HR Tracker?

Mentali
Mentali Posts: 352 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I was looking into buying a Fitbit, but I slowly realized that the only reason I really want one is for a heartrate tracker for a more accurate indication of the calories I'm burning when I run. But when I looked online, finding a solid heartrate monitor has me confused - some of these you strap to your chest, some are wristbands, some are brands I've never heard of and some are so well-known that even I've heard of them?

I thought I was on the right track with Fitbit but now I'm at square one. What's a good starting point for heartrate monitors? Are there any brands that are seen as more or less reliable, etc?

Replies

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    edited April 2016
    Chest straps "pick up" the electrical activity that makes your heart beat. They're basically the most accurate type of heart rate monitor (HRM) you can get. Some people find them uncomfortable, and of course some are more comfortable than others. I've never been a lady and I don't wear a bra so I can't comment on that at all.

    Wrist straps shine a light into your wrist and use something like a primitive camera to "see" your capillaries expand when the blood moves through them. This is more complicated than a chest strap and there's more that can go wrong. You have to wear it tight, partly because light leaking in from outside overwhelms the way the thing works. Most people have to wear it a little further up their arm than how they'd wear a normal watch. Honestly these can be more uncomfortable than a chest strap, but not everyone agrees. I think most wrist monitors report a moving average heart rate, not your actual instantaneous rate. The best are very close, but not perfectly accurate. Optical HRMs cannot measure heart rate variability (HRV) but only the more high end software can use HRV.

    A lot of chest straps are made to be paired with Garmin, Suunto, and Polar running watches or bike computers, for obvious reasons. Most of that stuff uses something called ANT+ (or just ANT) to talk to each other. There are also chest strap HRMs that use Bluetooth which means you can pair them directly to your phone and not have to buy the watch.

    Polar's H7 will talk to your phone, and my girlfriend says it's extremely comfortable. The Wahoo and 4iiii ones do ANT+ and BT so they'll talk to a phone and dedicated exercise computers (which makes them pretty good deals).
  • pomegranatecloud
    pomegranatecloud Posts: 812 Member
    I love my Garmin 235.
  • PiperGirl08
    PiperGirl08 Posts: 134 Member
    edited April 2016
    I have both Garmin and Polar straps and watches. IMHO the Polar works better with a sports bra because its design leaves room for the bottom band (I'm thinking Garmin didn't test theirs on women). The H7 is also supposed to be EKG-accurate, though the Garmin is close. Please be advised that the Polar strap (bluetooth) will not work with Garmin (ANT+) and vice-versa so you do have to choose a platform.

    NorthCascades details the problems with the wrist monitors above. There is one, though I can't remember which, that promises EKG accuracy. He also correctly points out that chest straps are inherently more accurate. But they do lack the 24x7 monitoring that some enjoy.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    If you're looking for something to track your runs consider getting something with a chest strap and GPS, that way you can also track distances, pace, elevation etc (if you're interested in that stuff) I've found that my Garmin 910's estimates to very close to the net burns using Runners World formula which gives me a pretty high level of confidence in the accuracy. A straight HRM measure time and heart rate and then estimates based on just two factors.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    NorthCascades details the problems with the wrist monitors above. There is one, though I can't remember which, that promises EKG accuracy.

    Mio Fuse, but I think all Mio HRMs use the same sensor. I had a Fuse for several months, it was nice to be able to record my HR while I swam (ANT+ travels about 2 inches through water, I'd wear it immediately next to my watch) but otherwise it didn't work very well for me. It was definitely less accurate than my Garmin chest strap.
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Chest straps "pick up" the electrical activity that makes your heart beat. They're basically the most accurate type of heart rate monitor (HRM) you can get. Some people find them uncomfortable, and of course some are more comfortable than others. I've never been a lady and I don't wear a bra so I can't comment on that at all.

    Wrist straps shine a light into your wrist and use something like a primitive camera to "see" your capillaries expand when the blood moves through them. This is more complicated than a chest strap and there's more that can go wrong. You have to wear it tight, partly because light leaking in from outside overwhelms the way the thing works. Most people have to wear it a little further up their arm than how they'd wear a normal watch. Honestly these can be more uncomfortable than a chest strap, but not everyone agrees. I think most wrist monitors report a moving average heart rate, not your actual instantaneous rate. The best are very close, but not perfectly accurate. Optical HRMs cannot measure heart rate variability (HRV) but only the more high end software can use HRV.

    A lot of chest straps are made to be paired with Garmin, Suunto, and Polar running watches or bike computers, for obvious reasons. Most of that stuff uses something called ANT+ (or just ANT) to talk to each other. There are also chest strap HRMs that use Bluetooth which means you can pair them directly to your phone and not have to buy the watch.

    Polar's H7 will talk to your phone, and my girlfriend says it's extremely comfortable. The Wahoo and 4iiii ones do ANT+ and BT so they'll talk to a phone and dedicated exercise computers (which makes them pretty good deals).

    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    If you're looking for something to track your runs consider getting something with a chest strap and GPS, that way you can also track distances, pace, elevation etc (if you're interested in that stuff) I've found that my Garmin 910's estimates to very close to the net burns using Runners World formula which gives me a pretty high level of confidence in the accuracy. A straight HRM measure time and heart rate and then estimates based on just two factors.

    I agree with the above.
  • kronnos2001
    kronnos2001 Posts: 2 Member
    edited April 2016
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    NorthCascades details the problems with the wrist monitors above. There is one, though I can't remember which, that promises EKG accuracy.

    Mio Fuse, but I think all Mio HRMs use the same sensor. I had a Fuse for several months, it was nice to be able to record my HR while I swam (ANT+ travels about 2 inches through water, I'd wear it immediately next to my watch) but otherwise it didn't work very well for me. It was definitely less accurate than my Garmin chest strap.

    I am using the MIO Fuse for swimming, and I am having the same problems. the heart rate goes from 89 to 140, to 90 in a matter of seconds. and the touch sensors keep going on and off in the water. The other issue is that myfitnesspal does not have MIO as a fitness app, so I cant share the data.

    Any suggestions for Lane swimming? any devices with HRM?


  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Garmin Swim? Garmin Fenix 3 plus HRM-SWIM?

    I'd like to find a good solution myself. I have a Garmin Fenix 3 HR, but the built-in HRM can't be used in water.
  • thereshegoesagain
    thereshegoesagain Posts: 1,056 Member
    I bought a waterproof Misfit Charge HR through Amazon which was delivered yesterday. So far I'm very happy with it, I'm headed to the pool in an hour and a half. I'll report back later tonight.
    It cost $259.
  • Jeff_01022014
    Jeff_01022014 Posts: 17 Member
    Fitbit charge hr works more accurately than my Garmin GPS watch with chest strap. I was apparently training at 235 for 30min then 150 for the next 30.
  • thereshegoesagain
    thereshegoesagain Posts: 1,056 Member
    My Fitbit Charge HR appeared to accurately log my 4 miles on the treadmill this morning. It synced fine with MFP. But when I swam 2,000 yards this afternoon, it didn't appear to register. I stopped a few times to check my HR, which seemed to be on point, but it didn't register calories burned for my swim.
    It may be me, I need to double check how I set it up. I did notice it is incredibly hard to read in the sunlight.
  • Jeff_01022014
    Jeff_01022014 Posts: 17 Member
    It doesn't have a swim function because it isn't supposed to be waterproof. It is designed for sweat and rain resiliency.
  • thereshegoesagain
    thereshegoesagain Posts: 1,056 Member
    edited April 2016
    Jeff_01022014 wrote: »
    It doesn't have a swim function because it isn't supposed to be waterproof. It is designed for sweat and rain resiliency.

    I thought that at least it would register some form of exercise/calorie burn from my heart rate going up, but nope, nuthin'.
    I also discovered that it registers my heart rate no higher than the low 120s. I'm 58 yeas old and thought that I'm supposed to get to about 160 for optimum results. But no matter how hard I sprint while swimming, it won't go high enough. I got the same low readings this morning on my treadmill.
    I was moving along at about 4 miles an hour with the treadmill at an incline. I tried moving the FB around on my wrist, but it made no difference.
    Any thoughts on why I can't get my HR up? My resting HR is 52-54, which matches up with the reading at my doctor's office a couple of weeks sgo.
  • LazSommer
    LazSommer Posts: 1,851 Member
    thereshegoesagain wrote: »
    My Fitbit Charge HR appeared to accurately log my 4 miles on the treadmill this morning. It synced fine with MFP. But when I swam 2,000 yards this afternoon, it didn't appear to register. I stopped a few times to check my HR, which seemed to be on point, but it didn't register calories burned for my swim.
    It may be me, I need to double check how I set it up. I did notice it is incredibly hard to read in the sunlight.

    I thought you weren't supposed to submerge those?
  • thereshegoesagain
    thereshegoesagain Posts: 1,056 Member
    LazSommer wrote: »
    thereshegoesagain wrote: »
    My Fitbit Charge HR appeared to accurately log my 4 miles on the treadmill this morning. It synced fine with MFP. But when I swam 2,000 yards this afternoon, it didn't appear to register. I stopped a few times to check my HR, which seemed to be on point, but it didn't register calories burned for my swim.
    It may be me, I need to double check how I set it up. I did notice it is incredibly hard to read in the sunlight.

    I thought you weren't supposed to submerge those?

    Mine is waterproof, I found it on Amazon.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    LazSommer wrote: »
    thereshegoesagain wrote: »
    My Fitbit Charge HR appeared to accurately log my 4 miles on the treadmill this morning. It synced fine with MFP. But when I swam 2,000 yards this afternoon, it didn't appear to register. I stopped a few times to check my HR, which seemed to be on point, but it didn't register calories burned for my swim.
    It may be me, I need to double check how I set it up. I did notice it is incredibly hard to read in the sunlight.

    I thought you weren't supposed to submerge those?

    Directly from Fitbit, no. There are some companies that buy them from Fitbit, waterproof them and resell them for $100 more than the normal cost.

Categories