HRV

[Tieutieu]

@cjanevate ok understood !

[mr.quality]

@cjanevate said in HRV:

@szaboat74 Overnight HRV measurements for me are not optimal for many reasons, so I don’t trust these values at all (whatever the brand, of course).

A parallel comparison with Garmin and Polar shows that the measurement of Suunto is wrong. The sensors of Suunto seems to be outdated.

[mr.quality]

@szaboat74 the measurements of Suunto are wrong. I checked in parallel the measurements via Garmin and Polar. The results are round about 10 ms higher as Suunto is showing. It seems to be that they in general have a issue with there sensors. HR at the wrist is also faulty especially during exercises. It is very sobering in itself when this is the case with a current model like the Race.

[halajos]

@mr-quality wrist HR measurement accuracy depends a lot on how you wear the watch, and there may be individual factors as well, like dark skin or lot of hair. For me, when using a 3rd party velcro watch strap, tightened enough, wrist HR is pretty accurate on both the Race and S9B.

[Josaiplu]

I have the same, used a garmin and a coros with a baseline of 35-45 ms accros both brands, with suunto I m in the 25-35 ms range, not a big deal I think as hrv is something you should consider compared to a baseline values and see its evolution to reflect you day recovery

[raceaddict]

@mr-quality it seems there are not using the same hrv définition -there are a few. So you cannot directly compare the figures.

[Audaxjoe]

@raceaddict I find the HR pretty accurate on my Vertical.
Yesterday 160k on the bike. Wahoo bike computer via Polar HR strap Suunto on wrist

Average HR was identical. Max was 3 beats higher with strap.

Some of the zones are different, but I’m not sure if that is more down to set up

Anyway it is awful for some people but pretty accurate for others. Which seems to be the nature of wrist HR.

[mr.quality]

@raceaddict The calculation is medically fixed and predefined. It is identical in the descriptions. In this respect, the values determined are decisive and these in turn come from the sensor. It is worth taking a look at the number of sensors and positioning at Polar and Suunto. Based on this, I would assume that Polar has a higher accuracy.

[mr.quality]

@Audaxjoe Maybe. The test reports criticized what I also noticed. During sporting activities with rapidly changing pulse rates, the sensor on the wrist does not keep up and shows excessive deviations.

[raceaddict]

@mr-quality said in HRV:

@raceaddict The calculation is medically fixed and predefined. It is identical in the descriptions. In this respect, the values determined are decisive and these in turn come from the sensor. It is worth taking a look at the number of sensors and positioning at Polar and Suunto. Based on this, I would assume that Polar has a higher accuracy.

Even wikipedia doesn’t agree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate_variability
See Analysis paragraph. I don’t want to count all of them, too many for sure.

You cannot compare absolute values vs Garmin/Polar, but the trend should be the same.

[SuperFlo75]

If you know something about this topic, you should know that there are different methods for the hrv… Suunto uses RMSSD I think. I‘m nearly sure that the other brands use others metrics… that‘s why you cannot compare the absolute values.
If you are interested in this topic…
1-s2.0-S0735109797005548-main.pdf

Table 2 and 3 are interesting.

[Brad_Olwin]

@mr-quality said in HRV:

@szaboat74 the measurements of Suunto are wrong. I checked in parallel the measurements via Garmin and Polar. The results are round about 10 ms higher as Suunto is showing. It seems to be that they in general have an issue with there sensors. HR at the wrist is also faulty especially during exercises. It is very sobering in itself when this is the case with a current model like the Race.

Comparing an AppleWatch with Suunto I get very similar readings, the trend is always the same even if the numbers are slightly different.

[mr.quality]

@SuperFlo75 The descriptions of the methods are identical in the freely accessible operating instructions. The difference with Polar is that they only record the first four hours as soon as you fall asleep. The data is recorded for the entire bedtime and can be viewed and analyzed. This means that I would sometimes have even greater deviations, as the HRV is often higher on average after the four hours.

[mr.quality]

@raceaddict The method used is the same for all of them: RMSSD. In this respect, Wikipedia also confirms that this method is medically fixed. If everyone uses the same method, a comparison must be possible.

[GiPFELKiND]

@mr-quality but what time suunto neasures the HRV? the first 4 hours from the sleep or the whole time from sleeping? No infos in the manual?!

[mr.quality]

@GiPFELKiND According to the information directly in the app, the entire bedtime.

[SuperFlo75]

@mr-quality I just saw that RMSSD is used by Suunto, Polar, not sure by Garmin… Apple uses SDNN… but it seems that it is important that you compare the same test situation/setting… and I think that here are the differences

[aslysz]

@SuperFlo75

When you have S. Vertical on one hand and, for example, Garmin Tactix 7 Pro on the other - the difference in HRV is huge, e.g. Suunto shows 35 and Garmin shows 110 !!! (changing the hand, right or left, does not change anything). When in this case (i’m 44 y.o.) medical charts - age related - suggest readings approximate 35-45.

[SuperFlo75]

@aslysz Wow, the difference is huge! But if you look at the medical charts for your age… your value seems to be correct? If Garmin really uses RMSSD, your value seems to be too high? It‘s just my opinion, but I‘m orthopedist and not cardiologist Did you compare the trend of both watches? The trend of HRV should be comparable, that‘s what I expect. I only have my SV, so I cannot compare…

[EzioAuditore]

@aslysz I tend to ignore the raw numbers and focus on the trends. Although yes Suunto gives me ~20ms and Apple/Garmin 40-60