Garmin smartwatch HR quality

[joosttx]

Are any or all of the Garmin Smartwatch HR monitors good enough for interval training? Wrist HR monitors are typically not that great or at least not as good a chest strap. LMK if any has any experience.

[tuxbailey]

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/heart-rate-monitor,review-2885.html

[Jcgill]

I used a garmin watch all last year for the first time after years of using a chest strap and bike computer. I run and do tris, plus swapping the computer on my ever growing bike collection is getting arduous.
I really liked it as opposed to the chest strap.
I feel as though the data is accurate enough for me overall, i do think that there is a lag when your HR moves and it takes 3-5 seconds for the watch to realize you kicked and are now at 175bpm instead of 150.
I think my attraction to the watch is that i can wear it all day/week/year and see my resting hr and sleep patterns as opposed to the chest strap that you only wear during workouts.
The only con to cycling with a watch vs bar/stem/out front mounted garmin is that you need to take a hand off the bars and look at the watch as opposed to glancing down at a screen on the bars.....this could be more annoying if you are doing intervals. I only look occasionally at my distance and speed or pace so it is only a minor inconvenience for me.

[ColonelJLloyd]

I have a Forerunner 235 I wear all the time. I don't monitor my HR closely, but will review things like zone times after a ride, etc and I keep track of longer trends in resting HR. I do notice that when I run up the stairs in my office as a quick and simple HIIT workout I'll sometimes look at my watch and it'll read way low. Like 105 when it's probably 175+. I just assume you need a chest strap for this to be closer to accurate and maybe even then knowing what my HR is accurately and right this second isn't feasible.

I would also say that the sleep data this thing tells me in the morning is often just garbage. Sometimes it seems about right, but it'll also tell me I was asleep when I most certainly was not.

Either of these things could possibly be made to be more accurate if I do something different. I'm not sure what that would be and haven't bothered to investigate.

[Buzz]

I used a garmin watch all last year for the first time after years of using a chest strap and bike computer. I run and do tris, plus swapping the computer on my ever growing bike collection is getting arduous.
I really liked it as opposed to the chest strap.
I feel as though the data is accurate enough for me overall, i do think that there is a lag when your HR moves and it takes 3-5 seconds for the watch to realize you kicked and are now at 175bpm instead of 150.
I think my attraction to the watch is that i can wear it all day/week/year and see my resting hr and sleep patterns as opposed to the chest strap that you only wear during workouts.
The only con to cycling with a watch vs bar/stem/out front mounted garmin is that you need to take a hand off the bars and look at the watch as opposed to glancing down at a screen on the bars.....this could be more annoying if you are doing intervals. I only look occasionally at my distance and speed or pace so it is only a minor inconvenience for me.

My same experience.

[joosttx]

My same experience.

This seems to be the experience with other wrist base HRs

[mjb266]

I’m on the Forerunner 935 and it’s so convenient. I can use the strap if I want...but that is only if I want threshold or VO2 numbers.

[doomridesout]

I've been using a Fenix 5 since late 2018, IMO HR is not as accurate as I'd like for training in real time. Good enough to analyze later but not to hit a zone and hold it.