Garmin HRV - How Accurate?

Triathlon Forum
1

So I recently picked up a 955 which supposedly tracks HRV. After a few weeks of wearing the watch, it says my baseline is 47-59. I did not think much of it until I googled some info on HRV and saw that while it is certainly individual, scores in the 40s and 50s are (supposedly) pretty poor from an overall health perspective.

I’m 31, normal weight, resting HR around 40-45 typically, and consider myself to be at least relatively fit.

Just curious if anyone else has experienced this? Obviously, the watch is not a medical device so I’m not putting too much stock into the number, but it did cause me to at least wonder…

2

mine is 37. clearly not accurate enough to align with the general ranges non-garmin web sites talk about.

3

Mine seems relatively consistent between Fitblt and Apple Watch. They differ by a little, but not an order of magnitude.

4

My range is from 42 to 49

I’m pretty healthy
.

5

Like many things, probably not good to compare data points from one ecosystem to another. For instance, my HRV score between Garmin, Whoop, and Oura are all different but within each of the ecosystems its fairly consistent. After a few weeks with the Garmin one I just stuck to it and its been fairly accurate for me. I notice that when I feel like crap, my HRV is typically reflecting that.

I know some people have shat on the Garmin Body Battery but its been really accurate for me. I am not looking at exact numbers but if the trend or overall value is very low I know something is going on.

6

I use HRV4training as my go to but have the 255 and also just for fun use a Kubios HRV tracker. Kubios and HRV4Training track closely, Garmin provides no actionable insights for me. I find the wrist based heart rate on the Garmin less than accurate vs a Polar H9 strap. I use the H9 for my HRV measurements each morning when I wake up.

7

So I recently picked up a 955 which supposedly tracks HRV. After a few weeks of wearing the watch, it says my baseline is 47-59. I did not think much of it until I googled some info on HRV and saw that while it is certainly individual, scores in the 40s and 50s are (supposedly) pretty poor from an overall health perspective.

While there’s been research which links better HRV numbers to better recover ability, the HRV numbers are relative enough for an individual not to consider them directly related to poor health at all. Could they be better? Perhaps, depending how much “room” you have left on your lifestyle, diet, daily stress etc. Now if you started regularly seeing significant drops vs your “baseline”, then it might be worth investigating further.

8

I just got my new Enduro 2 with HRV tracking during sleep and over the last 7 days my HRV is 104ms avg and my Resting HR is 40 avg. I guess I need to wait the full 3 weeks to see where my baseline is? Can’t seem to find the ranges Garmin uses for what’s healthy vs not.

9

Can’t seem to find the ranges Garmin uses for what’s healthy vs not.

I don’t think there are any. You establish your long-term average, whatever that is (in Garmin’s case, 3 weeks), and then go from there relatively.

10

Can’t seem to find the ranges Garmin uses for what’s healthy vs not.

I don’t think there are any. You establish your long-term average, whatever that is (in Garmin’s case, 3 weeks), and then go from there relatively.
it is this ^^^^
you watch your trend and up is good and down is bad so to speak. Also the trend lines typically follow rMSSD or some mathematical function of this. Also good to look at resting heart rate as well. For me that changed more than |HRV. So far Garmn has told me nothing useful though.