The Official Exercise/Fitness Thread v. Run Forest, Run!

[SchecterShredder]

I did a little 3-way test to check the wrist HR monitor on my watch when I first bought it. Rode my indoor bike with garmin's HRM-pro chest strap (highly recommended) paired with my bike computer, Fenix wrist monitor, and the HR sensors on the indoor bike. I did 3 separate 2 minute tests ( I didn't want to hold the sensors the whole workout) to see where each monitor reported my HR, and all 3 ended up at the same HR. I also compared the avg. HR from the chest strap and watch after the workout, and both were within 2 or 3 bpm of each other.

What I did notice during the 2 min tests is that the wrist monitor didn't respond to changes as quickly. Both the bike sensor and chest strap got to the same steady HR quickly, whereas the wrist was a good 45s behind. If you need accurate, real-time reporting then the chest strap is the way to go. If you're more interested in the final result for data purposes, then the wrist is plenty good.

[jingle.boy]

I have a forearm sensor, and a chest one from Tickr.  I find they're both very accurate, but they sometimes aren't getting the signal.  Like, yesterday, it was stuck displaying 116 bpm for an extended period as I was doing a Tabata-timed HIIT with squats, pushups, and burpees.  Once it 're-aligned', it shot up to the 140s.

Otherwise, I'm fairly pleased with them.  I used to use the chest exclusively, but I found the batteries didn't last long.  The forearm sensor is rechargeable.

[wolfking]

I did a little 3-way test to check the wrist HR monitor on my watch when I first bought it. Rode my indoor bike with garmin's HRM-pro chest strap (highly recommended) paired with my bike computer, Fenix wrist monitor, and the HR sensors on the indoor bike. I did 3 separate 2 minute tests ( I didn't want to hold the sensors the whole workout) to see where each monitor reported my HR, and all 3 ended up at the same HR. I also compared the avg. HR from the chest strap and watch after the workout, and both were within 2 or 3 bpm of each other.

What I did notice during the 2 min tests is that the wrist monitor didn't respond to changes as quickly. Both the bike sensor and chest strap got to the same steady HR quickly, whereas the wrist was a good 45s behind. If you need accurate, real-time reporting then the chest strap is the way to go. If you're more interested in the final result for data purposes, then the wrist is plenty good.

I've read that with watches quite a bit when looking at reviews.  Same as pace, doesn't adapt as quick.  I'm okay with that though but that's an awesome test Rich to find it was only a couple of bpms out.

[wolfking]

I have a forearm sensor, and a chest one from Tickr.  I find they're both very accurate, but they sometimes aren't getting the signal.  Like, yesterday, it was stuck displaying 116 bpm for an extended period as I was doing a Tabata-timed HIIT with squats, pushups, and burpees.  Once it 're-aligned', it shot up to the 140s.

Otherwise, I'm fairly pleased with them.  I used to use the chest exclusively, but I found the batteries didn't last long.  The forearm sensor is rechargeable.

My crappy watch does that.  I guess you just have to be prepared for things like that, as long as it's not doing it consistently.

My fitbit at the start of a run does really weird shit where it'll read around 170bpm for around 10 minutes then drop to the actual bpm I'm running at which is usually anywhere between 120-140.  It's really weird and annoying.

[Evermind]

I did a little 3-way test to check the wrist HR monitor on my watch when I first bought it. Rode my indoor bike with garmin's HRM-pro chest strap (highly recommended) paired with my bike computer, Fenix wrist monitor, and the HR sensors on the indoor bike. I did 3 separate 2 minute tests ( I didn't want to hold the sensors the whole workout) to see where each monitor reported my HR, and all 3 ended up at the same HR. I also compared the avg. HR from the chest strap and watch after the workout, and both were within 2 or 3 bpm of each other.

What I did notice during the 2 min tests is that the wrist monitor didn't respond to changes as quickly. Both the bike sensor and chest strap got to the same steady HR quickly, whereas the wrist was a good 45s behind. If you need accurate, real-time reporting then the chest strap is the way to go. If you're more interested in the final result for data purposes, then the wrist is plenty good.

Yeah, the delay, that's totally a thing. It sucks when you're doing sprint intervals but doesn't really matter in the big picture. For my Garmin's daily suggested 1-minute intervals workout it works just fine because that's enough time to pick up the elevated heartrate.

My fitbit at the start of a run does really weird shit where it'll read around 170bpm for around 10 minutes then drop to the actual bpm I'm running at which is usually anywhere between 120-140.  It's really weird and annoying.

I don't know anything about Fitbits but cadence lock is a thing for Garmin—if you don't wear your watch tightly enough, the optical sensor that reads your HR may instead give you the same HR as your cadence. I had this a couple of times when I was doing an easy run and it gave me HR of 168-172.

[wolfking]

Interesting, that could explain it mate, thanks.