A previous post in this thread caught my attention.
As an interesting observation, I wear two heart rate monitors (HRMs). One is a training/GPS watch that I bought more than a year ago and I wear most of the time. It reads my pulse through the skin on my wrist. The other one is a recent addition/replacement of an activity tracker that I struggled to "keep alive." It finally became evident that my old tracker was discharging the battery too fast or the battery had simply run its course and the battery capacity was drastically reduced. So, I sprung for a newer, more advanced activity tracker that has a constant measurement HRM built in.
Like my original GPS watch, when it is tracking a specific activity, it is measuring near constantly and calculating my energy expenditure and other data. Both HRM monitors allow setting custom heart rate zones (which I know from testing) and are able to give me a lot of data about how my training and races look. During periods when no specific activity is being tracked, the HRM is still recording data.
Before I put my confidence in these optical sensors, I cross-checked them with a strap-type HRM. I get good agreement between the strap-type HRM and the two optical sensors. Moreover, the two optical sensors also tend to agree with each other. The difference between them is the constant reading HRM provides an average for the previous 5-minutes and records/reports that value whereas the GPS watch measures my heart rate for one-minute every 10-minutes. Of course, the "gold-standard" multipoint sensor EKG would be seen as more accurate but not practical from the standpoint of continuous monitoring during long distance activity. Both use an HRM algorithm to estimate resting HR as well as measuring minimum HR.
What is interesting is that during long enema sessions my heart rate is elevated enough that one of my sensors tries to classify it against an array of activities. It knows there is not much movement according to the GPS, nor is the accelerometer measuring "steps." So, it tends to see the elevated HR as either a stationary indoor bike or training on an elliptical trainer.
For example, take a recent enema session where I had plenty of time to get well-lubed, to insert various long tubes for very filling enemas, first with 5 liters of a nice lavender Marseilles soapy mixture, and then rinsing with two separate 5-liter saline rinses. According to one of the activity monitors, it classified the activity as 93 "active minutes" on an elliptical trainer and as two hours and eight minutes of elevated fat-burning (or higher) heart rate for a total of 855 calories burned. Now the peak heart rate was only as high at 139 BPM but the average was 103 BPM. So yes, an enema has the tendency to elevate the heart rate from normal. But there are also brief periods when my heart rate drops back to near resting levels during the span of time of an enema. I can't be sure of when that is but I suspect that is when I am being still while the enema is filling me.
For the record, my minimum heart rate over a 30-day average is 46 BPM (usually about the time I wake up), and my average "resting HR" is 56 BPM (a bit more complicated algorithm). My maximum heart rate has been measured over 195 BPM and my VO2max for moderately intense runs of 30-60 minutes comes out about 50. For a 30-minute maximum sustained output run, it comes out close to 60. People with a medical background or serious aerobic training background will know what that means. But I am not worried about the effects of a slightly elevated heart rate over the period of a couple of hours while taking 15-liters of soapy and saline enema solutions. My average HR over the period of running a marathon in 4 hours, 15 minutes to 4 hours, 35 minutes ranges between 145 and 155 BPM, so the HR during enema sessions are much lower.
YMMV.