"New" wrist-bsed heart rate monitors

[mhespenheide]

Since my "training" (such as it is) encompasses both running and cycling, I'm interested in picking up a heart rate monitor. I last used one in the ancient days (like, pre-Lance). I'm intrigued by some of the new-ish models that don't require a strap across the chest, since those were always obnoxious.

Does anyone have any comments on either the Polar A360, the Mio Alpha, or any other similar model(s)?

[benb]

I'm going to buy a Garmin Fenix 5 when they become available, which has the wrist based monitor. I would imagine I will continue to wear the chest strap when exercising and just use the wrist stuff for general activity tracking. For running the chest straps like Garmin's add additional data that the wrist only unit can't do anyway, like a more reliable cadence reading, vertical oscillation, etc..

No one is really saying any of the wrist based ones are good enough to replace the chest strap yet but they are getting better.

[Bwana]

I used a Mio Link for a while. When it worked, it worked great. I had issues with the charging though. Very finnicky to get it to charge, some days I would put it on and found it didn't charge...etc.

Finally just bought a Scosche Rhythym+, which goes up closer to your elbow, or below your bicep. Only used it a couple times, but no issues and it seems to update faster than the Mio did.

dcrainmaker says he uses the Scosche more than any other HRM he has.

I've never had good luck with chest straps, but if I were to try one again, I would try the Wahoo TICKR.

[drewskey]

I've never had good luck with chest straps, but if I were to try one again, I would try the Wahoo TICKR.

My TICKR has been flawless for over a year in all conditions.

[JSL]

I've got the Garmin 235 and it's fickle at best. Works great as an activity tracker, checking resting HR, etc - but poorly when running or riding. I have to rely on the chest strap if I want accurate info.

[chiasticon]

No one is really saying any of the wrist based ones are good enough to replace the chest strap yet but they are getting better.

same.

I used a Mio Link for a while. When it worked, it worked great. I had issues with the charging though. Very finnicky to get it to charge, some days I would put it on and found it didn't charge...etc.

also, same.

My TICKR has been flawless for over a year in all conditions.

there's a trend here...

hated chest straps, so tried to force the Mio to work for me. it was fine for a few weeks (other than occasional random dropouts at the worst time, like when climbing) then started acting coocoo bananas. eventually replaced with TICKR and it's been rock solid. year of use now on the same battery. no charging (of course). no dropouts unless I put it on wrong (user error). doesn't slip unless it's put on too loose (user error). comfortable enough that I forget it's there (mostly).

my sense is that the wrist-based stuff will eventually get there but currently is meh when you're active. if you just want to monitor resting heart rate and use it for basic activity tracking, it's fine. but then strap on a chest monitor for running or riding. according to dcrainmaker, the wrist based stuff is pretty bad for riding - especially if you ever ride over anything that's not glass smooth - and is so-so for running.

[coffeecake]

I've got the Garmin 235 and it's fickle at best. Works great as an activity tracker, checking resting HR, etc - but poorly when running or riding. I have to rely on the chest strap if I want accurate info.

Agreed completely. Heart rates on the order of 95 BPM and lower are tracked just fine. I get reasonable data throughout the day and while asleep when I use the watch as an activity tracker.

Heart rates recorded by the optical sensor while running or riding are completely off. Even when I warm up indoors, these measurement is typically 45-50 BPM low.

DCRainmaker seemed to get pretty good results while running. I am not sure how. It may be due to genetic factors such as the size of veins in his wrist. My experience has been much different.

[AngryScientist]

i have a garmin forerunner that does HR on the wrist and i echo the above comments.

i think one of the issues with "watches" that also do HR is that i tend to wear my watch on the looser side, so it's not consistently pressed against my wrist with firm pressure and not moving around. i would think that would be key to good, consistent HR measurement, which is why elastic chest straps that stay put for the most part are more reliable. now maybe an elastic tensioned arm band would work better, but i think that's an inherent problem with watch based wristwear that uses a regular band.

[ceolwulf]

I've got the Garmin 235 and it's fickle at best. Works great as an activity tracker, checking resting HR, etc - but poorly when running or riding. I have to rely on the chest strap if I want accurate info.

Same experience with my Vivoactive HR. The HR is completely worthless for cycling, often reading 50bpm lower than the true reading from my chest strap.

As mentioned just above they have to be very tight to even get close to being accurate, because they're optical not electrical and any light leakage will interfere with the sensor. So if they have to be uncomfortable anyway just to get approximately working may as well just use a chest strap.

[mhespenheide]

Well, heck. I appreciate the information, but that's disappointing. Sounds like the wrist-based monitors aren't appropriate yet.

I don't mind the idea of the Scosche Rhythym+, except that it requires another piece of technology to interpret its signals. I almost never bring my phone while running, so that either adds another layer of complexity, or requires buying two new pieces of tech rather than one. :no:

Thanks for the input so far. Any other ideas?

[dustyrider]

Well, heck. I appreciate the information, but that's disappointing. Sounds like the wrist-based monitors aren't appropriate yet.

I don't mind the idea of the Scosche Rhythym+, except that it requires another piece of technology to interpret its signals. I almost never bring my phone while running, so that either adds another layer of complexity, or requires buying two new pieces of tech rather than one. :no:

Thanks for the input so far. Any other ideas?

Have you tried the new heart rate strap from garmin? It's not the hanging hunk of plastic it used to be...or you can be patient and wait for the internet of things to come along; sensors in everything is soon to be the norm. It'll start with helmets and shoes and spread to clothing in no time.

[bikerboy337]

I've found the garmin 235 to be pretty good, opposite of the folks here... if i were doing serious intervals on the bike, i'd go with a strap, but the watch works well for me and broadcasts to my 510 easily to track on my rides, but i dont race and just ride for fun...

i wear the watch tight and find it does a pretty good job... but again, not with rapid changes either up or down in HR, so not great for heavy interval training...

with running, i'm starting marathon training and really just need to make sure i stay in the 150-160 range for my long tempo runs, and its been great for that...but again, for intervals its really lacking...

so id say it depends what level of data you need... if you're racing and truly serious, think the straps are the way to go, but if you are just looking for some decent numbers without having to toss on a strap every time you work out, i found the 235 to be great for that...

[rnhood]

I have a Mio Link and it works good enough. It can be finicky at times, but overall good enough. As mentioned above, it needs to be relatively tight on the wrist, and it needs to be set on its charging strap perfectly or it won't charge. I've learned to watch it for a few seconds after putting it on the charger to ensure the "charging" light comes on.

I have friends with the Scorshe and it works about the same. If reliability and consistency is your primary concern, the chest strap remains king. Otherwise, the wrist straps do fine. The Scorshe might be slightly more desirable than the Mio but I do fine with the Mio.

If you've got money to burn then the Garmin 735XT is really nice. But it's hideously expensive.

[VTCaraco]

Does anyone have any comments on either the Polar A360, the Mio Alpha, or any other similar model(s)?

My wife is pretty happy with the A360 that I bought for her.

We're tried-and-true HRM folks having used them for 20+ years.
She was coming from several different Suuntos and then a fairly high-end Polar. The big appeal was the different reading-interface due to some structural challenges (she had to have her sternum and pericardium removed back in '96 when she was in her early 30s due to a horrific car accident). This made it so that the reading accuracy was challenging with the traditional chest straps.
Ultimately, I don't know how pinpoint accurate one device is relative to another, but I think that hers is working better than any of her previous devices and we tend to use them as a relative device.

[stephenmarklay]

I used a Mio Link for a while. When it worked, it worked great. I had issues with the charging though. Very finnicky to get it to charge, some days I would put it on and found it didn't charge...etc.

Finally just bought a Scosche Rhythym+, which goes up closer to your elbow, or below your bicep. Only used it a couple times, but no issues and it seems to update faster than the Mio did.

dcrainmaker says he uses the Scosche more than any other HRM he has.

I've never had good luck with chest straps, but if I were to try one again, I would try the Wahoo TICKR.


I have used the Scosche for a couple years. It has proved very flexible (ANT+, Bluetooth and whatever that protocol is for gym equipment) and reliable.

[Bwana]

Well, heck. I appreciate the information, but that's disappointing. Sounds like the wrist-based monitors aren't appropriate yet.

I don't mind the idea of the Scosche Rhythym+, except that it requires another piece of technology to interpret its signals. I almost never bring my phone while running, so that either adds another layer of complexity, or requires buying two new pieces of tech rather than one. :no:

Thanks for the input so far. Any other ideas?

Scosche does ant+ and Bluetooth, what are you trying to connect to? :confused:

[mhespenheide]

Scosche does ant+ and Bluetooth, what are you trying to connect to? :confused:

That's exactly the problem -- I don't currently have something to connect to when running (since I don't run with my phone and don't own any fancy watch-like gadgets). I do usually cycle with my phone, so I could use that in theory, but it's usually tucked into my back jersey pocket, not mounted where I can see it.

If there's a relatively cheap watch-like device that can display/record the output of the Scosche, it might come back to being an option. But I'm not paying for an apple watch and I'm tech-ignorant enough that I don't know what other options are out there.

[gasman]

Just saw a study from the Cleveland Clinic. They looked at 50 men and woman on a treadmill and compared chest straps to wrist bands. The chest straps were significantly more accurate at monitoring HR.

[shovelhd]

I have skinny wrists so the wrist straps don't work for me. I tried on an arm based strap and didn't like the constricting feeling and the tan lines. I used a Garmin soft chest strap for a while, but I had to replace the straps twice. The wires inside eventually break. I've been using a Wahoo Tickr for the past two years and it has been flawless. I'll probably replace the strap at the end of the year just because the elastic eventually weakens. The other nice thing about the Tickr is that it transmits ANT+ and Bluetooth simultaneously. If I'm out without my PC8, like on a hike, it can record to my phone. The battery lasts about a year using it regularly.

If I were in your position I would get a Tickr and a Garmin watch based meter. You can wear it running and strap it to a bike mount on the bike. If you don't swim then you can go for a lower end one that is not waterproof.