Heart rate monitor recommendations

2»

Replies

  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    If you're just looking to monitor HR, then most anything based off a chest strap sensor will probably be good enough. Garmin will provide you the most data in the best tool/layout. Suunto is probably second, then Polar. Whether that data is meaningful/beneficial to you over the basic data you can get from fitbit and the like is up to you.

    Just to clarify things (though I think someone else may have done so earlier), no matter the arm or chest strap you use, that strap isn't actually storing information (with very few exceptions). The information is being broadcasted via ANT+, bluetooth, and/or whatever Polar's less than third party friendly system is called. You'll get the same HR data from all of them, how the device you're using to pick up that data uses and displays it is a whole other issue.

    For example, it doesn't matter if I use a Scosche, Wahoo, or Garmin HR monitor, they'll all broadcast to my Garmin devices via ANT+ and that information will be displayed in Garmin Connect the same. Some of those HR monitors might also do other things, like rebroadcast other ANT+ plus sensors over bluetooth, show your color coded HR zone on the device, or measure and broadcast running dynamics, almost none of them are storing the data on the device.

    Correct.

    My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the sensing/monitoring of HR (what happens before any calculations happen) is typically better via chest strap than it is arm bands, wrist/watches, etc.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    Wahoo fitness Tickr, $50. I got my in August 2016 and it's still working perfectly with its original battery! I monitor it with the free Wahoo fitness app, which then syncs to MFP and Strava.

    http://a.co/e664lIK

    (Note that the advanced Tickr models -- TickrX and Ticker run -- do not get as high a reliability rating as the baseline Tickr.)

    I think the equivalent Garmin or Polar would be fine as well. One nice thing is that the ANT+ and Bluetooth protocols are standardized between all these units so they are somewhat exchangeable.

    And, despite what @MeanderingMammal says about HR zone training, I have found it very useful even as an older non-competitor for monitoring relative level of effort between various cross-training activities. My only issue at present is that I don't have a solution for swimming.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    Wahoo fitness Tickr, $50. I got my in August 2016 and it's still working perfectly with its original battery! I monitor it with the free Wahoo fitness app, which then syncs to MFP and Strava.

    http://a.co/e664lIK

    (Note that the advanced Tickr models -- TickrX and Ticker run -- do not get as high a reliability rating as the baseline Tickr.)

    I think the equivalent Garmin or Polar would be fine as well. One nice thing is that the ANT+ and Bluetooth protocols are standardized between all these units so they are somewhat exchangeable.

    And, despite what @MeanderingMammal says about HR zone training, I have found it very useful even as an older non-competitor for monitoring relative level of effort between various cross-training activities. My only issue at present is that I don't have a solution for swimming.

    And as long as you understand that you're only measuring level of effort and skill progression, as contrasted with calories. Nobody is going to disagree. It's when some people suggest that HR on bike correlates one 1:1 ration of HR in running for calories that you'll begin to get pushback.

    I know this, because MM uses an HRM for almost all of their training.

    Including the Garmin swim band which got really high marks.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    If you're just looking to monitor HR, then most anything based off a chest strap sensor will probably be good enough. Garmin will provide you the most data in the best tool/layout. Suunto is probably second, then Polar. Whether that data is meaningful/beneficial to you over the basic data you can get from fitbit and the like is up to you.

    Just to clarify things (though I think someone else may have done so earlier), no matter the arm or chest strap you use, that strap isn't actually storing information (with very few exceptions). The information is being broadcasted via ANT+, bluetooth, and/or whatever Polar's less than third party friendly system is called. You'll get the same HR data from all of them, how the device you're using to pick up that data uses and displays it is a whole other issue.

    For example, it doesn't matter if I use a Scosche, Wahoo, or Garmin HR monitor, they'll all broadcast to my Garmin devices via ANT+ and that information will be displayed in Garmin Connect the same. Some of those HR monitors might also do other things, like rebroadcast other ANT+ plus sensors over bluetooth, show your color coded HR zone on the device, or measure and broadcast running dynamics, almost none of them are storing the data on the device.

    Correct.

    My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the sensing/monitoring of HR (what happens before any calculations happen) is typically better via chest strap than it is arm bands, wrist/watches, etc.

    From what I understand the better arm band ones are on par with the chest based HR monitors. I'd have to reskim some reviews on DCRainmaker's blog, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,966 Member
    I have a Fitbit from a couple years ago and I like it. I’m not picky though. I think it’s pretty handy and gives me a lot of info that I never thought I would need lol
  • bc2830
    bc2830 Posts: 4 Member
    Polar H10 (cheststrap sensor) and Polar A370 (wrist-based activity tracker)
  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    If you're just looking to monitor HR, then most anything based off a chest strap sensor will probably be good enough. Garmin will provide you the most data in the best tool/layout. Suunto is probably second, then Polar. Whether that data is meaningful/beneficial to you over the basic data you can get from fitbit and the like is up to you.

    Just to clarify things (though I think someone else may have done so earlier), no matter the arm or chest strap you use, that strap isn't actually storing information (with very few exceptions). The information is being broadcasted via ANT+, bluetooth, and/or whatever Polar's less than third party friendly system is called. You'll get the same HR data from all of them, how the device you're using to pick up that data uses and displays it is a whole other issue.

    For example, it doesn't matter if I use a Scosche, Wahoo, or Garmin HR monitor, they'll all broadcast to my Garmin devices via ANT+ and that information will be displayed in Garmin Connect the same. Some of those HR monitors might also do other things, like rebroadcast other ANT+ plus sensors over bluetooth, show your color coded HR zone on the device, or measure and broadcast running dynamics, almost none of them are storing the data on the device.

    Correct.

    My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the sensing/monitoring of HR (what happens before any calculations happen) is typically better via chest strap than it is arm bands, wrist/watches, etc.

    From what I understand the better arm band ones are on par with the chest based HR monitors. I'd have to reskim some reviews on DCRainmaker's blog, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

    Surprisingly (at least to me) my Fenix 5x wrist based HRM is as accurate as my strap (Garmin HRM Run). Now I only tested this while running so YMMV with other cardio (especially if you have to move/bend your wrist).
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    Wahoo fitness Tickr, $50. I got my in August 2016 and it's still working perfectly with its original battery! I monitor it with the free Wahoo fitness app, which then syncs to MFP and Strava.

    http://a.co/e664lIK

    (Note that the advanced Tickr models -- TickrX and Ticker run -- do not get as high a reliability rating as the baseline Tickr.)

    I think the equivalent Garmin or Polar would be fine as well. One nice thing is that the ANT+ and Bluetooth protocols are standardized between all these units so they are somewhat exchangeable.

    And, despite what @MeanderingMammal says about HR zone training, I have found it very useful even as an older non-competitor for monitoring relative level of effort between various cross-training activities. My only issue at present is that I don't have a solution for swimming.

    And as long as you understand that you're only measuring level of effort and skill progression, as contrasted with calories. Nobody is going to disagree. It's when some people suggest that HR on bike correlates one 1:1 ration of HR in running for calories that you'll begin to get pushback.

    I know this, because MM uses an HRM for almost all of their training.

    Including the Garmin swim band which got really high marks.

    It's worth highlighting that whilst I do collect HR data for the majority of my training, I'm not using it as a contemporaneous guide. There are so many factors that affect HR is just not a reliable metric.

    As an example, about a month ago I ran two 10Ks on the same route, about 36 hours apart. I did the Sunday morning race about 2 minutes slower, but my average HR for the race was 15bpm higher. Had I used HR as my effort guide, I'd have been running far more slowly than I was capable of.

    I know why my HR was so much higher; a marathon on the Saturday followed by several pints of a very nice dry cider meant I was still very dehydrated.

    Similar thing on my turbo trainer. On different days my HR will be different, despite throwing down the same power. That might be down to time of day, temperature of the garage, how much coffee I've had, how stressed my day at work has been.

    Heart rate is moderately useful as a corroboration, but in isolation it's of extremely limited value.

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    If you're just looking to monitor HR, then most anything based off a chest strap sensor will probably be good enough. Garmin will provide you the most data in the best tool/layout. Suunto is probably second, then Polar. Whether that data is meaningful/beneficial to you over the basic data you can get from fitbit and the like is up to you.

    Just to clarify things (though I think someone else may have done so earlier), no matter the arm or chest strap you use, that strap isn't actually storing information (with very few exceptions). The information is being broadcasted via ANT+, bluetooth, and/or whatever Polar's less than third party friendly system is called. You'll get the same HR data from all of them, how the device you're using to pick up that data uses and displays it is a whole other issue.

    For example, it doesn't matter if I use a Scosche, Wahoo, or Garmin HR monitor, they'll all broadcast to my Garmin devices via ANT+ and that information will be displayed in Garmin Connect the same. Some of those HR monitors might also do other things, like rebroadcast other ANT+ plus sensors over bluetooth, show your color coded HR zone on the device, or measure and broadcast running dynamics, almost none of them are storing the data on the device.

    Correct.

    My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), is that the sensing/monitoring of HR (what happens before any calculations happen) is typically better via chest strap than it is arm bands, wrist/watches, etc.

    From what I understand the better arm band ones are on par with the chest based HR monitors. I'd have to reskim some reviews on DCRainmaker's blog, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

    With any sensor you're considering contemporaneous accuracy, consistency and usability.

    Within those electrical sensing and optical sensing are within margin of error of accuracy for contemporaneous measurement. Optical can lag a little, as electrical is measuring heart control activity whereas optical is measuring actual blood flow.

    With respect to stability and consistency, this is affected by optical measuring an output, rather than an input. Measuring at the heart you've got more stability than measuring flow, as several factors can affect flow measurement; movement, constriction, ambient light. That said, in most cases the effect of that is lost in the noise as errors can be both up and down, and are still pretty marginal anyway.

    So with respect to accuracy and stability/ consistency a chest strap is more accurate and more stable. That is a pretty meaningless better though, as you're talking about deviation of less than 5% much of the time.

    This is where you get into usability. Does the gross data lead to different conclusions? This is where all the received wisdom breaks down. Most of the n=1 reports are people taking a few measuring points. I'm currently sitting on a sofa, my HR is 58bpm according to my wrist optical, a manual measure gives me 61, and my chest strap is telling me 57. If I go back to that in five minutes, things will have changed.

    What's more meaningful is that when I go out into my turbo trainer for 2 hours I can be absolutely confident that both an optical trace and an electrical trace will show a steady increase in HR during the steady state portions, some rapid increases, with the recovery from later intervals being slower and not reducing to the same levels of earlier rest intervals. I don't really care too much if the peaks are 185bpm or 189bpm.

    So whilst it's technically, although somewhat pedantically, correct to suggest that electrical is more accurate, it's broadly meaningless in the vast majority of cases.

Categories