05-28-2017 09:10 - last edited on 09-09-2020 09:49 by MatthewFitbit
05-28-2017 09:10 - last edited on 09-09-2020 09:49 by MatthewFitbit
I doubt whether the HR monitor is original because it detects the heart rate even when I don't wear it. Also, the normal HR for a human is 72 and my tracker shows I am always 80 and above. Could someone explain this problem?
Answered! Go to the Best Answer.
02-19-2018 01:09
02-19-2018 01:09
In my experience, the accuracy of the Charge 2 HR data is pretty good when at rest (i.e., it matches what I get when I simultaneously take my pulse to within a couple of bpm). When moving about, and certainly when exercising, there can be some issues. I think that part of the problem is that what tracker is recording isn't necessarily what it shows on the readout at any given moment; sometimes, there seems to be a lag between when you know your heart rate is rising (e.g., walking up stairs) and when that gets reflected on the display. I notice this a lot in workouts; I'll go for a run, periodically checking my heart rate on the Charge 2, and never see a number above, say, 158, but when I look at the activity record, the maximum heart rate recorded is 163 or something. So the data are there, you just don't necessarily see them when you happen to look.
I've read a couple of reviews comparing the Fitbit HR tech to others, and if I recall correctly, the wrist-based monitors are generally a little less accurate than the chest straps (no surprise there), but that the Fitbit consistently did worse - up to 10 bpm too low during exercise. Now, a couple of caveats: first, this was a few years ago, and the tech may have improved; and second, they only tested a few units on a few people. I've been having terrible issues with my chest strap HR monitor for months now, so unfortunately I can't say more than that I suspect that the Fitbit does indeed register a little lower than your actual HR during exercise, but I'd be surprised if it were 10 bpm off.
Oh, and as to the numbers you quote - yeah, like the other respondent said, that 72 bpm number is the average, but for humans, the average is completely and totally useless! This is because heart rate varies based on age, sex, temperature, whether you're sick, etc. So, doctors and other professionals are less concerned about whether you're near the average, more about whether you fall within the range expected for healthy adults. I've seen different endpoints used, but usually the normal range is quoted as something like 65-90 bpm (I've seen as low as 60 and as high as 100). Keep in mind that's resting heart rate, and it refers to people who are at most moderately active; athletes can have much lower resting heart rates and still be considered normal (mine fluctuates from about 55-60, and a friend of mine is consistently around 48!).
05-28-2017 09:39
05-28-2017 09:39
Hi there! Regarding your first point, I will leave it to more knowledgeable people to answer. Re your second point, everybody is different - 72 is an average. Why don't you try to get your pulse using traditional methods and then compare it to Charge 2? Maybe after all your pulse IS over 80!
07-08-2017 11:53
07-08-2017 11:53
I found that the Charge 2 heart rate monitor is just too unreliable. It appears to be very accurate when you're at rest but all bets are off during any kind of physical activity. I noticed recently that when I take my dog for a leisure walk the Charge 2 had my heart rate sometimes at 145 or maybe higher. Clearly that's not correct. I recently purchased a Garmin Vivoactive HR because I wanted a device I could use with my newly purchased Wahoo Tickr X chest strap. This morning I put the Vivoactive HR on my left wrist and the Charge 2 on my right. Then I took my dog for a walk. The Charge 2 once again was erratic showing a high heart rate topping out at 145 while the Vivoactive HR was showing 84. I've tried resetting the Charge 2 but it makes no difference. I won't be using my Charge 2 when exercising. Instead I will use the highly accurate Wahoo Tickr X chest strap and my Garmin Vivoactive HR. The Wahoo Tickr X can be paired with my Vivoactive HR. I can turn off the built-in heart rate laser sensor in the Vivoactive HR and use the heart rate data sent from the Wahoo Tickr X.
02-18-2018 22:32
02-18-2018 22:32
So you dont support or like fitbit?? Is it a waste of money?
02-19-2018 01:09
02-19-2018 01:09
In my experience, the accuracy of the Charge 2 HR data is pretty good when at rest (i.e., it matches what I get when I simultaneously take my pulse to within a couple of bpm). When moving about, and certainly when exercising, there can be some issues. I think that part of the problem is that what tracker is recording isn't necessarily what it shows on the readout at any given moment; sometimes, there seems to be a lag between when you know your heart rate is rising (e.g., walking up stairs) and when that gets reflected on the display. I notice this a lot in workouts; I'll go for a run, periodically checking my heart rate on the Charge 2, and never see a number above, say, 158, but when I look at the activity record, the maximum heart rate recorded is 163 or something. So the data are there, you just don't necessarily see them when you happen to look.
I've read a couple of reviews comparing the Fitbit HR tech to others, and if I recall correctly, the wrist-based monitors are generally a little less accurate than the chest straps (no surprise there), but that the Fitbit consistently did worse - up to 10 bpm too low during exercise. Now, a couple of caveats: first, this was a few years ago, and the tech may have improved; and second, they only tested a few units on a few people. I've been having terrible issues with my chest strap HR monitor for months now, so unfortunately I can't say more than that I suspect that the Fitbit does indeed register a little lower than your actual HR during exercise, but I'd be surprised if it were 10 bpm off.
Oh, and as to the numbers you quote - yeah, like the other respondent said, that 72 bpm number is the average, but for humans, the average is completely and totally useless! This is because heart rate varies based on age, sex, temperature, whether you're sick, etc. So, doctors and other professionals are less concerned about whether you're near the average, more about whether you fall within the range expected for healthy adults. I've seen different endpoints used, but usually the normal range is quoted as something like 65-90 bpm (I've seen as low as 60 and as high as 100). Keep in mind that's resting heart rate, and it refers to people who are at most moderately active; athletes can have much lower resting heart rates and still be considered normal (mine fluctuates from about 55-60, and a friend of mine is consistently around 48!).
09-28-2018 23:51
09-28-2018 23:51
I would have to agree with you. I play squash at a relatively competitive level and for some reason my heart rate doesn't show higher than in a band of 116 to around 120 beats a minute when I know that the actual heart rate is closer to 150.
11-06-2019 14:22
11-06-2019 14:22
I've been noticing a problem with mine, too. My HR always, always, always goes down when I'm on the exercise bike. The bike sensors register it as going up, but the Fitbit never registers it. Not even, as one person suggested, later on at some other point. I've tried the suggestions (location on your wrist, how loose/snug it is, etc.) and nothing works. As others say, during regular activities, it seems to register it fine, but as soon as I get on that bike - huffing and puffing - it seems to think I'm taking a nap. 😞 BUT...I'm at least glad to see it's not just me. That, of course, means there's no fix for it, but at least I can stop TRYING to fix it. 🙂
11-06-2019 16:32
11-06-2019 16:32
I’ve had the same problems with Fitbit heart rate inaccuracy for 4 years while hiking & biking. Looking into an Oura ring. Really frustrating!