Garmin HRV Fails Again — Forerunner 265 Study


Log in to read the rest

The opening of every post is free for everyone. What follows here is for Followers. It is also protected against AI scraping and content theft.

Following is free and also gives you fewer ads. Follow for free, or, if you already follow, log in.

If you use this site for your job, please choose the right tier and become a Commercial Supporter. Industry professionals expect to be paid for their work. So do I. Most posts like this become free for everyone later.Become a subscriber

Last Updated on 3 October 2026 by tfk the5krunner

Small things I always use

Health, recovery and sleep

  • Kineon MOVE+: Red and infrared light for sore knees, Achilles and other joints after hard training. I use it.
  • FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus: Shows how my blood sugar responds to diet. Occasional use.
  • hDrop: Measures my sweat loss in summer and indoors. I use it.
  • Fourth Frontier Zone: Checks my heart under load in hard sessions.
  • Oura Ring 5: My partner’s recovery tracker of choice.
  • Eight Sleep: A cooling mattress cover my partner and I use nightly.

Watches and sensors

On the bike

Home and indoor training

  • NPE Runn: Makes my basic treadmill smart, sending more accurate speed and distance to my watch and Zwift. I use it.
  • Google Wifi: Keeps Zwift connected in my pain cave. I use it.
  • Apple TV 4K: Zwift on the big screen. I use two.
  • Google Nest Doorbell (wired, 2nd gen): My video doorbell, running in both Google Home and Apple Home via Starling. I use it.


Reader-Powered Content

Buy me a coffee

This content is not sponsored. It’s mostly me behind the labour of love, which is this site, and I appreciate everyone who supports it.

Support the site: Follow (free, fewer ads) · Subscribe (paid, ad-free) · Buy Me A Coffee

Written by real people, with AI assistance. Fact-checked and verified for originality. See the Editorial Policy. FTC: Affiliate Disclosure — some links pay commission. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

14 thoughts on “Garmin HRV Fails Again — Forerunner 265 Study”

    1. As per the article, check my HRM 600 review. There were issues I found on that (n=1). if you ask the scientists they will say they use Polar.

  1. But this is just about the health snapshot feature. The HRV reading Garmin uses internally for training and health metrics is overnight HRV, where it is dark and people lay mostly still. The two can hardly be compared to each other

  2. Yeah, and stuff like Body Battery during the day. Even if it’s pretty noisy over a short snapshot, the real question is how good is it over 24 hours?

    I’d never use an optical sensor for taking a single, daily reading to record on my log, but after many years, I have come to find that Garmin’s HRV based metrics feel generally in the ballpark, as long as I’m wearing the watch regularly. Though, I’ll admit that I’ve never actually modified my behavior based on anything it tells me, and these days I only wear a sports watch at night (and mostly just so I can have a vibration alarm in the morning to not wake my partner).

  3. I’m not surprised at this finding. Garmin may be epically mediocre in this regard but I would be surprised if wrist oHR was clinically useful for HRV. Garmin doesn’t even really try to use HRV from the wrist except during sleep and then primarily surfaces a rolling 7-day average.

    I have not seen and can’t find formal clinical testing of the HRM 600 or HRM 200 yet but previous generations of Garmin are not impressive. To be fair not that ECG HRM are even being tested formally. The Wahoo Trackr got good N=1 results from Quantified Scientist but I don’t find any formal papers published for that either.

    Dr. Bruce Rogers documented testing Garmin chest straps on his muscleoxygentraining.com blog and he gave up on them. Also he shows that ANT+ capture has significantly more lost peaks and artifacts than data captured over Bluetooth. I think this is significantly due to low frequency sampling on ANT+ due to Garmin legacy decisions to limit processing power for devices from the dawn of time.

    Here is a formal study which finds 84-87% peak R-R peak detection at rest with Garmin HRM-Pro relative to a clinical control.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175713

    Consistently the best available ECG chest strap is the Movesense Medical 💸💸💸 (€350 for a bare sensor and another €25 for the strap!) or slightly less good and affordable is the Polar H10.

    1. Finally ! Someone who has been looking in the right places.
      Yes Brian to all the above.
      I don’t know why there is no clinical testing of the hrm600. My own n=1 tests with hrm600 showed hrv ‘discrepencies’ https://the5krunner.com/2025/06/11/garmin-hrm-600-review-best-heart-rate-monitor-hrm/. maybe that’s why. not sure of the incentive for scinetists to validate garmin devices for the comapny unless paid by the company to do so. that creates other problems with the findings of course.

  4. And also the “running dynamics” are very noisy. I found exactly one lab test of Garmin running dynamics and the quality is very poor.

    I looked into this after discussing with my DPT about using GCT balance to monitor recovery from injury. It seemed like a good idea. However when I actually tried it the numbers seemed far too good to be believable because I got something like 49-51 with a notably lopsided, wonky gait. It turns out this metric is trash. It’s almost totally noise and not fit for purpose.

    https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/9/2892

    Key findings

    – Univariate overlap between in-lab and real-world data from the same runner ranged from 65.7% (leg stiffness) to 95.2% (speed).
    – When all five gait metrics were considered together using multivariate depth analysis, only 32.5% of real-world data were well-represented by that same runner’s in-lab data. For ten subjects, overlap was less than 10%.
    – Restricting real-world data to flat, straight segments changed overlap by less than 5 percentage points, meaning turns and hills were not the primary driver of the mismatch.
    – Pooling in-lab data across many runners improved depth overlap to approximately 89–91%, because the broader cross-subject variability better captured real-world gait patterns.

    I think this one has a supplemental table which shows r=0.12 on Garmin chest strap L-R GCT balance (or 88% noise). Garmin chest strap r=0.63 for vertical oscillation.

    r=0.99+ for speed and step length. These sensors are reasonably good at speed, stance time, and cadence. The rest of running dynamics metrics are dubious.

    I’m not convinced there is anything useful in the fancy running dynamics that you get from a Garmin-branded HRM-Run, Tri, Pro, 600 and the primary ECG data is also less clean than Polar H10. There aren’t a lot of good reasons to use the HRM-Pro et al, IMO.

    Garmin running dynamics graphs are for entertainment purposes only.

  5. For me, the Polar H10 is the worst chest strap I have ever used in my entire life. I would not use any Polar device even if they offered it to me free of charge. Here is my experience:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Polarfitness/comments/1qynbr1/can_polar_h10_be_a_guinness_world_record_candidate/
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Polarfitness/comments/1recon3/brand_reputation_matters_my_polar_vs_garmin/

    And I really wonder why people test older-gen Garmin optical sensors. Why do they measure Gen 4 instead of Gen 5 ?

    1. IDK why they use the old sensors. This isn’t too bad. There must be a delay of 1-2 years from inception/planning to writing it up but even that wont quite explain it. gen 5 was available but on more expnsive models.
      Garmin would perhaps give some studies free devices if they asked.

  6. I had to switch from my Forerunner 255 to the Huawei Runner 2 because the heart rate readings were completely inaccurate. Additionally, it stopped correctly counting floors.

  7. For some reason its not letting me respond to individual posts:

    Brian:
    Wahoo’s chest straps have been considered poor for r-r timing and so not useful for Alpha 1 dfa.

    Ant+ is not worse then Bluetooth for r-r timing in terms of protocal. Ant+ is worse if you use r-r timing straight from Garmin as it doesn’t se what is in the protocal to make up for missing packets of data (when garmin records rr timing data in the fit file they hit this bug so doesn’t have good data). This can be overcome if you make your own raw connection (see alphaHRV connectIq app discussions) Garmin could fix this if they wanted.

    I really wish review sites looked at rr data. If you want the easy way to do so look at alpha 1 dfa values which depend on that data so if the data is poor i will be easy to see. It bugs me how some sites spend lots of effort to compare HR data between devices but ignore rr data

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *