Interesting…they are suggesting that .5 is a reasonable surrogate for FTP…
I’ll have to look at my data for that.
Really wish tr would collect hrv in the app. They would have such a massive data set of alpha 1 values from all the ramp tests. True the steps are shorter so might not give the true value but have a feeling there is still a large amount of correlation
3 Likes
But there is also rough correlation between ramp test and FTP, so then you have to find correlation between ramp test and longer 40-60 min test etc. With ramp test you will have great correlation between 0.75 of MAP power.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Ramp test goes to failure and Alpha 1 = .75 should happen way before that. and alpha 1 = .5 may also be hit. This should have a much stronger correlation than just assuming a percent of your power number.
I’m not talking just a correlation for the sake of a correlation, I’m talking about a stronger correlation that can give more insight by looking at more data as it doesn’t depend on power data at all. (the power you are at when you hit those values is important but not used in the calculation.
The steps in the ramp test aren’t really a good way to capture DFAa1, they are too short.
They could calculate it during longer intervals and endurance riding to calibrate it, but it requires pretty clean data. The new Tickrs are inconsistent at capturing it, to the point where you can only really rely on the Polar H10 for it.
Doable and definitely interesting for them to pursue if they want to go down that route but not as broadly applicable right now.
I thought the garmin straps were also considered good based on the faq from hrv logger. They do have the ability to know what they are pairing with to flag if the data source is useful or now. Or just see how much error is in the recorded data and ignore if its not good
Do wish reviewers would look at HRV in reviews about hr straps. I mean look at @dcrainmaker and @gpl and others who had big reviews of the wahoo hr straps when they were just refreshed but don’t look into the quality of the hrv data just hr. Ray even has a value in the chart for “VALID HRV/RR DATA”, but he doesn’t really check if that is true or not. 
The Garmin straps are considered good, but IIRC the Polar H10 is the one that has been using in the recent published papers. It’s mostly that you have to look at the artifacts but IMO if you want to go deep on this analysis for yourself, you might as well get the best one.
You might find this whitepaper by Polar interesting. In my experience, the Garmin HRMs record almost identical RR to Polar. Key is to make sure the chest electrode is moist before you start recording your workout. Also, recording RR intervals over bluetooth seems to be less artifact-prone than Ant+ recording.
1 Like
I bought a h10 for that reason, but was more thinking for the tr userbase as a whole other stressors might still provide data that even if not the best could still be useful
1 Like
To chime in on this, I tried to use the HRV logger with a tickr 2 multiple times, and got useless data - so many removed artifacts there was nothing to look at. The data won’t be filtered in the live view, so I thought I was getting useful data. When I went and displayed the results with ‘filter noisy data’, I had no data at all.
I bought an H10, and am now getting good data. I went back and tried the tickr2 again making sure phone was in the same spot, not charging, etc and still got bad results.
1 Like
I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. I literally included screenshots in my review showing it working with Elite HRV, three sets of data - all showing signal quality as good.
If you’re gonna go around saying things, at least make them true.
5 Likes
You show it recording hrv during rest which is the easiest time to record hrv which is not the same as hrv when not at rest. That’s like saying whoop is accurate cause it gives good resting heart rate information. Also it seems you only did measurement on one sensor and assumed it’s valid cause it has no artifacts, no comparing to any other source of truth which is what basically all your other reviews do.
Breathing rate does depend on hrv but it’s way less sensitive to less accurate data as it’s looking at much larger patterns in the data. But even with that you aren’t comparing if breathing rate in one device paired with one strap gets the same data as another watch paired with a different strap.
I’m not saying the tickr is crap, just that for the purposes on hrv during exercise based on all the current data as shown above in this thread, it is not that accurate of a data source. But it you look at your review you make it seem like the tickr is just as accurate as Garmin straps the polar h10. I’m not saying everyone cares about hrv but the quality of that data during exercise is an important difference.
2 Likes
[quote=“enki42, post:75, topic:55533”]
You show it recording hrv during rest which is the easiest time to record hrv which is not the same as hrv when not at rest. [/quote]
I showed what I showed. Thus, you can decide if that’s enough or if you need something beyond that. The overwhelming vast majority of 3rd party HRV-uses today are at rest, not during workout. My wording is very specific in what I showed, and what I specify: Is it sending valid data? I don’t try and figure out if it’s accurate data or not, I try and figure out if it’s sending valid per the spec.
In fact, this seems like a fun time for memory lane. Because - ultimately, the singular reason that data field is there in the product comparison database, was a request by yourself from years ago to add it. Thus, I added it, then spending the time validating whether or not the data exists (because back then, it didn’t exist across the board). I’ve never said, nor attempted to say whether it’s accurate - because frankly, I see poor HRV accuracy agreement across any straps. I think it’s highly questioanble. I’ve focused purely on the underlying BPM values (and hence a specific accuracy section), not HRV values. There’s some interesting HRV science, but there’s also a crapton of Bro Science in HRV too.
But I like your thinking - I’ll remove it across the board from the product comparison database.
I’m unclear why you’re talking about me talking about breathing rate. I didn’t say anything about breathing rate. Nor do I ever compare accuracy in breathing rate.
2 Likes
Right after your elite hrv screenshots on your wahoo strap review you say with a screenshot:
And, if you’re using a newer Garmin device, you’ll even get respiration rate as well.
Since that is based on hrv and uses hrv data… I know someone who claimed the respiration rate metric was useless because it didn’t come close to what their metabolic cart said their breathing rate was. Turns out their heart rate source wasn’t giving good data. There are correlations between respiration rate and other metrics but need accurate data to show it.
Again, I didn’t talk about accuracy or anything there. I simply noted the data comes through. There are many aspects of devices that I briefly mention exist, as in that singular line, but don’t discuss accuracy or validity of them. Breathing rate is one of those.
That may be true, but if you noticed the thread this is in…
Valid data has to measure or reflect the specific phenomenon claimed
This is exactly why I posted originally wishing that more reviews did more to show the validity of the HRV from a strap. If people don’t have accurate straps because there is no effort to hold them accountable when they try HRV based metrics they won’t get good data and will think the metrics are pointless. Currently it seems straps can just count RR broadcast as a checkmark to check as all reviews just say they send out data and thats good enough. Why improve something no one cares ablout?
Did I single you out? sure. Why? Because you take pride in doing lots of work to show how good or not different sensors are and people know it so they use you as their main source of technical data. You can’t both be the best technical review site known for long details accuracy reviews which others don’t do and not have others wanting you to check on other measurements. Especially when because of your status people say “Well DCrainmaker says its accurate so I’ll go with X”
Useful HRV metrics for the masses require the masses to have good data to feed the algorithms.
1 Like
Polar did one study. Posted above. Weird protocol. For stationary cycling all the straps received an accuracy score of excellent.
The DFA-1 / aerobic threshold paper was published January 2021. Do you honestly believe your position with DCR is fair? For daily HRV, Marco Altini says one reading in the morning with your phone’s camera is good enough. This LT1 / LT2 is hot off the presses. And Polar says Garmin and Wahoo have excellent accuracy for stationary cycling.
1 Like
Same here but RPE is my make or break metric for gauging these rides 
There are actually several independent validations of Polar’s HRMs. You can find papers that compare the H10 and H7 HRMs to 12-lead ECG and then evaluate RR intervals from both.
Makes sense, right? Cycling is one of the least physical activities you can do with the chest strap and the data will be less noisy.
In evaluating the accuracy of the HRM, the RR intervals are what the underlying bpm comes from, so why wouldn’t RR interval accuracy be of interest? Does that mean DCR should go get a 12-lead ECG and do those comparisons? No, I don’t think so.
4 Likes