heart rate monitors for the wrist

honkytonks85

Are they really accurate? I have heard mixed stories. I'd love to purchase one but I want my HRM to be accurate. I don't think I'd like to wear a chest strap.

dougpconnell219

Accurate enough I think.

Cacheola

Nope. Get a chest strap, you won't even know you're wearing it.

zdyb23456

I am wondering the same thing... the new Jawbone supposedly tracks heart rate. I don't think it's intended to perform like a true heart rate monitor. I think I read it only measures your heart rate a few times a day.

honkytonks85

yeah - i think the accuracy of a hrm for calories burned is really only with intense cardio rather than just taking your heart rate at points in the day. i sort of just want something to put on my wrist during a cardio session that will measure my calories burned without being too intrusive....

there are some wrist bands for about $100 which isn't too bad.

Bry_Fitness70

Cacheola wrote: »

Nope. Get a chest strap, you won't even know you're wearing it.

Not true, my Mio Alpha wrist HRM has .99 correlation to EKG. I just press a button on it and it starts reading my HR and transmitting it through Bluetooth to an app, much more convenient and comfortable than strapping on a chest HRM

scorpio516

honkytonks85 wrote: »

yeah - i think the accuracy of a hrm for calories burned is really only with intense cardio rather than just taking your heart rate at points in the day. i sort of just want something to put on my wrist during a cardio session that will measure my calories burned without being too intrusive....

It depends. Some, like the new fitbits are great for tracking your HR for the entire day, but awful for tracking your HR excercising.
Others, like the Mio, are great for tracking workouts, but are limited for tracking all day.


But for your original question: it depends.
Some, like the Mio and the new fitbits and an Epson and a few others use optical HR sensors and are almost as accurate as a hospital's HR monitor - which is also optical.
Others, like a $20 New Balance, only take your HR when you touch it and are just about worthless.

Cacheola

bw_conway wrote: »

Cacheola wrote: »

Nope. Get a chest strap, you won't even know you're wearing it.

Not true, my Mio Alpha wrist HRM has .99 correlation to EKG. I just press a button on it and it starts reading my HR and transmitting it through Bluetooth to an app, much more convenient and comfortable than strapping on a chest HRM

No thanks.

Bry_Fitness70

Cacheola wrote: »

bw_conway wrote: »

Cacheola wrote: »

Nope. Get a chest strap, you won't even know you're wearing it.

Not true, my Mio Alpha wrist HRM has .99 correlation to EKG. I just press a button on it and it starts reading my HR and transmitting it through Bluetooth to an app, much more convenient and comfortable than strapping on a chest HRM

No thanks.

Not trying to sell you one, bro - if you think fiddling with a chest strap (which I did for years) is preferable to pressing a button on what is essentially (and literally) a wrist watch, enjoy

joneallen

I've worn a chest strap for quite some time, for both weight training and cardio. Never had one issue with wearing it.

CA_Underdog

Are they really accurate? I have heard mixed stories.

Generally, they err by quite a bit compared to models using chest straps.

Never had one issue with wearing it.

To avoid occasional "drops", I have to either apply gel to mine or keep an eye on it. Then again, I likely have more hair on my chest than the original poster!

Not trying to sell you one, bro - if you think fiddling with a chest strap (which I did for years) is preferable to pressing a button on what is essentially (and literally) a wrist watch, enjoy

DCRainmaker agrees the Mio Alpha is exceptionally accurate for tracking your workout heart-rate. That's exciting and very unusual when it comes to wrist-based monitoring! [Edited to Add: it looks like Mio just released a new watch with more functionality.]

The biggest flaws noted were its inability to log said data or provide other functions typical of an a device at that price point. E.g., my Garmin Forerunner requires a chest strap for HRM but on a run/walk/hike/bike displays/logs my distance, time, altitude, and heart rate.

Whether that matters depends on your needs.

brandiuntz

The newer ones that use the Mio sensor seems to be as accurate as a chest strap. DCRainmaker has reviews on a bunch, which is a good read. Seems the whole Mio line, plus ones like the TomTom Cardio series work well. I think Addias has one out, too.

As for what you specifically get, depends on the features you want.

Bry_Fitness70

CA_Underdog wrote: »

Are they really accurate? I have heard mixed stories.

Generally, they err by quite a bit compared to models using chest straps.

Never had one issue with wearing it.

To avoid occasional "drops", I have to apply gel to mine. Then again, I likely have more hair on my chest than the original poster!

Not trying to sell you one, bro - if you think fiddling with a chest strap (which I did for years) is preferable to pressing a button on what is essentially (and literally) a wrist watch, enjoy

DCRainmaker agrees the Mio Alpha is exceptionally accurate for tracking your workout heart-rate. That's exciting and very unusual when it comes to wrist-based monitoring!

The biggest flaws noted were its inability to log said data or provide other functions typical of an a device at that price point. E.g., my Garmin Forerunner requires a chest strap for HRM but on a run/walk/hike/bike displays/logs my distance, time, altitude, and heart rate.

Whether that matters depends on your needs.

That is a draw back - but since I usually have my iPhone with me when I exercise anyway for music, and I Bluetooth pair my Mio with a fitness app that captures all of the data, it isn't really a burden that additional functions are lacking in the HRM. I believe the next generation of Mios have a self-contained fitness app.

Cacheola

Whatever you decide OP, read the reviews. One thing to consider about the watch style HRM is you have to crank them on your wrist. They drop doing pushups and any exercise that restricts blood flow. I don't like having the watch tight, it's restrictive, annoying, and I periodically spin it around to see the display, depending on what I'm doing. You can get Polar FT7's for cheap on eBay

brianpperkins

Cacheola wrote: »

Whatever you decide OP, read the reviews. One thing to consider about the watch style HRM is you have to crank them on your wrist. They drop doing pushups and any exercise that restricts blood flow. I don't like having the watch tight, it's restrictive, annoying, and I periodically spin it around to see the display, depending on what I'm doing. You can get Polar FT7's for cheap on eBay

The OP is apparently concerned with caloric estimation. HRMs are useless for estimating calories burned from things like pushups. Any HRM is only close to accurate for caloric estimation for a limited range of steady state cardio activities. For those, any accurate constant read HRM works ... chest strap, more modern wrist or forearm mounted optical readers ... with their own set of pros and cons.

Spedangie

I am using the Fitbit Charge HR, which I purchased a couple of weeks ago. I am not an elite athlete who needs to know to the exact beat what my heart rate is at every moment of a workout. I want a good general picture of how my heart responds when I put some stress on it and how quickly it recovers when I end a high demand cardio workout. I am finding that the wrist monitoring of the Charge is pretty accurate. I have used the elliptical, bicycle and treadmill that have HR monitors and I also have a fingertip pulse-ox device that shows continuous heart rate (used for medical monitoring, so it's pretty accurate) to check what my heart rate is during a workout and then compare their numbers to the Fitbit reading. The readings on the exercise equipment sometimes differ by more than a few beats from the Pulse-ox reading. The Fitbit has been within a couple of beats of the Pulse Ox reading almost every time I've checked. All in all I'm very satisfied with the accuracy of Fitbit heart monitor. It's just there on my wrist and I can quickly check out my current heart rate at any time (as well as check the time, see how active I have been that day, have a reasonable idea of how many calories I have burned with activity, get an alert for my phone activity, as well as set alarms that vibrate on my wrist, which has come in very handy to remind me to clock out and in for lunch)-so it has been a good choice for me.
However,it may not be good enough for an individual who absolutely HAS to know to the exact beat how his/her heart is responding at any given moment during an exercise session.

CA_Underdog

Spedangie wrote:

However,it may not be good enough for an individual who absolutely HAS to know to the exact beat how his/her heart is responding at any given moment during an exercise session.

The Fitbit Surge was often off by 15-30bpm in testing. The difference between a steady-state reading of 120bpm and 150bpm is enormous. There aren't many training applications--at least that I've encountered--where you need to know your HR, but can tolerate an error that large.

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/01/fitbit-surge-depth-review.html

honkytonks85

Thanks guys. Ended up going a chest strap that uses bluetooth to send hr to my phone - was only $99 by polar. This is specifically for measuring calories burned during cardio exercise.