Best heart rate monitor/fitness tracker for a beginning runner?
September 30, 2015 11:25 AM Subscribe
I'm just getting into running and would really like some kind of device to monitor my heart rate. I'm a little overwhelmed by all the different fitness trackers and don't know which one to get.
I would appreciate recommendations or even just a clear explanation of the different options. I'm not looking for anything super fancy, I just want to know my heart rate (although I'm not averse to fancy if that's the best option). Should I be looking for a chest-strap monitor instead of a watch-like device? Currently I use Footpath on my iPhone to track my route. Is there a device that can do that, in addition to monitoring my heart rate (I guess that would require GPS)? I also live in San Francisco so I go up and down a lot of hills. Is there any way to track/measure that? (Or is there even any point to tracking that?)
I found some similar questions but they were from a couple of years ago so I figured the options have probably changed. There's this more recent question which was helpful, but it seems to focus specifically on GPS watches. I think I would like to know about fitness trackers more generally. I am also a novice in terms of both running and these kinds of gadgets, so maybe you could dumb down your answers a little.
I would appreciate recommendations or even just a clear explanation of the different options. I'm not looking for anything super fancy, I just want to know my heart rate (although I'm not averse to fancy if that's the best option). Should I be looking for a chest-strap monitor instead of a watch-like device? Currently I use Footpath on my iPhone to track my route. Is there a device that can do that, in addition to monitoring my heart rate (I guess that would require GPS)? I also live in San Francisco so I go up and down a lot of hills. Is there any way to track/measure that? (Or is there even any point to tracking that?)
I found some similar questions but they were from a couple of years ago so I figured the options have probably changed. There's this more recent question which was helpful, but it seems to focus specifically on GPS watches. I think I would like to know about fitness trackers more generally. I am also a novice in terms of both running and these kinds of gadgets, so maybe you could dumb down your answers a little.
I just got the TomTom Runner Cardio and looove it! The HR monitor is wireless so no chest strap needed. It tracks distance, pace, calories, etc. Best of all is the progress-wheel display which prevents us clock-watchers from looking at time every two seconds.
posted by floweredfish at 12:17 PM on September 30, 2015
posted by floweredfish at 12:17 PM on September 30, 2015
Regarding hills, getting accurate altitude data will raise the device price a lot. GPS altitude is quite often really wonky and not to be trusted. A cheap, best-effort is to use rough altitude data from maps via a tracker after uploading the data. Many of the run trackers do this, and many of the watch based trackers can auto upload/sync to other systems. For instance I ultimately use Strava for viewing my run data; my tracker, AeroTrackerPro, automatically syncs my runs to Strava for me. I know that Garmin and TomTom also support an upload to Strava. Running uphill will affect estimations of calories burned, and it's useful to see the altitude change when you're wondering "Why is this my slowest km?" if you review a run/route.
If you're later preparing for a specific course, knowing how many meters you climb/don't can let you know how to change your training (I.E. if you're planning for a trail run with 2000m of climbing, and you usually only do 400m in a week you need to find better hills). Beyond that, altitude is a metric that feels good, but I personally don't feel it's enough to warrant several hundred dollars for a more expensive device.
I switched from one tracker to Strava because the first tracker required a subscription to get map altitude data while Strava didn't. I found that I also really liked the competitive segment feature of strava.
Since you already have a phone with GPS, if it can do bluetooth 4.0 and you want something cheap and easy I'd advice sticking with your phone if it's convenient. However you might like being completely phone free, in which case then you'd want a GPS watch. There are some (Tomtom cardio (or multisport), garmin 225) that have optical heart rate built in, while most other gps watches can pair separately with a chest strap band over bluetooth or ant+. Some gps watches come with a chest strap, but you might want to read up on if it's proprietary strap (I.E. it will cost a lot if you need a new chest strap, or if you want a new watch the band might not be re-usable) if you go with one of those options.
posted by nobeagle at 12:22 PM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you're later preparing for a specific course, knowing how many meters you climb/don't can let you know how to change your training (I.E. if you're planning for a trail run with 2000m of climbing, and you usually only do 400m in a week you need to find better hills). Beyond that, altitude is a metric that feels good, but I personally don't feel it's enough to warrant several hundred dollars for a more expensive device.
I switched from one tracker to Strava because the first tracker required a subscription to get map altitude data while Strava didn't. I found that I also really liked the competitive segment feature of strava.
Since you already have a phone with GPS, if it can do bluetooth 4.0 and you want something cheap and easy I'd advice sticking with your phone if it's convenient. However you might like being completely phone free, in which case then you'd want a GPS watch. There are some (Tomtom cardio (or multisport), garmin 225) that have optical heart rate built in, while most other gps watches can pair separately with a chest strap band over bluetooth or ant+. Some gps watches come with a chest strap, but you might want to read up on if it's proprietary strap (I.E. it will cost a lot if you need a new chest strap, or if you want a new watch the band might not be re-usable) if you go with one of those options.
posted by nobeagle at 12:22 PM on September 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I like my Wahoo TICKR (chest strap style) plus Strava on my phone. Captures a bunch of good data to play with.
posted by slogger at 1:56 PM on September 30, 2015
posted by slogger at 1:56 PM on September 30, 2015
I love my TomTom Runner.
posted by rossination at 4:12 PM on September 30, 2015
posted by rossination at 4:12 PM on September 30, 2015
There's no one answer, but:
* Unless you're on a super tight budget, GPS is really nice to have. See where you went, pace, distance, helps if you like to gamify things a bit.
* There are really good wrist-based optical heart monitors now. Tomtom has a good one in the Runner Cardio, it's nice not to need a chest strap.
* If you like to run with music, Tomtom has a new device (the Spark) that does GPS, and cardio, and can bluetoof to headphones, although at a cost.
I'm a tomtom user myself and like the physical joystick, waterproofing, and very simple interface. If you want to take a very deep dive, try DC Rainmaker for very very detailed reviews of GPS watches.
posted by ftm at 4:49 PM on September 30, 2015
* Unless you're on a super tight budget, GPS is really nice to have. See where you went, pace, distance, helps if you like to gamify things a bit.
* There are really good wrist-based optical heart monitors now. Tomtom has a good one in the Runner Cardio, it's nice not to need a chest strap.
* If you like to run with music, Tomtom has a new device (the Spark) that does GPS, and cardio, and can bluetoof to headphones, although at a cost.
I'm a tomtom user myself and like the physical joystick, waterproofing, and very simple interface. If you want to take a very deep dive, try DC Rainmaker for very very detailed reviews of GPS watches.
posted by ftm at 4:49 PM on September 30, 2015
Oh! One more thing. If you're into tracking stuff, and you decide to go GPS, you'll want to look at the different web interfaces. The native one for Garmin (Connect) is pretty good, the TomTom one is a total joke, not sure about the other makers; they also all let you upload to third party sites like TrainingPeaks and Strava, but with varying degrees of difficulty.
posted by ftm at 4:56 PM on September 30, 2015
posted by ftm at 4:56 PM on September 30, 2015
I bought a "Scosche RHYTHM+ Dual ANT+/Bluetooth Smart Optical HR Band" based on this review at DC Rainmaker. I wear it above my bicep and it's totally comfortable. I pair it to my iPhone and use Strava, Runtastic, MountainBikePro, and iSmoothRun - which audibly announces heart rate zones so I don't need to wear a watch to know my rate.
posted by achrise at 6:29 PM on September 30, 2015
posted by achrise at 6:29 PM on September 30, 2015
I wouldn't use the optical sensors (Mio, etc.); they're not there, yet. Get a chest strap, they're much more accurate. I had frequent dropouts and inaccuracies with optics, but never any problem with a chest strap. The data is way more important than being fancy.
posted by peeet at 6:46 PM on September 30, 2015
posted by peeet at 6:46 PM on September 30, 2015
I was in your shoes a few weeks ago; new to serious running and looking to get more data than an app on my phone could give me. After a bunch of reading, I went with the Wirecutter's recommendation and got a Garmin 220 with a chest strap heart rate monitor. Three weeks in, I love the damn thing. Easy to set up and use and only as intrusive as I want it to be while I'm actually running. The amount of data I get after a run is exciting. I know that I'll get deeper into it as I get further into my training and I really like that.
I haven't had any issues at all with the chest strap/hr monitor not giving reliable data. I wet it right before I put it on; that's it.
Notable downside: Garmin's data service - Garmin Connect - has truly crap UI, but it's easy to get the data out and keep your own spreadsheet if you prefer.
posted by minervous at 6:53 PM on September 30, 2015
I haven't had any issues at all with the chest strap/hr monitor not giving reliable data. I wet it right before I put it on; that's it.
Notable downside: Garmin's data service - Garmin Connect - has truly crap UI, but it's easy to get the data out and keep your own spreadsheet if you prefer.
posted by minervous at 6:53 PM on September 30, 2015
The GPS on a watch, or phone, is pretty inaccurate when running in the forest or steep hills. I've seen a 1/2 mile error on a 6 mile out and back trail run. So take GPS measurements with a large grain of salt. (My hiking GPS has pretty much zero error on the same route.)
The large GPS errors make the fast and slow pace alarms on a running watch useless while trail running.
posted by monotreme at 8:27 PM on September 30, 2015
The large GPS errors make the fast and slow pace alarms on a running watch useless while trail running.
posted by monotreme at 8:27 PM on September 30, 2015
I have a Garmin Forerunner 15 which I use for run tracking. You can get it with a chest strap heart rate monitor.
The gps tracking is spot on, in my experience, but sometimes it takes a little time to find your initial location. The main thing I like about it though is that the small version is really reasonably sized. Most GPS watches are kind of huge, and this looks like the kind of thing you might actually wear not running. It's also a lot cheaper than the 200 series ones.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 6:50 AM on October 1, 2015
The gps tracking is spot on, in my experience, but sometimes it takes a little time to find your initial location. The main thing I like about it though is that the small version is really reasonably sized. Most GPS watches are kind of huge, and this looks like the kind of thing you might actually wear not running. It's also a lot cheaper than the 200 series ones.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 6:50 AM on October 1, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
I recently had some problems with excessive battery drain on my 8 month old wahoo, and they sent me a new one without requiring the old to be sent in. Yay for a one year warranty that they easily stood behind.
Chest strap heart rate monitors can be used to detect heart rate variability (HRV) and some other nifty stuff that in theory optical systems aren't accurate enough for (to my understanding). However, when you're exercising, it takes a while for you to become sweaty enough that they work effectively (yes, even when wetting it and my chest). In theory optical systems start working well right away so long as they're on well enough to get a light seal (the garmin 225 has a rubber gasket to help with the light seal, but it's really pricey as it's garmin, gps and optical HR monitor in one).
If you want to go optical, be aware that most (garmin 225, tomtom run/multisport cardio, addidias somethingorother) are all using the technology from Mio. Suunto uses another company (I can't immediately remember who) which is also considered reliable, but beyond those two companies, be wary. Fitbit doesn't use either of these company's technology and they're generally considered only useful until you start exercising (I.E. not appropriate for run tracking).
I use a pebble with my android phone and use the app AeroTrackerPro for run tracking and to display my heart rate while exercising. I already needed the pebble to get notifications while keeping my tablet (I don't normally carry a phone), and I already purchased a cheap moto g for tracking runs, so just buying a chest strap made the most sense when I realized I wanted heart rate data.
If you don't have a watch, and want to see your heart rate while running while still using your iphone, I think the Mio Fuse would be the most cost effective solution. Running with a phone in your hand is just asking for a broken phone.
I'd advise checking out DC Rainmaker for reviews of any product that you're considering getting.
posted by nobeagle at 12:00 PM on September 30, 2015