New heart rate monitor: chest strap or wrist-based?
February 26, 2020 4:24 PM Subscribe
I'm in the market for a new heart rate monitor, but I'm not sure whether to go with a model that uses a chest strap or reads the rate from the wrist.
I've used Polar HRMs quite a bit in the past, but always chest strap-based models. All my experience with wrist-reading monitors was that they didn't work nearly as well.
My plan is to use the HRM just during workouts, and I don't care about steps or any of the other common features in fitness trackers, but I do want good accuracy and responsiveness so I can effectively move between different cardio zones for base training or intervals.
Normally I'd go to Consumer Reports for this sort of thing, but they haven't updated their HRM buying guide since 2016. Wirecutter has a fitness tracker guide, but it doesn't talk much about the responsiveness of the active heart rate or compare to chest strap models.
What models have y'all had success with? It doesn't appear they make it any longer, but I'm somewhat inclined to get the Polar FT7 since it includes a chest strap and was one of CR's previous top picks. However, if one of the newer Polar models (like the A370 or M200) will really do a good job of accurately reporting active heart rate, I'm not opposed to that. But if wrist-based is good enough these days, maybe I should be open to FitBit or some other brands.
I've used Polar HRMs quite a bit in the past, but always chest strap-based models. All my experience with wrist-reading monitors was that they didn't work nearly as well.
My plan is to use the HRM just during workouts, and I don't care about steps or any of the other common features in fitness trackers, but I do want good accuracy and responsiveness so I can effectively move between different cardio zones for base training or intervals.
Normally I'd go to Consumer Reports for this sort of thing, but they haven't updated their HRM buying guide since 2016. Wirecutter has a fitness tracker guide, but it doesn't talk much about the responsiveness of the active heart rate or compare to chest strap models.
What models have y'all had success with? It doesn't appear they make it any longer, but I'm somewhat inclined to get the Polar FT7 since it includes a chest strap and was one of CR's previous top picks. However, if one of the newer Polar models (like the A370 or M200) will really do a good job of accurately reporting active heart rate, I'm not opposed to that. But if wrist-based is good enough these days, maybe I should be open to FitBit or some other brands.
We use Polar OH1's for all of our athletes for every workout in the pool. They work just fine in a cap or tucked into the bottom hem of a suit near the hip. I'd imagine you could use them under any tight fitting piece of workout clothing. They're good at staying put (muuuuch better than a chest strap which is useless in the water) and a lot easier to put on.
posted by mce at 4:40 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by mce at 4:40 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
Also, what activities do you do and what are you syncing to, both device & data platform? For me I'm not a very hardcore runner, so a Fitbit Ionic and Strava are good enough. If you want to use Garmin Connect then it's probably simplest. to buy a Garmin watch.
DC Rainmaker also has a review of the new Polar H9 HRM chest strap from a month ago which is ANT+, BT and analog, so probably covers most use cases.
But for me it's:
Running: Fitbit Ionic (built in HRM), in the Fitbit app & Strava
Cycling: Garmin bike computer, an ancient Garmin ANT+ chest strap, Garmin Connect and Strava
posted by GuyZero at 4:41 PM on February 26, 2020
DC Rainmaker also has a review of the new Polar H9 HRM chest strap from a month ago which is ANT+, BT and analog, so probably covers most use cases.
But for me it's:
Running: Fitbit Ionic (built in HRM), in the Fitbit app & Strava
Cycling: Garmin bike computer, an ancient Garmin ANT+ chest strap, Garmin Connect and Strava
posted by GuyZero at 4:41 PM on February 26, 2020
My new-ish Garmin 245 watch with wrist-based HR is more accurate than my old chest strap (for running and cycling), and way more comfortable. I really like the watch.
posted by exogenous at 5:50 PM on February 26, 2020
posted by exogenous at 5:50 PM on February 26, 2020
No watches have reasonable perf, honestly.
I use one cycling, and settled on the Scosche Rhythm, which used to be DCR's pick. It works very well.
posted by uberchet at 5:52 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
I use one cycling, and settled on the Scosche Rhythm, which used to be DCR's pick. It works very well.
posted by uberchet at 5:52 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
Have you seen this cardiology study? Some findings- type of activity matters, chest straps are always more accurate but some wrist devices are accurate enough to be ok for most things (Garmin, Apple).
After talking to a lot of running coaches and borrowing a chest strap we decided to stick with Garmin wrist-based as it seemed like our results were basically the same, and it’s way more convenient (although we use the other features of the watch so we were using it anyway).
Be aware that wrist mounted devices work terribly in water so if you’re swimming go with a chest strap.
posted by q*ben at 6:10 PM on February 26, 2020
After talking to a lot of running coaches and borrowing a chest strap we decided to stick with Garmin wrist-based as it seemed like our results were basically the same, and it’s way more convenient (although we use the other features of the watch so we were using it anyway).
Be aware that wrist mounted devices work terribly in water so if you’re swimming go with a chest strap.
posted by q*ben at 6:10 PM on February 26, 2020
Response by poster:
posted by Cogito at 6:11 PM on February 26, 2020
Also, what activities do you do and what are you syncing to, both device & data platform?As far as activities: running, biking and circuit training. I don't care about syncing anything, I just want good feedback to help me stay in the HR zone I'm targeting at the moment.
posted by Cogito at 6:11 PM on February 26, 2020
FYI my Garmin 235 is fine on a treadmill, but running outside often gives me cadence lock (starts measuring your footsteps, not your heart rate). This occurs especially when my heart rate is getting up close to my cadence, it locks on regularly and is very annoying.
Unfortunately, bodies come into this a lot, so what works (or doesn't) for one person, might not (or might!) for another. Best bet is to try borrowing a few models from people if you can, to see what works with your body.
posted by smoke at 8:08 PM on February 26, 2020
Unfortunately, bodies come into this a lot, so what works (or doesn't) for one person, might not (or might!) for another. Best bet is to try borrowing a few models from people if you can, to see what works with your body.
posted by smoke at 8:08 PM on February 26, 2020
One data point: I have a Fitbit Inspire and it is always significantly different to a finger monitor when I use both. The Fitbit is fine for me, but if you want accurate and precise rather than a general indicator I wouldn’t recommend it. The exercise physiologist I do rehab with recommended Polar as the most accurate FWIW.
posted by t0astie at 10:57 PM on February 26, 2020
posted by t0astie at 10:57 PM on February 26, 2020
I spent a ton of time reading on DC Rainmaker before picking the 245. If you don't believe me about the accuracy of the wrist-based monitoring, you can see his data for yourself. And I am a worse case since I am way hairier than that dude, having to use a bunch of electrode gel on a chest strap to get it to work properly. No problems with the new watch despite wrist hair; the latest generation optical sensors work really well.
posted by exogenous at 4:35 AM on February 27, 2020
posted by exogenous at 4:35 AM on February 27, 2020
Wrist optical methods don't work if you are moving your hands significantly. Get a chest strap if you want accurate readings while lifting weights.
posted by medusa at 5:05 AM on February 27, 2020
posted by medusa at 5:05 AM on February 27, 2020
Lots of my cycling pals -- men and women -- have opted away from chest straps (which are typically electrical sensors) to arm straps like the one I linked above (typically optical) for reasons of both comfort and reliable data. The chest straps just seem to drop out more, at least in my cohort.
I initially thought it was just me, because I'm both hairy and sweaty, but my friend D is a lady-type person and is not really either of those things, and is also super happy to have made the switch. The only downside is the additional goofy tan line on you forearm, but I mean we're cyclists; we're basically covered with goofy tan lines.
I pair mine to my cycling computer, which is a Wahoo Elemnt Bolt, but it'll pair with any reasonable bike head unit, or pretty much anything else that can speak ANT+ or Bluetooth. (In fact, at home on my trainer I have it paired to my iPad, which drives my workouts via Zwift.)
The HR data (along with power, speed, cadence, and the gps track if present) then gets uploaded to Training Peaks (for actual serious analysis with my coach) and Strava (because social). But by then it's just data, and doesn't really have anything to do with the strap itself anymore.
The caveat here is that optical sensors are, well, racist. They work way less well if you have darker skin. At a minimum, the battery life is shorter because it's working harder. Keep this in mind if you are a more melanin-having sort of person.
posted by uberchet at 6:49 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
I initially thought it was just me, because I'm both hairy and sweaty, but my friend D is a lady-type person and is not really either of those things, and is also super happy to have made the switch. The only downside is the additional goofy tan line on you forearm, but I mean we're cyclists; we're basically covered with goofy tan lines.
I pair mine to my cycling computer, which is a Wahoo Elemnt Bolt, but it'll pair with any reasonable bike head unit, or pretty much anything else that can speak ANT+ or Bluetooth. (In fact, at home on my trainer I have it paired to my iPad, which drives my workouts via Zwift.)
The HR data (along with power, speed, cadence, and the gps track if present) then gets uploaded to Training Peaks (for actual serious analysis with my coach) and Strava (because social). But by then it's just data, and doesn't really have anything to do with the strap itself anymore.
The caveat here is that optical sensors are, well, racist. They work way less well if you have darker skin. At a minimum, the battery life is shorter because it's working harder. Keep this in mind if you are a more melanin-having sort of person.
posted by uberchet at 6:49 AM on February 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Chest straps are generally considered the most accurate but you have to actually put the darn thing on. I do it for biking because I'm getting my bike gear on anyway but it seems like a big hassle for a run.
DC Rainmaker has lots of HRM reviews like this one of arm-mounted optical HRMs. He doesn't specifically have a HRM review category, but any product you probably want to buy has probably been reviewed.
posted by GuyZero at 4:37 PM on February 26, 2020 [1 favorite]