Ionic Heart Rate Accuracy

[Kat_W]

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

[mrsethtaylor]

Of interesting note, heart rate during cycling seems accurate, its only during running that its off to this extent. This is so even when wearing it tight so it can't bounce.

[Denodan]

Its well known that none of the optical hr sensing watches do any good, and inaccurate when you are pushing yourself.

Thats why woth garmin they allow chest straps as none of the optical watches do any good when your pushing yourself and only any good at light to moderate excises.

The optical sensors cannot keep up after a point. The tech is not there. And at just normal activity to light do a reasonable job, even moderate. Push them and the sensors on these watches fail and think you guys maybe asking to much from optical hr watches.

[Nettuno]

in fact, just buy professional optical watches compatible with the cardio belt.

the fitbit is just a nice toy for people like me I think is suitable for fitness ... as soon as I can find the unlucky, I sell it

[Denodan]

Fitbit have never been in the serious fitness market and inly basically for the low to no fitness levels. To mostly step tracking. Fitness second.

If you dont push the fitbit and only keep an eye  on steps and low level excise then it does what its intended. Push it and its no good.

If your a serious runner or fitness person then fitbit has should have never been your choice and if your seroius would have known fitbit does not cut it.

Get a garmin instead or should have if your into serious fitness.

[Kierownik]

---

@Denodanwrote:

Have you guys ever checked your hr by the accurate old fashion method of fingers on the pulse? And stop the guessing what your hr should be?

---

Absolutely, everytime when I suspect that my fitbit is taking a piss that's exactly how I check my HR and pretty much everytime fitbit is showing one massive bull**ahem**. I've been doing high intensity workouts for couple of years and I know when my heart rate is really high without checking it and then there's fitbit that shows my hr around 120bpm where in reality it is easily over 160. Appart from smart look it seems like Ionic sucks in every aspect, starting on horrible hr sensor, ending with useless gps. As a fitness device it seems like it's completely missing the point.

[Denodan]

Thats where you problem is, if doing high intense workouts thats where any optical watch is prwtty much useless  think you guys are expecting to much out of these optical hr watches and has been proven they fail with hi intense workouts.

[SunsetRunner]

@Kierownik it's exactly like that in my case. Always lot lower HR than expected. A couple of days ago I took this picture:

The heart rate from the gym machine ( elliptical ) wasn't registered even once:

We are talking about a quite intense exercise and yes, elliptical was way closer to the truth. Then weightlifting shows a pattern that I would rather expect during my elliptical exercise:

This way I can't rely on any data which is any function of HR, because simply it's not correct.

One thing is correct - HR monitor in wristwatches usually it's just a toy due to very simple technology and I don't think much of improvement can be done.

[Denodan]

You guys are just expecting to much from these optical hr monitoring and none of these watches can ever hope to keep up properly with intense workouts and were never made if intense stuff as the tech is just not good enough.

The only accurate way is by chest strap.

[Denodan]

Thats because cycling is often less intensive than running.  

[bbarrera]

---

@Denodanwrote:

Thats because cycling is often less intensive than running.  

---

You don’t ride with our club, because even recovery rides are likely to turn into “chase or be chased” 😀 

[imeson79]

---

@Denodanwrote:

You guys are just expecting to much from these optical hr monitoring and none of these watches can ever hope to keep up properly with intense workouts and were never made if intense stuff as the tech is just not good enough.

The only accurate way is by chest strap.

---

That is somewhat true, however the Rythm Scosche optical arm band is pretty **ahem** accurate for an optical heart rate sensor

http://www.scosche.com/rhythm-plus-heart-rate-monitor-armband

I know i've tested it against my Polar H10 and Suunto Chest straps and matches beat for beat

[Denodan]

Yes these bands,  give the accuracy that none of the optical watches can ever give. As you guys are expecting ionic and other optical hr watches to do something that they are not capabile to give. Intense stuff they all fail. Thanks for that band link.

[Jonxbii]

---

@Denodanwrote:

Thats where you problem is, if doing high intense workouts thats where any optical watch is prwtty much useless  think you guys are expecting to much out of these optical hr watches and has been proven they fail with hi intense workouts.

---

@Denodan I reported these heart rate issues while doing LOW intense workouts like light treadmill running. If we cannot trust the heart rate monitor works even then, should we even trust the whole device?

I can kinda understand that during high interval training the wrist heart rate monitor does not give correct values. I have seen this myself while training and can live with it. But these false readings while doing light treadmill or light running are inexcusable!

As a whole, I feel Ionic is a huge failure. Heart rate cannot be trusted, bugs everywhere, transferring music is very difficult, browsing through apps/watchfaces are difficult, the developer API is too limited, etc. And with the latest OS 2.0, they focused on changing the functionality of the buttons confusing and annoying people with this change nobody asked for? I will now wait for some good device vendor like Polar, Suunto or Garmin to develop nice device for me and buy that one. Fitbit is going to lose one customer soon because the whole device and infrastucture behind Ionic does not work!

[Denodan]

Think they have gone back to the drawing board and dumped the ionic fir the newer model without the gps. Call it their second atempt at a smart watch and nay have realised the ionic is to costly and a failure and cut back on like gps to drop the cost.

[Kierownik]

---

@Denodanwrote:

Yes these bands,  give the accuracy that none of the optical watches can ever give. As you guys are expecting ionic and other optical hr watches to do something that they are not capabile to give. Intense stuff they all fail. Thanks for that band link.

---

I disagree. Optical sensors can be accurate, not perfect, but accurate to acceptable degree.

Have a look at one of my previous posts where I attached screenshot from my interval training with Tom Tom Runner Cardio and Fitbit Ionic, wearing both at the same time for comparison.

The differences in HR readings are incredible. Where TT was pretty mych spot on for almost all of the time, Ionic failed pretty much all of the time.

So it's not the optical sensors as a whole, it's just fitbit's.

[Nightfallstill]

Agreed. The Garmin I purchased to replace the Ionic I sent back is within 2 beats of the strap every time. And that's accurate enough for a wrist based. My problem isn't that the HR isn't spot on. My problem is the blatant dishonesty in the 'compensation' in the app. If my tracker says 205 during a run, the data in the app should say 205 instead of 160. They are pulling numbers out of the air, I guess, in an attempt to cover for a huge flaw, and that was the last straw for me.

[Theresa1974]

I came here to look to see if anyone else was having the same issue as I am.  And I see I’m not the only one.  

Just sat down and it showed 112.  Noticed it because I had turned my wrist.  I wasn’t even doing anything but sitting on the couch!  Lol.  Checked my HR the “old fashioned way” and it was 72.   

This is a joke.  And, obviously, I was not “pushing it to the limit”.  This device sucks.  So sorry I bought this watch.  

[Twinz]

I updated to the new OS and I have had two runs in a row with believable HR tracking. -May have been coincidence, but two in a row is already a record for my device. 

I had a Charge and a Blaze both provide me with accurate-enough HR info so the optical method for reading HR is good-enough for me. I hope the last two runs with my Ionic were not just a fluke.

[BostonKYGirl]

@Twinz Please let us know if that stays steady. As of right now I am not going to buy my husband the Ionic due to the HR issues. 

[supersmart01234]

Fitbit says the trackers track better if it’s on the hand selected in settings.If both of them say left hand and non-dominant,Of course it’s going to be messed up.