Heart Rate Monitor?

klr1981
klr1981 Posts: 46 Member
edited November 24 in Fitness and Exercise
Do you have one? What are the benefits? Do you like it? Do you feel it is accurate?

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    edited January 2018
    All my HRMs have been accurate for counting heartbeats when they and their straps worked properly.
    (Polar FT1, FT7, FT60, Garmin Edge 800 & 1000).

    Main benefits are so I know my HR during cardio exercise (cycling primarily), a training aid.

    FT1 - very, very basic, FT7 - very basic functions but watch was OK, FT60 much better with more sophisticated and interesting features.
    Neither FT7 or FT60 proved completely reliable or long lasting. Garmins on the other hand have been excellent.


    What are you hoping to get out of owning/using a HRM?
    What sports or activities?
  • klr1981
    klr1981 Posts: 46 Member
    Mainly just to see how hard I’m actually working during my workouts. Thank you for the information!
  • dougii
    dougii Posts: 679 Member
    My Garmin (with chest strap) is very useful when I am running. I use it to stay in specific heart rate zones for maximum calorie burn. It allows me to see exactly how hard my effort is and gives me more ability to sustain the activity.
  • Jeepfreak81
    Jeepfreak81 Posts: 35 Member
    I have a Scosche Rhythm arm band heart rate monitor and love it. It seems very accurate when I've cross checked it and works well. The only thing is it's a tad pricey at around $80. Also you need to pair it via Bluetooth, it doesn't show or store the data on the monitor itself. I use wahoo fitness app for this. Helps be a little more accurate with calories burned and also to know if I'm in my target heart range.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    I'm a runner, I have a Garmin FR225 which gives me a calorie burn that isn't far off the bodyweight x 0.63 x distance in miles calculation
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,944 Member
    I have a Scosche Rhythm arm band heart rate monitor and love it. It seems very accurate when I've cross checked it and works well. The only thing is it's a tad pricey at around $80. Also you need to pair it via Bluetooth, it doesn't show or store the data on the monitor itself. I use wahoo fitness app for this. Helps be a little more accurate with calories burned and also to know if I'm in my target heart range.

    I have the same for running and I love it. It's a perfect little thing and compared to most 'watch'-like monitors it has the advantage that it can be worn literally everywhere (yes, also on your forehead or in your undies). Oh yes, the advantage: the wrist gets colder quicker than for example the upper part of the lower arm, and hence the HR is less accurate.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    klr1981 wrote: »
    Do you have one? What are the benefits? Do you like it? Do you feel it is accurate?

    I've got a Forerunner 735XT which has an Elevate wrist sensor, also and HRM Tri strap, HRM Swim strap and HRM2 strap.

    The 735XT in its own is good enough for most running, but for anything that involves wrist flexion is less reliable. That's cycling, rowing etc.

    The HRM Tri will synch with the 735XT head end, and gives a lot of running dynamics data. If I was only interested in HR I'd probably not bother, but the dynamics data is important to me.

    The HRM Swim stores HR data when I'm in the pool, and downloads it after the fact. If anything that's less useful, but that's a function of swimming for X-training, rather than as a primary sport.

    I use the HRM2 with my Garmin Edge cycling computer. Useful for zone training on the turbo trainer, but not really of huge value for real world training, except post training analysis.

    The 735XT has always on HR, but the only valuable part of that is Resting Heart Rate.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,289 Member
    I have a low-end Polar HRM. When I've been actively training (I'm a rower) I've used it to manage workout intensity in line with my training plan.

    Nowadays, I'm not competing so not doing structured training, just working out for fun and general fitness. I use it to make sure I don't slack off during workouts ( ;) ) and to get general idea of fitness level changes by paying attention to my heart rate response to exercise (observing things like how fast heart rate drops after a workout segment, or how heart rate responds to exercise intensity and duration).

    Once in a while, I wear it overnight to spot check my AM resting heart rate, another fitness benchmark.

    It seems to be accurate for these things, to the extent that I have independent reliable evidence. (Example: Before my AM cataract surgery, my resting heart rate set off the medical "low heart rate" alarm, confirming my estimates of my AM resting rate. ;) Don't worry: My doctor confirmed that fitness induced low heart rate is a fine & healthy thing!).

    However, for a HRM to be close to accurate for training purposes, it does need to know your actual AM resting and real maximum heart rates. Age based formulas for HR max are notoriously inaccurate. Some HRM will let you set these values, and some will estimate actual max from exercise tests.

    Most people can get good fitness training results using RPE (rate of perceived exertion) methods, without a HRM. But I'm a data geek, so I like my HRM.

    I don't consider the HRM deeply useful for calorie burn estimates, because heart rate is so influenced by extraneous factors like heat, hydration, and strain. That said, I do use its estimates for MFP exercise logging for activities it's most likely to estimate well (steady state cardio or close to it). Sometimes I adjust those estimates when I know they're off (example: high reported burn from rowing in very hot weather). I'd never use it to estimate something like weight training: It's laughably far off.

    When I was starting weight loss, I tended to compare different exercise calorie estimates for my frequent steady-state cardio activities: HRM, MFP exercise database, specialized online calculators (for biking, walking), exercise machine estimate, etc. Other estimating methods tend to give me higher burn estimates for those things than the HRM, and on the calorie burn side I prefer to estimate a little low vs. a little high.
  • PetiteHabanero
    PetiteHabanero Posts: 44 Member
    edited January 2018
    I LOVE my HRM. It seems to be quite accurate. I only wear it during workout and do not turn it on for warm up or cool down. Best investment I have made to date. Bought my first one in 2015.

    Mine is a chest strap. I have found those to be most accurate.
  • Fflpnari
    Fflpnari Posts: 975 Member
    i have a fitbit charge 2 that i wear 24/7 and love it!
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    klr1981 wrote: »
    Do you have one? What are the benefits? Do you like it? Do you feel it is accurate?

    I've got a Forerunner 735XT which has an Elevate wrist sensor, also and HRM Tri strap, HRM Swim strap and HRM2 strap.

    The 735XT in its own is good enough for most running, but for anything that involves wrist flexion is less reliable. That's cycling, rowing etc.

    The HRM Tri will synch with the 735XT head end, and gives a lot of running dynamics data. If I was only interested in HR I'd probably not bother, but the dynamics data is important to me.

    The HRM Swim stores HR data when I'm in the pool, and downloads it after the fact. If anything that's less useful, but that's a function of swimming for X-training, rather than as a primary sport.

    I use the HRM2 with my Garmin Edge cycling computer. Useful for zone training on the turbo trainer, but not really of huge value for real world training, except post training analysis.

    The 735XT has always on HR, but the only valuable part of that is Resting Heart Rate.

    Sidetrack, but looking at the HRM-swim and HRM-Tri. You mention the swim stores data and downloads after the fact. Does the HRM-Tri not do the same thing for swimming? I thought the difference was the swim was tighter and kept better contact while swimming. Would the HRM-tri be useless for a pool swim?

    To the topic, I've got a Garmin Fenix 3HR. Seems accurate for running but I aven't had it long enough to test much else out. My Vivoactive HR was pretty spot on, based on how I lost weight vs expected. It just lacked some features (like swim HR) that I was looking for.
  • kikecr
    kikecr Posts: 1 Member
    I just have the Polar M200, don't need any band and it's lovely, help me to stay in my burner zone and motivation
  • _mr_b
    _mr_b Posts: 302 Member
    I’ve a Garmin Fenix which has an in-built HRM, I love it as it let’s me do all the multi-sport stuff I want while recording data with one device. For me the HRM is one set of data to analyse amongst all the other data available, while allowing the unit to more accurately calculate calories burned.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    I have a Wahoo Fitness Tickr which I link to various fitness apps on my phone (including the Wahoo Fitness app, which can upload to a large number of other apps, including MFP).

    When I run, I keep my phone in my hand using a strap. The numbers are big enough for my aging eyes to see (unlike watches). I also use the phone on my bike. I have even towed my phone in a buoy as I did open-water swims (but without a HRM, sadly).

    Wahoo now sells a number of options. I have the plain Tickr, but if i did it again, I'd probably get one of the better ones. I've now had the Tickr for a year without changing the battery, which is pretty good.

    So, why use a HRM?

    1) To do zone-based training. Know when you're slacking off.

    2) To estimate calorie burn.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member

    Sidetrack, but looking at the HRM-swim and HRM-Tri. You mention the swim stores data and downloads after the fact. Does the HRM-Tri not do the same thing for swimming? I thought the difference was the swim was tighter and kept better contact while swimming. Would the HRM-tri be useless for a pool swim?
    .

    The difference is the compound. The Tri will perish fairly quickly in treated water, it's optimised for open water.

    The Swim is deeper, and has a better chest fit for pool swimming when there's no suit to keep it in place.
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member

    Sidetrack, but looking at the HRM-swim and HRM-Tri. You mention the swim stores data and downloads after the fact. Does the HRM-Tri not do the same thing for swimming? I thought the difference was the swim was tighter and kept better contact while swimming. Would the HRM-tri be useless for a pool swim?
    .

    The difference is the compound. The Tri will perish fairly quickly in treated water, it's optimised for open water.

    The Swim is deeper, and has a better chest fit for pool swimming when there's no suit to keep it in place.

    I believe the Tri also does all the HRM-RUN metrics too.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    scorpio516 wrote: »

    Sidetrack, but looking at the HRM-swim and HRM-Tri. You mention the swim stores data and downloads after the fact. Does the HRM-Tri not do the same thing for swimming? I thought the difference was the swim was tighter and kept better contact while swimming. Would the HRM-tri be useless for a pool swim?
    .

    The difference is the compound. The Tri will perish fairly quickly in treated water, it's optimised for open water.

    The Swim is deeper, and has a better chest fit for pool swimming when there's no suit to keep it in place.

    I believe the Tri also does all the HRM-RUN metrics too.

    It does, I'd highlighted that in the previous post, but was responding specifically to the pool swimming aspect there.
  • dervari
    dervari Posts: 805 Member
    The arm HRMs aren't near as accurate as the chest bands.

    That being said, I've had some issues with the Garmin soft strap giving anomalous readings after a while. Some threads I've seen seem to indicate that when sweat gets into the band it can cause a short between the two connectors.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited January 2018
    dervari wrote: »
    The arm HRMs aren't near as accurate as the chest bands.

    The question this raises is what do you mean by accurate?

    Recent comparative tests I've seen indicate instantaneous comparison as within margin of error, and session trends being consistent. Discrepancies are greatest in the higher anaerobic range, and low aerobic. For me, that relates to below 55bpm and above 185bpm.

    What causes most sensor issues for wrist worn optical tends to be flex, meaning that the blood flow is sufficiently constrained. That's the advantage that the Rhythm device has, the variability of blood flow in the upper arm is much lower due to increased soft tissue in comparison to the wrist.

    First generation optically were very poor, we're now in third and fourth generation.
  • _mr_b
    _mr_b Posts: 302 Member
    While I accept that a chest strap is usually better, I’ve not noticed any gaps or anomalies with my wrist-based HRM and it’s one less thing I have to worry about when I go training.
    I also now have 24hr heart rate data along with a ton of other data I wouldn’t have access to either.

    For me it’s the same as step trackers - they’re all accurate enough for what most of us need and the biggest requirement is that they are consistent so we can analyse the data over time and use it to make informed changes for the better.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    dervari wrote: »
    The arm HRMs aren't near as accurate as the chest bands.

    That being said, I've had some issues with the Garmin soft strap giving anomalous readings after a while. Some threads I've seen seem to indicate that when sweat gets into the band it can cause a short between the two connectors.
    dervari wrote: »
    The arm HRMs aren't near as accurate as the chest bands.

    The question this raises is what do you mean by accurate?

    Recent comparative tests I've seen indicate instantaneous comparison as within margin of error, and session trends being consistent. Discrepancies are greatest in the higher anaerobic range, and low aerobic. For me, that relates to below 55bpm and above 185bpm.

    What causes most sensor issues for wrist worn optical tends to be flex, meaning that the blood flow is sufficiently constrained. That's the advantage that the Rhythm device has, the variability of blood flow in the upper arm is much lower due to increased soft tissue in comparison to the wrist.

    First generation optically were very poor, we're now in third and fourth generation.

    When you say arm, as MM quite rightly pointed out, there's a great chasm between the Schoshe forearm models and the Fitbit/Garmin/Jawbone wrist models.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member

    Sidetrack, but looking at the HRM-swim and HRM-Tri. You mention the swim stores data and downloads after the fact. Does the HRM-Tri not do the same thing for swimming? I thought the difference was the swim was tighter and kept better contact while swimming. Would the HRM-tri be useless for a pool swim?
    .

    The difference is the compound. The Tri will perish fairly quickly in treated water, it's optimised for open water.

    The Swim is deeper, and has a better chest fit for pool swimming when there's no suit to keep it in place.

    Thanks. Hadn't thought about the band breaking down. It's just that these things aren't cheap ($150 Cdn for the Swim and 180 Cdn for the Tri).
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member

    Sidetrack, but looking at the HRM-swim and HRM-Tri. You mention the swim stores data and downloads after the fact. Does the HRM-Tri not do the same thing for swimming? I thought the difference was the swim was tighter and kept better contact while swimming. Would the HRM-tri be useless for a pool swim?
    .

    The difference is the compound. The Tri will perish fairly quickly in treated water, it's optimised for open water.

    The Swim is deeper, and has a better chest fit for pool swimming when there's no suit to keep it in place.

    Thanks. Hadn't thought about the band breaking down. It's just that these things aren't cheap ($150 Cdn for the Swim and 180 Cdn for the Tri).

    I know that I'm not a big advocate of HR tracking for the vast majority of people, but it really isn't of much value for swimming, unless one is a competitive athlete.

    In a Tri you'll wear it in the water because it avoids the need to put it on in T1, and the HRM Tri will cope with that limited exposure to treated water reasonably well. You then get the cycling and running data, so it gives you a complete data set.

    If it wasn't for the running dynamics in the Tri I'd live with the wrist worn monitor most of the time. As I highlighted upthread I don't use my 735 on the bike, I have a mounting for the Edge on all of my bikes except the folder that I use for London commuting.
  • WilmaValley
    WilmaValley Posts: 1,092 Member
    What great suggestions, have been thinking about buying something!
  • ronocnikral
    ronocnikral Posts: 176 Member

    Sidetrack, but looking at the HRM-swim and HRM-Tri. You mention the swim stores data and downloads after the fact. Does the HRM-Tri not do the same thing for swimming? I thought the difference was the swim was tighter and kept better contact while swimming. Would the HRM-tri be useless for a pool swim?
    .

    The difference is the compound. The Tri will perish fairly quickly in treated water, it's optimised for open water.

    The Swim is deeper, and has a better chest fit for pool swimming when there's no suit to keep it in place.

    Thanks. Hadn't thought about the band breaking down. It's just that these things aren't cheap ($150 Cdn for the Swim and 180 Cdn for the Tri).

    I know that I'm not a big advocate of HR tracking for the vast majority of people, but it really isn't of much value for swimming, unless one is a competitive athlete.

    In a Tri you'll wear it in the water because it avoids the need to put it on in T1, and the HRM Tri will cope with that limited exposure to treated water reasonably well. You then get the cycling and running data, so it gives you a complete data set.

    If it wasn't for the running dynamics in the Tri I'd live with the wrist worn monitor most of the time. As I highlighted upthread I don't use my 735 on the bike, I have a mounting for the Edge on all of my bikes except the folder that I use for London commuting.

    I've found the wrist HR to not be accurate in some instances. I think it does fine throughout the day. But, take my normal workout which is 3 or so miles on the treadmill, 1500-2000' of stairs and another 3 or so miles on the TM. If I'm not wearing my strap, but relying strictly on the optical HR (referred to as wrist above) I settle in to about what would be expected during the initial 3 mile warm up. I then hit the stairs, HR about as expected. When I head back down (it takes about 15-20 mins up, 8-10 mins down), my HR goes through the roof as my cadence picks up when I rely only on the optical. As logic would imply, and backed up by my chest strap, my HR actually goes down when descending the stairs, to around 100-110 bpm. Not up to 190-200 bpm as shown by the optical sensor.

    Specifically, I wear a garmin fenix 3 watch. My only guess is garmin ties some sort of algorithm to HR and cadence and only spot checks the HR with the optical sensor. What does it mean? if you have a discrepancy that would counter the algorithm, which I think is high intensity/low pace or VV, it may not be accurate at all. Depending on how nit picky one is, how well they know their body or how much they care, it may or may not impact a person.

This discussion has been closed.