Heart rate monitor

Larrykristy
Larrykristy Posts: 2 Member
edited November 24 in Fitness and Exercise
I am looking for a very accurate chest strap monitor that will display my heart rate on the watch. I dont want to have to push any buttons I just want to look at my wrist and see it. I had a Timex one but the display was too small as the the time was the biggest number. I have a Fitbit charge 2 but you have to push a button and at high levels is not that great. I do HIIT and use my heart rate to twll me when to start the next interval and when to stop. I just want a big bright display with ONE number on the screen. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Replies

  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    Any of the Garmin Forerunners that allow for customizable screens will do it. I believe that would be the 230's and up. In my experience the straps are very accurate and comfortable as well (I only use them for running and cycling).
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,983 Member
    Just a thought: Do you have heart problems that you don't want your HR to be too high?
  • trochanter
    trochanter Posts: 76 Member
    You could just buy a heart rate strap compatible with a phone app if you don't need a wrist based display

    v69ygwkm4hqi.jpg
  • Larrykristy
    Larrykristy Posts: 2 Member
    I don’t want to hold a phone. I have a strap that connects to my phone and it works great but when I am at the gym or outside running sprints I don’t want to hold a phone. I have an arm band to hold my phone but it is not as easy as looking at a watch.

    As for heart trouble; I used to be in good shape and would exercise daily and used my phone and chest strap. Then I had a family tragedy, slipped into a state of depression and gained 50 pounds. I am almost 50 and not that healthy and want to ease back into it and not overdo it.

    Everytime I buy something I am not happy with it. All of that functionality and All i want is a watch that accurately displays my HR and not the time!

    Thanks for the replies!
  • COGypsy
    COGypsy Posts: 1,363 Member
    I use a Polar FT7 heart rate monitor with a chest strap and a watch that has the display option of heart rate only. I haven't done a clinical comparison or anything, but it seems very accurate to me. They run about $70 on Amazon, I think.
  • Djproulx
    Djproulx Posts: 3,084 Member
    dewd2 wrote: »
    Any of the Garmin Forerunners that allow for customizable screens will do it. I believe that would be the 230's and up. In my experience the straps are very accurate and comfortable as well (I only use them for running and cycling).

    This. ^^ I've owned several Garmins w/chest strap monitors and they all worked very well.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    Larrykristy wrote: »
    I am looking for a very accurate chest strap monitor that will display my heart rate on the watch. I dont want to have to push any buttons I just want to look at my wrist and see it. I had a Timex one but the display was too small as the the time was the biggest number. I have a Fitbit charge 2 but you have to push a button and at high levels is not that great. I do HIIT and use my heart rate to twll me when to start the next interval and when to stop. I just want a big bright display with ONE number on the screen. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks!

    As was said above, any Garmin Forerunner watch will do exactly this.

    Pic:

    aljm7ftxrhgm.jpg
  • kd_mazur
    kd_mazur Posts: 569 Member
    another vote for Garmin! I have the forerunner 220 with a chest strap. It has served me well for more than 2 years now.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    I agree with the Garmin recommendation and there photo above makes it very clear why.

    But remember that heart rate is basically a rolling 30 second average. So it's not really very useful for titrating fast intervals.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    But remember that heart rate is basically a rolling 30 second average. So it's not really very useful for titrating fast intervals.

    I think it's fair to say that even if any HRM had instantaneous reading, HR lag and progressive elevation renders the use of the tool pretty meaningless.
  • GaryRuns
    GaryRuns Posts: 508 Member
    YAVFG (Yet Another Vote For Garmin) I have a 230 and use it in combination with a Scosche Rhythm+. I think I sweat more than average because I used to go through those chest straps like carbs. Every six months, no matter how I cared for them, I had to get a replacement strap. And I tried 3 different manufacturers so it wasn't unique to Polar, for example. I've had the Scosche at least a year and it's been flawless, with minimal cleaning required.
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    dewd2 wrote: »
    Any of the Garmin Forerunners that allow for customizable screens will do it. I believe that would be the 230's and up. In my experience the straps are very accurate and comfortable as well (I only use them for running and cycling).

    All of the, including the cheapest 25 ;)
  • billutzman
    billutzman Posts: 74 Member
    Polar FT4 or 7. I dont work out without it. I am on my 3rd strap.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    Regarding the above picture and the large gap in numbers, to be fair there have been some interesting articles written about how to and not to wear optical wrist based HR monitors and the effect that has on accuracy (I'm assuming they both have optical sensors). Ray Maker wrote a post about his thoughts on here. The TL:DR version is there's a lot of user error including in some university backed studies. People are wearing wrist based HR monitors in a way that isn't conducive to accurate readings - the above picture is a good example of how not to wear them. A. there are two optical HR sensors on the same wrist and B. one of them is more or less direct over the wrist bone.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    Regarding the above picture and the large gap in numbers, to be fair there have been some interesting articles written about how to and not to wear optical wrist based HR monitors and the effect that has on accuracy (I'm assuming they both have optical sensors). Ray Maker wrote a post about his thoughts on here. The TL:DR version is there's a lot of user error including in some university backed studies. People are wearing wrist based HR monitors in a way that isn't conducive to accurate readings - the above picture is a good example of how not to wear them. A. there are two optical HR sensors on the same wrist and B. one of them is more or less direct over the wrist bone.

    1) OP said in the first post that he's looking for one to use with a chest strap, so OHR accuracy shouldn't be an issue.

    2) I don't know the background behind the picture (I just snagged it to show the face of the watches), but I'd imagine it was for demonstration purposes. I'd have to think that most people wouldn't really wear two fitness watches on their same wrist while working out.
  • jckpui
    jckpui Posts: 2 Member
    I have a polar H7 chest heart rate monitor that I used with a m400 watch. At the gym it would also sync with the cardio machines. It’s about as accurate as you can get and the watch can be set to just display heart rate if you want. I recently upgraded to the polar M430 with optical heart rate monitor. For what I do, it’s the same, except for exercises that require a lot of forearm flexing. Sometimes the blood flow in the flexed arm affects the optical sensor on the same arm. The m430 also has all day tracking of heart rate, and that is mixed with activity tracked with arm motion so that overall daily calorie expenditure is a bit more precise than arm motion tracking alone. Garmin is probably as good, as other posters have mentioned, and easier to find in the US, but I ended up with Polar because of a great deal when I started tracking heart rate.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories