11:27
Makes me chuckle, my ten minute mile the other night (I usually run around 8.5 pace) - I was at 208 for over half an hour (and I'm not dead....lol lol)
12-13-2017 11:44
12-13-2017 11:44
12-14-2017 00:44
12-14-2017 00:44
12-22-2017 16:43
12-22-2017 16:43
My Ionic has the same problem. I used a Charge HR for a year, then moved up to a Blaze for a while. No HR problems with the the Charge HR or the Blaze. My new Ionic is WAY off.
I am 45 and it said I hit 194 on my last run. I was cruising at a pace that the Blaze and Charge HR would report in the high 150's to low 160's.
This needs to be fixed.
12-25-2017 05:45
12-25-2017 05:45
Agree as well,
After spending $300 on the ionic, i was not expecting heart rate accuracy far worst than than my charge HR2. Tried with band tight, loose, wet, did the plug in and sit for 13 seconds to calibrate sensors, nothing seemed to help.
Sitting still, with the ionic on the left hand, and Charge HR on the right hand, the Ionic reads 80bpm, whiles the charge HR reads 63bpm.
Seriously FitBit?
12-25-2017 06:14
12-25-2017 06:14
Just put my Blaze on my other wrist as I sit on the couch.
Ionic is reading 82, Blaze is reading 65.
How did they not catch (and fix) this BEFORE they put the Ionic on the market?
12-25-2017 06:41
12-25-2017 06:41
Did the same thing! Blaze at least 10 BPM lower and it is supposedly the same software for tracking heart rate. Obviously someone missed the boat on this one!
12-25-2017 06:41 - edited 12-25-2017 06:42
12-25-2017 06:41 - edited 12-25-2017 06:42
I think you guys should start a support session.
I just tried my Ionic on the left wrist and the Blaze of my wife on the right wrist.
Blaze was only 1 BPM slower then the Ionic.
Then changed the arms for the watches and the same result (Blaze 1 less per minute).
All sitting on the couch by the way.
So either the Ionic of you guys is not good (i suppose the placement on the wrist was ok and not to loose), or the Blaze has always been slow.
I also checked the blaze (a few weeks back) with an official heart meter, and the Blaze was spot on, so also my Ionic is ok.
Never saw excessive high values on Ionic, by the way.
Sounds like a support problem to me........
12-25-2017 07:09
12-25-2017 07:09
Well for your information I did call support and they acknowledge there is a known issue with the heart rate tracking and they are working to fix it! So if the powers that be KNOW there is an issue- quick dismissing everyone else.
12-25-2017 07:12
12-25-2017 07:12