How far up on the wrist?

crystalmorrison378
crystalmorrison378 Posts: 180 Member
edited November 17 in Fitness and Exercise
So husband surprised me with a fitness tracker. It's a zefit 2 pulse( not what I would have bought for myself... I wanted a Fitbit Charge 2) anyway... This 1 is ok but I was wondering how far up on the wrist should it be worn to get the most accurate heart rate?

Replies

  • ocrXfitter
    ocrXfitter Posts: 123 Member
    edited April 2017
    I wear my Fitbit Blaze one finger width above my wrist bone.
  • capaul42
    capaul42 Posts: 1,390 Member
    ch02kx6jt4m9.jpg
    This is how I wear my Charge 2
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    Does the manufacturer give a suggestion?
  • crystalmorrison378
    crystalmorrison378 Posts: 180 Member
    lorrpb wrote: »
    Does the manufacturer give a suggestion?

    No they dont... It just says not to wear it on your dominant arm.

    On the inside of the wrist... That's interesting! Might give that a try!
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    I have a Samsung gear fit 2. I wear mine pretty high up. I've tested both inside and outside as I thought inside would be better for HR but it really doesn't seem to matter in my case. obt7u28ytjf3.jpg
  • capaul42
    capaul42 Posts: 1,390 Member
    I find inside more comfortable, I always wore my watch this way too
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    Most accurate location would be meatiest part of your forearm, about 15-20% down from the elbow. Or mid bicep.

    Wrist is an awful place to get HR, too much bone. That's one of the major reason why wrist based HR sucks.
  • Misspinklift
    Misspinklift Posts: 384 Member
    edited April 2017
    I would say just far enough where it doesn't move and not tight enough where it bothers you.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    That's one of the major reason why wrist based HR sucks.

    Always on HR is pointless anyway.
  • crystalmorrison378
    crystalmorrison378 Posts: 180 Member
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    Most accurate location would be meatiest part of your forearm, about 15-20% down from the elbow. Or mid bicep.

    Wrist is an awful place to get HR, too much bone. That's one of the major reason why wrist based HR sucks.

    Yeah I can see now after having this a few days no matter where I wear it, it's anywhere from 20-50 beats off. Like I said I didn't choose this particular tracker.. my husband bought it for me as a gift and he really had no idea what to look for... I'm considering returning it but I so to want to hurt his feelings.. that and the fact after reading up on even the most expensive trackers I've found the HR is always off... So I may just keep this 1. It does fairly well counting steps and it reminds me to get up and get moving every 30 min or so. Other than the HR being off so badly I'm pretty happy with it.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    crystalmorrison378 wrote: »
    ...that and the fact after reading up on even the most expensive trackers I've found the HR is always off...

    There is a lot of anecdata around about optical HR. I've seen people condemn optical, then recommend Schoche devices as an alternative.

    In the absence of knowing the provenance of what you read, including software versions and the circumstances of use you can't have much confidence in the reporting.

    Fwiw the latest Garmin top end Tri watch doesn't currently have a chest strap bundle. The running dynamics data that comes from the latest generation of running and Tri chest straps is now embedded in a running dynamics pod.

    That indicates a degree of confidence in the product.
  • pondee629
    pondee629 Posts: 2,469 Member
    About two fingers width up from the wrist bone.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories