HRM Heart Rate Monitors

[LordGrover]

New year, new leaf, yada-yada...

I'd like to know what HRMs are 'best' these days.

I used to have a Polar F11 HRM watch with chest strap which worked well, but they seem no longer de rigueur and it's all straps and apps or watch guess-o-meters which I suspect aren't too accurate.

Polar H9 seems to have mixed reviews so tempted by the cheap clones on Amazon - are they worth a punt?

[McAndy]

Hey LG. In my experience, you get what you pay for (generally speaking). Garmin's chest-strap HRMs have a good reputation. There's also a new player from Fourth Frontier that does constant ECG readings as well. I haven't tried it, but Paula Radcliffe is an endorser. I'm not sure if it's medical device approved, but it's a step up in metrics if accurate! It is expensive, but regularly has $50 (currently)-$100 off in sale periods.

[CheesecakeRunner]

In my experience (running club coach) all wrist based HRM are good for day to day monitoring but lousy for actual exercise. Best results for running come from a chest strap.

And just buy the Garmin that fits your budget.

[NerveAgent]

I have a wahoo chest strap one which works fine, though I preferred the fastening mechanism on the previous garmin one I had.

My wife has a wahoo wrist one which she has no complaints.

[MOBB]

Wahoo chest strap has been the most reliable for me, Garmin one was also good.

[frisbee]

For the convenience watch sensors are fine. I’ve got the cheapest Garmin watch you can get, occasionally It’ll record low or high but it’s very obvious. And probably because I simply haven’t tightened it enough.

I certainly couldn’t be bothered with the hassle of wearing a chest strap and far more expensive watch that’ll interface with the strap.

[okgo]

CheesecakeRunner said:

In my experience (running club coach) all wrist based HRM are good for day to day monitoring but lousy for actual exercise. Best results for running come from a chest strap.

And just buy the Garmin that fits your budget.

HR is an interesting stat to take alongside other measures, I'd say the watch is accurate enough for pretty much everything you'd want to do with HR that is worth doing. I.e trying to do short intervals based on HR is a waste of time as its so slow to respond, and anything longer I think my watch is pretty close to the chest strap I'd wear if cycling.

I've got an ancient garmin one that works perfectly well, and a 245 watch, they record almost identical measurements (though you have to wear the watch a touch tighter if running as movement of the device isn't ideal).

[Slagathore]

No problems with my Polar H10 for a few years now.

[Gin and Ultrasonic]

I've been using HRMs for a few years for cycling.

I was using Garmin ones, but once the battery goes, I've never managed to successfully replace it and get it working again. There's a process to short it with a coin before replacing the battery, but when the battery is replaced it just hasn't worked for me. It was great while it was working though.

I went for a Wahoo tickr for the last couple of years and it has survived a battery change and one accidental 40 degree wash. The closure mechanism is worse than the garmin (you can't put the strap on and connect it later like you can with the garmin, which is a bit of a pain when it goes on so early in the pre-cycling faff process) but the unit itself has been more reliable for me.

[millen]

Happy with a Wahoo Tickr when cycling for the past 5 years - it hasn't missed a beat! Battery change a cinch. Original strap wore out last year so I replaced it with a Magene strap (only £15 or so) which stays in place better and seems to have at least as good electrodes.

It does pick up the slightly worrying spikes I sometimes see when pushing above my natural limit of 165-170bpm in cold weather. At first I wondered if my Tickr was at fault but now know that it's the ticker at fault......