Video summary
Garmin Sensors: Newer ≠ Better?
Main summary
Key takeaways
Product(s) Reviewed / Compared
- Garmin Forerunner 570 (uses Elevate V5 sensor)
- Garmin Forerunner 165 (uses Elevate V4 sensor)
- Tested on the same user (Raphael) for running and outdoor cycling
- Reference for heart-rate accuracy: Polar H10 chest strap (ECG)
Key Findings: Elevate V5 vs V4 (Sensor Performance)
Main Question
Does the newer Elevate V5 sensor significantly outperform the older Elevate V4?
Result
- There is no major performance difference overall between Elevate V5 and V4 in this test.
- On running, results are very close.
- On cycling, Forerunner 570 sometimes shows a slight edge, but not enough for a clear, consistent win.
Numerical / Correlation Results Mentioned
Running (agreement vs Polar H10 reference)
- Forerunner 165 (V4): correlation ~0.98
- Forerunner 570 (V5): correlation ~0.97
- Overall comparison described devices as nearly tied, with differences between 165 and 570 said to be not statistically significant.
Cycling / Outdoor Biking
- Forerunner 165 (V4): correlation ~0.95
- Forerunner 570 (V5): correlation ~0.97
- 570 performed slightly better, but it was not among the best performers overall.
Big Takeaway: Wrist Position & Physiology Matter More Than Sensor Generation
A major and surprising conclusion: wrist position and individual physiology affected heart-rate tracking much more than the sensor model.
Left vs Right Wrist Effect (Both Devices)
- Raphael wore devices on right vs left wrist on different randomized days.
- Right wrist consistently performed better.
- Left wrist results were noticeably worse, including cases where heart rate was:
- too low (and sometimes too high) during cycling
A particularly poor outcome was attributed partly to tight strap/clothing placement (left arm strap worn slightly higher), potentially constricting blood flow.
Reviewer Lesson (Methodology Implication)
- One wrist test is not enough.
- Recommendation implied: test each device on both wrists.
- Practical guidance implied: if readings look bad, swap wrists.
Cold-Weather Consideration (Mentioned)
Potential winter degradation due to:
- Colder skin → reduced blood flow
- Tighter clothing layers
- Possible GPS signal issues if layers obstruct it (described as debatable / not fully confirmed)
Comparisons vs Other Wearables (Accuracy Ranking Context)
In the overview comparison (correlation-based):
- Garmin Forerunners (165/570) were not top performers
- Top performers mentioned:
- Apple Watches
- Pixel Watches
- Some Huawei devices
Garmin was described as “good enough” for running and good enough for biking—just not best-in-class.
Pros / Cons (As Described)
Pros
- Accurate enough heart-rate tracking for running on the right wrist
- Cycling accuracy is acceptable, with Forerunner 570 slightly better than 165 in some cases
- Upgrading V4 → V5 does not appear to be a large performance leap in this test
Cons
- Cycling can be harder due to wrist tension and bumpiness, leading to deviations
- Left wrist performance can be significantly worse than right (potentially due to physiology + strap placement + tightness)
- Garmin watches generally lag behind some competitors (Apple/Pixel/Huawei) in correlation accuracy
User Experience / Testing Notes
- N=1 test user (Raphael), with multiple runs/rides over several weeks
- Polar H10 ECG strap used as the accuracy reference
- Emphasis on real-world variability dominating results:
- clothing tightness
- jewelry/strap placement
- wrist position
Verdict / Recommendation
- If you already have Elevate V4 (Forerunner 165) and you’re satisfied: the video suggests there’s no strong reason to upgrade to Elevate V5 (Forerunner 570) based on heart-rate tracking performance alone.
- Bigger upgrade lever: try different wrists (right vs left), because wrist/physiology changes results more than V5 vs V4.
- For buyers: expect Garmin Forerunners to be good enough, but not as accurate as Apple/Pixel (and some Huawei) in this type of comparison.
Unique Points Mentioned
- Elevate V5 vs V4 tested indirectly via Forerunner 570 vs 165
- Polar H10 ECG strap used as the reference
- Running: both sensors show high agreement with reference (~0.97–0.98 correlation)
- Running: differences between 165 and 570 described as minor / likely not statistically significant
- Cycling is harder for watches due to wrist tension and bumpiness
- Cycling correlations: 165 ~0.95, 570 ~0.97 (570 slightly better)
- Garmin watches are not the best overall; Apple/Pixel/Huawei do better in correlation-based comparisons
- Major surprise: results depend heavily on which wrist the watch is worn
- Right wrist better than left wrist for both devices
- Left wrist sometimes shows too-low (and occasionally too-high) HR readings
- Possible explanation: strap placement and constricted blood flow on the left arm
- Clothing tightness/jewelry/strap positioning can affect HR tracking
- Winter/cold may worsen wrist HR tracking due to reduced blood flow
- Reviewers should test on both wrists (methodological recommendation)
- User suggestion: experiment with wrist placement (right vs left)
- V4 → V5 upgrade shows no major performance boost, except possibly slightly on the left wrist
- Proposed next step: test other brands/devices to see if left-right effects generalize
Speakers / Contributors
- Primary speaker: Rob (data-driven analysis; reviewer methodology + conclusions)
- Other contributor: Raphael (wearer doing most of the randomized wrist testing and the runs/rides)
- “Rob from the future” segment: Rob’s follow-up explaining that left wrist issues may come from strap placement/tightness and physiology, emphasizing that wrist/clothing effects outweighed sensor differences.