AW Pulse recording is misleading

[MacKnut]

Living with a heart condition that is vulnerable to rapid heart rates, close monitoring is needed. Therefore, in addition to AW, I use a chest belt with a pulse sensor, which records rates continuously (as opposed to AW). As I found out, there is a substantial discrepancy between these readings. In situations when there is a sudden demand on the heart (e.g. beginning of training as seen in screenshots or rushing upstairs), AW records an overshooting of pulse rates when there is none in the chest belt recording. This is not just a one time occurrence, but continuously present and makes erratic AW pulse recordings. Easily, one is fooled into making inappropriate decisions if one doesn’t recognise this unfortunate shortcoming.

 

[Howard2k]

Yes, for optimal accuracy you definitely want to use a chest strap. A well fitting AW is one of the best wrist-based heart monitors, but a chest strap is better.

 

[chanchowancho]

Yes! I often do HIIT at home (both spin bike and calisthenics), and optical heart rate sensors are useless for targeted heart rate intervals - I notice a substantial lag when moving up or down, and as you mentioned, quite large spikes vs. instantaneous accurate measurement on my chest strap.

 

[Saturn007]

MacKnut, much appreciate your post! I've noticed spikes sometimes in my Apple Watch heart rate when going upstairs or rushing into the bathroom (😁) — and was a tad concerned why my HR was suddenly jumping.

Likely algorithmic calculation errors or strange sensor reactions.

 

[kitenski]

yes the AW needs to get a "lock" onto your heart rate, you can avoid that spike by not starting the workout until it's recording the "real" HR. IE at a start of a run I often see HR of 120+ if I wait a few mins it drops back to 60ish where I'd expect it, then I start the run.