Anyone has feedback on optical heart rate monitor sports watch?

msiaitf

I own several different brands of sport watches with chest strap heart rate sensors. Cannot say I am fond of them. Chest straps are easily worn out with frequent use after 1-2 years.

Garmin is coming out with the 225 model which uses optical heart rate technology like Mio. Some people think optical heart rate technology is not accurate. It does not pick up accurate heart rates when there are lots of hand movements. Is this true?

I am hoping to get some feedback. Thank you.

rumijs

I used Fitbit with HR for a month and wasn't impressed. Went back to my strap. It seemed to have to have an exact skin moisture and placement to come even close to correct. I sweat a lot and move a lot, so the band slipped around a lot. If it wasn't about 2 inches up my wrist (proximal direction) it didn't read correctly. This of course depends on wrist size and fit. I have an average wrist and wore the correct size band.

rumijs

rumijs wrote: »

I used Fitbit with HR for a month and wasn't impressed. Went back to my strap. It seemed to have to have an exact skin moisture and placement to come even close to correct. I sweat a lot and move a lot, so the band slipped around a lot. If it wasn't about 2 inches up my wrist (proximal direction) it didn't read correctly. This of course depends on wrist size and fit. I have an average wrist and wore the correct size band.

For clarification, what I mean by it didn't come close -- it would be 5-7% off. Depending on your expectations/goals that can be a lot. To me that wasn't accurate enough compared to my polar.

MeanderingMammal

The early mio tech got some reporting about being very sensitive to movement and extraneous light, so ended up being a bit unpredicatble. I understand that it's a lot better now. The Garmin 225 uses a Mio sensor and the reviews I've seen have been pretty positive.

The only observation I'd make is that it carries some practical problems.

I can use my device for both running and cycling, using an optical sensor precludes bike mounting so becomes of very limited value. There's also an issue in winter. Do you wear it against the skin, to get a read, but it'll be under the sleeve and not easy to see. Alternatively you can wear it on top of clothing, but then you lose the HR data.

Personally I see the practicalities as a very good argument to stick with a chest strap.

Psychgrrl

I shopped around and read a LOT of reviews. I bought a Garmin Vivoactive watch and chest strap. I'm really not interested in my minute-to-minute HR. I want the HR accuracy for training. The watches can be off, as previously stated, even when worn correctly. They also have to worn snuggly around the wrist and I didn't like the tight feeling.

Here's a comprehensive review I found to be very helpful:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404445,00.asp

ruthbardell

I spent a LOT of time reading reviews and tech specs, and trying to decide what features were most important to me. I bought the Garmin 225 a few weeks ago and have been really pleased with it. I use it for running, rowing and cycling. Whilst it isn't designed for anything other than running, it still keeps track of distance/route, time and heart rate which is all I need. The HR monitor is made by Mio, who claim it is EKG accurate and I have no reason not to believe that - my resting heart rate correlates with what an ECG told me and during exercise there are no weird spikes or drop outs. Just wish it was a little smaller!

lporter229

I always find his reviews to be very helpful. I am also thinking about switching to the 225 or upgrading my current HRH to the optical sensor for the 220.

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/05/garmin-fr225-gps-optical-hr.html

TavistockToad

I have a 225, loving it so far, but it's my first HRM, so I have nothing to compare it to.

Upstate_Dunadan

I had a Microsoft Band but finally got fed up with the HR being off. When I first got it over a year ago, I was OK with it, but I wasn't doing much running or cardio (other than jump rope). I'm now working running and treadmill into my daily routine and having an HRM being 30 bpm off is a deal killer, especially for HR Zone training. The straw for me was doing a nice easy 60 minute treadmill jog one morning with the Band showing my Avg HR around 160, when I can guarantee it wasn't over 130. I switched to Polar M400 with an H7 strap and love the accuracy. I never expected I'd go the strap route, but it's really not that bad, even when lifting weights. I don't plan to ever go back to optical HRM unless they can really nail down the technology.

I saw this article shortly after getting my M400, and the results aren't surprising to me -wareable.com/fitness-trackers/heart-rate-monitor-accurate-comparison-wrist