I'm thinking about starting to run again and I'd like to get a heart rate monitor to help with my training. It's been many years (15+) since I've had one and they have changed quite a bit. I used to have a Polar HRM with a watch style monitor that basically had the time and the HR info. That was it. You could set it to beep at certain thresholds. Beyond that, it didn't do to much.
I'd really like to have something similar... a watch monitor that I can use WITHOUT having to carry a cell phone. I don't care if the watch connects to the cell phone and uploads data to an app, but I don't want to have to physically carry the phone while I run. I'm not opposed to a chest strap, but I really don't want to carry a phone with me. Any suggestions on something simple?
Polar H10 is the newest heart rate monitor by Polar that uses Bluetooth. Polar H10 now has an improved electrode, which makes H10 the most accurate heart rate monitor by Polar so far. Polar H10 can be used with Polar Beat, wh...
I have an Apple Watch. I don’t think they are the best for runners but in my case I was able to pick one up for a good deal through my cellphone provider (free if you buy service). it does provide hr but I noticed it has gaps in the data especially if I have the watch on loosely.
But you can link the Polar to the AppleWatch and it will use the strap for HR. Purchase the app called "workoutdoors," and you have everything you could ever possibly need.
But you can link the Polar to the AppleWatch and it will use the strap for HR. Purchase the app called "workoutdoors," and you have everything you could ever possibly need.
Same! I use workoutdoors, paired with polar verity sense arm strap. I can barely tell it’s there. 100x better running with the arm strap than the chest. Check DCrainmaker’s review, basically comparable results to the chest.
Whatever you do, make sure to use a chest strap (or armband). The wrist based monitoring really doesn't work. Just skip that frustration. You can buy very cheap chest straps on amazon (I use Powr Labs) that work perfectly fine.
Whatever you do, make sure to use a chest strap (or armband). The wrist based monitoring really doesn't work. Just skip that frustration. You can buy very cheap chest straps on amazon (I use Powr Labs) that work perfectly fine.
I disagree that the wrist-based monitoring "doesn't work". It depends on your goals and usage of HR. While it's not as reliable and precise as the chest straps, it's still in the right ballpark. If you're looking to "stay in zone 2", or "keep it under 160", then a watch with a wrist-HR is fine. If you're crunching numbers and trying to dissect something like LT2 +/- 5 bpm, then go with the chest strap.
Well, It absolutely doesn't work for me. Maybe I just have skinny bony wrists. My strong suspicion is that the watch doesn't seat against my wrist close enough, and slightly moves with my gait (no matter how tight I strap the watch). The wrist sensor reading is more a reflection of my cadence than my HR and it almost always shows something in the 170-190 range. Exact same issue on Garmin and Apple watches, both of which show my HR perfectly with a chest or arm strap. Completely unusable for me.
Whatever you do, make sure to use a chest strap (or armband). The wrist based monitoring really doesn't work. Just skip that frustration. You can buy very cheap chest straps on amazon (I use Powr Labs) that work perfectly fine.
I disagree that the wrist-based monitoring "doesn't work". It depends on your goals and usage of HR. While it's not as reliable and precise as the chest straps, it's still in the right ballpark. If you're looking to "stay in zone 2", or "keep it under 160", then a watch with a wrist-HR is fine. If you're crunching numbers and trying to dissect something like LT2 +/- 5 bpm, then go with the chest strap.
It's very common for a wrist optical sensor to not work at all for many people. Very common. I've seen and coached athletes that have no idea what their HR actually is because the data coming from a wrist strap is all over the place.
Obviously I'm sponsored by COROS, but I have been impressed with their arm (bicep area) strap in recording HR. The wrist-based never worked for me, the the arm band imo is on par with any $80 chest strap that I've ever used (Polar, Garmin etc).
The COROS armband strap is compatible with other brands of GPS watches as well. The advantage of the arm strap over the chest strap is that it doesn't get in the way of pack chest straps and imo feels more comfortable (especially when breathing hard).
Here is some HR data from a hill rep workout I did last week wearing the COROS armband strap (notice the "shark fin spikes") which I'd say is quite accurate:
back on the old stomping grounds! Happy to be alive. 🏃🏻♂️ legs a bit tired and breathing a bit ragged. HR spikes into low 160s. Got some blood drawn today as well right before the workout.
Well, It absolutely doesn't work for me. Maybe I just have skinny bony wrists. My strong suspicion is that the watch doesn't seat against my wrist close enough, and slightly moves with my gait (no matter how tight I strap the watch). The wrist sensor reading is more a reflection of my cadence than my HR and it almost always shows something in the 170-190 range. Exact same issue on Garmin and Apple watches, both of which show my HR perfectly with a chest or arm strap. Completely unusable for me.
same here. I found it to be erratic and had no confidence that it was accurate.
I disagree that the wrist-based monitoring "doesn't work". It depends on your goals and usage of HR. While it's not as reliable and precise as the chest straps, it's still in the right ballpark. If you're looking to "stay in zone 2", or "keep it under 160", then a watch with a wrist-HR is fine. If you're crunching numbers and trying to dissect something like LT2 +/- 5 bpm, then go with the chest strap.
It's very common for a wrist optical sensor to not work at all for many people. Very common. I've seen and coached athletes that have no idea what their HR actually is because the data coming from a wrist strap is all over the place.
Fair enough. The technology is viable, but usability depends on the individual.
I've found wrist based to be very accurate. Maybe I'm lucky or my wrist bones are nicely positioned or something. But I tested my watch (Garmin FR245) against a chest strap on a treadmill, and across numerous runs, different types of runs, and lengths of runs, they were always within 2 beats of each other. I checked at the beginning of easy runs, mid tempos, and after intervals. But again, maybe I'm just lucky
