Hokiedad4

I'm shopping for an HRM. I'd prefer an arm band-type for comfort and convenience but many articles indicate the chest worn ones are better. I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts, especially someone who's used both.

StanSeven

Tourist in MSN

I have only used chest type ones, I was unaware of a arm band one. But chest ones are trouble free in my opinion, that is what I would suggest, have used them for years. I usually put the wrist watch receiver on my handlebar.

HerrKaLeun

I recently started using a Bryton chest HRM. works perfectly just a few seconds after putting on - no sweat needed. the arm types are not accurate by a wide margin, you may as well guess the HR.

I was afraid the chest strap would bother me, but it doesn't. Only downside is you have to put it on before workout while an arm type (in a watch etc.) is on all the time.

One negative is that my phone now calculates calories more accurately when riding and now i have lower numbers calories burned. :-)

TimothyH

This certainly isn't the case.

To say that an arm band is no better than a guess simply isn't true.

The Scosche Rhythm, Polar OH1 and Wahoo Tickr Fit are all reasonably accurate, especially the Wahoo. In some conditions arm sensors are more accurate than chest sensors.

A review of the Wahoo product is at https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2018/01/...th-review.html for those who wish to educate themselves.


-Tim-

JohnJ80

Exactly. In point of fact, DCRainmaker sort of considers the Scosche as the gold standard in heart rate monitors.

When you position the sensor over the inside of your upper arm, you are sitting right over the brachial artery which is the large artery that supplies your entire arm. Absolutely no problem picking up heart rate from there and you have the benefit of not having the strap around your chest.

I used a Scosche for years with great results. I upgraded last year to the Wahoo, not because the Scosche didn't work anymore, but for the 30 hr battery life. Both work equally well.

J.

HerrKaLeun

The ones I meant are usually worn like a watch on the wrist (or integrated in a watch, like an iWatch). I could see wearing them on the upper arm being a bother when flexing muscles?

JohnJ80

unterhausen

I think I might have to shave my chest hairs to get my chest sensor to work reliably. Unless I'm sweating heavily.

BritishV8

I've used two different chest type HRM's, and they were night and day different from each other. The Wahoo TICKR has been remarkably reliable, despite my heavy chest fur. I really like its "visible connection" features: It has two LEDs. One LED tells me if it has a bluetooth connection. The other LED blinks with my heart beats. Those two LEDs are a big help when you're first pairing it to a phone, and I expect it will help someday when the battery starts to fade. My old Panobike HRM didn't have either feature and it was far from reliable. (I wouldn't assume all arm band HRMs are created equal either.)

FWIW, I found my chest strap HRM comfortable and I doubt I'd prefer arm band HRMs in that respect.

DrIsotope

Went through 4 armband HRMs (two Mio Link, Mio Velo, Mio Fuse) before finally giving in and buying a chest strap HRM (Garmin soft strap.) Just skip to the end and buy the chest strap. At it's best, a wristband will get you a week of rides between charges, and you'll still "die" during a ride at least a couple of times a month (from forgetting to charge it.) I've had the chest strap for a year and changed the battery once-- in over 700 hours of use. Other than the battery life, the armbands work just fine. Never had dropouts or serious pairing issues with any of the Mios, but the chest strap is zero fuss. The downfall of the Mios was the battery, with every one of them. The first one had the battery deteriorate to the point where it wouldn't last 4 hours between charges. The Garmin uses a 2032 coin cell, which are dirt cheap and available anywhere.

TimothyH

For the sake of clarity re arm/wrist sensors...

Those worn on the wrist are known to be less accurate that those worn on the upper arm. They work the same way but where they are worn makes a big difference in how well they sense actual heart rate.


-Tim-

unterhausen

most of the arm band sensors don't have enough battery life. The wahoo sensor lasts 30 hours, so that's a lot better. Still pretty short though

Tourist in MSN

Oh, now I understand. You mean like a Fitbit or something like that. I have no opinion on those, other than a know a few people that use them 24/7 because they had heart problems and want to keep track of things better.

jimincalif

My wife has a Fitbit - it is not at all accurate measuring her heart rate while bike riding. She can climb a steep local hill, be completely out of breath at the top and the Fitbit will register a HR in the 80s. When she does the treadmill it seems to be better and will register more in accordance with her perceived effort.

gauvins

Accuracy shouldn't be an issue anymore. In this review, reported differences average 1 heart beat per minute. I've been through a cardiac stress test (supervised by a cardiologist) and the reading on my smartwatch closely matched the monitored rate, albeit with some lag. The lag is almost certainly being caused by the software rather than by the sensor -- in my experience, the stress tests increases the load at an increasing rate. At the beginning, my watch was spot on. As intensity was increased. it lagged for a few seconds before catching up.

One factor, maybe, is fit - wrist sensors should be snug against a fleshy section of your wrist. Starting out snug may become too tight as the day progresses, if your wrist swells, in hot weather for example.

Interestingly, perhaps, my cardiologist is not at all worried by the accuracy of HRMs. He's a long distance runner. His advice was to "run by how you feel" rather than set a strict upper limit to your measured heart rate.

u235

My dry issue was a dry chest strap, not a dry shirt. I hand wash and/or wet down my Polar chest strap before putting it on each time. I've never had a problem with initial readings and I've never had to use any electrode gels. Try that maybe.

u235

I read that article, they mentioned averages only. You could have rates all over the place and still get a close average. In reality, you couldn't go from 160 to 210 or 110 in 5 seconds and if you somehow did, or you would definitely know by feel. I have an older Gear2 watch I got for free with the Samsung Note7 recall debacle, it is totally useless as a HRM when actually working out but in the end the overall average is usually close but sometimes it locks on a harmonic or something and shows 1/2 my heart rate for long periods of time. I"m happy with my chest strap so I haven't been following the accuracy and trends of the other wrist devices. Good to know they are possibly getting better.
When biking, do I really need to know or track my instantaneous HR at any given time and look at it later? Nope. I don't need speed, temperature, grade, distance, or cadence either but I'm going through the effort to get it and track it, I'd like it to be accurate at least.

Seattle Forrest

Chest strap needs a new battery every year, or maybe every few years depending how much you use it. Wrist and arm straps need to be charged at least every few days.

JohnJ80

I believe that's optical vs electrical sensors. Optical uses more battery to drive the LEDs. Most of the opticals are arm or upper arm. Most of the electrical ones are chest straps IIRC.

But FWIW, the new Wahoo optical strap goes 30 hours on a charge. The older Rhythm was about 8 hours.

J.

rluke258

arm hrm uses optical based sensor, not that reliable than chest strap.

Bmach

StanSeven

Bmach

gios

Don't you have to get a new strap with a Polar HRM, as the battery can't be changed?