Author Topic: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?  (Read 29009 times)

Ruthie

  • Her Majester
Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #75 on: 30 June, 2017, 07:11:55 pm »
I'm now using broadcast mode on my vivosmart HR. I doubt it's as accurate as a chest strap but it's close enough, and I'm wearing it so don't forget to put it on.
It's rubbish for rowing though, too much arm action. My Bluetooth one doesn't do ANT+ and has been mostly retired.
The zones show on my 520 so it doesn't matter that my wrist is under layers.

What's broadcast mode?
Milk please, no sugar.

Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #76 on: 30 June, 2017, 07:17:24 pm »
I'm now using broadcast mode on my vivosmart HR. I doubt it's as accurate as a chest strap but it's close enough, and I'm wearing it so don't forget to put it on.
It's rubbish for rowing though, too much arm action. My Bluetooth one doesn't do ANT+ and has been mostly retired.
The zones show on my 520 so it doesn't matter that my wrist is under layers.

What's broadcast mode?
It transmits ANT+.

like so

simonp

Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #77 on: 09 July, 2017, 09:27:20 am »
On waking up a TickrX mine always wakes up if I touch the contacts with my left and right hand. YMMV.


Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #78 on: 24 June, 2023, 08:05:24 am »
Thinking of getting one, to connect with phone. I don't have a smart watch.

Gym machine heart rate detectors are a bit rubbish. Last night they were telling me I was pushing heart rate to 185, but then dropping to 110.

Would need to be waterproof so I can use while kayaking.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #79 on: 24 June, 2023, 09:25:03 am »
Aren't they all waterproof?  I always wash the tickr in a basin after use, been going for a couple of years now.
Sheldon Brown never said leave it to the professionals.

PaulF

  • "World's Scariest Barman"
  • It's only impossible if you stop to think about it
Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #80 on: 24 June, 2023, 09:33:28 am »
Thinking of getting one, to connect with phone. I don't have a smart watch.

Gym machine heart rate detectors are a bit rubbish. Last night they were telling me I was pushing heart rate to 185, but then dropping to 110.

Would need to be waterproof so I can use while kayaking.

Wahoo TICKR (Wahoo seem to be allergic to the letter e) is IPX7 (5 feet) rated. I’ve had one for years and can recommend it.

Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #81 on: 24 June, 2023, 09:39:06 am »
I use a Polar H10, which is rated for swimming as it also has internal memory; you can tell it to start an activity from your phone, leave your phone behind, when you get back to it use it to stop the activity and download the data. Waterproof to 30m apparently.

The H10 does Bluetooth, ANT+ and gymlink - which was important to me as I use all three; the gymlink mainly to my ancient Polar HRM watch for use when out on the bike. It can connect to multiple things at once, including multiple simultaneous bluetooth. Does pretty much everything I want, but is a little spendy. And if you are a larger person , the included strap is a bit on the snug side. I'm a 44" chest, so not massive, and the strap is right at the end of its adjustment - though you can buy larger ones, which I have done for longer rides. You can't (or couldn't) buy it with the larger strap fitted instead of the smaller one.

Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #82 on: 24 June, 2023, 10:43:12 am »
Aren't they all waterproof?  I always wash the tickr in a basin after use, been going for a couple of years now.

I think they are all rinseable, but there is a difference between rinsing in a sink and forcibly submerged in seawater.

Being under my top and PFD, probably little water would get there, however I sometimes paddle for hours and the monitor would need to survive having a soaked Tshirt or base layer over it.

The wahoo tickr sounds good and I'm surprised how affordable it is; similar price to nameless chinese.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #83 on: 24 June, 2023, 12:57:49 pm »
I have had a Garmin for years but then swapped to the H10 and it is more comfortable. I think I had to do something to activate multiple Bluetooth connections but it only took a second.

Zed43

  • prefers UK hills over Dutch mountains
Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #84 on: 25 June, 2023, 09:41:01 am »
For the past year or so I've been using the Polar H9 (I don't need the memory and two BT connections the more expensive H10 offers). Works well but it is very important to disconnect the unit from the cheststrap (at least at one side) or battery life is really bad.

Before this I had a Tickr, didn't have the battery problem but after about three years one of the pushbuttons used to connect to the strap disintegrated.

The one before that was a Garmin, lasted for years but eventually started to act erratically, losing connections, spikes etc. Replacing the strap didn't help.

I think you can't go wrong with either one, just don't expect them to last a lifetime.

Regardless of make, it's good practise to handwash the strap (without the unit) once in a while.

Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #85 on: 26 June, 2023, 09:08:16 am »
HRM are pretty old tech now, by which I mean there's little benefit in a big name and a cheap chinese knock off will do the same job for much less.

I use the one on my watch, or a different arm one which cost about £15.

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #86 on: 26 June, 2023, 04:22:26 pm »
For the past year or so I've been using the Polar H9 (I don't need the memory and two BT connections the more expensive H10 offers).

[...]

The one before that was a Garmin, lasted for years but eventually started to act erratically, losing connections, spikes etc. Replacing the strap didn't help.

+1

I had a Garmin one that lasted for years and saw out several straps and batteries before becoming erratic.  I replaced it with a Polar H10 on the basis that it seemed to be regarded as the best HR monitor currently available.  It's been a drop-in replacement (I'm using a cheapo strap, modified so I'm not lying on any of the clippy bits when using a recumbent seat), and it seems considerably less fussy about insufficient sweatiness[1] than the Garmin.  I haven't used any of the wanky memory features, but I thought they might be useful at some point.


[1] I attributed the intermittent behaviour to the combination of weight loss and cold weather, but Summer didn't fix it.

T42

  • Apprentice geezer
Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #87 on: 26 June, 2023, 04:55:52 pm »
I use a Ciclosport pickup on a Polar strap talking to a Garmin eTrex 30x. Works well unless it's too cold to sweat.   I do have a Garmin pickup but the eTrex can't detect it.  ???
I've dusted off all those old bottles and set them up straight

Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #88 on: 09 July, 2023, 09:04:40 pm »
I really like Polar's, especially the models that still support their original 5KHz scheme (I'm guessing they're still providing it because so much gym kit uses it). For precise heart rate tracking, the 5KHz signal beats bluetooth simply because every beat is reported in realt-time. It's  brain-dead simple and very reliable (again, presumably good for gyms with a complex RF environment) - to receive it, just plug a telephone pickup (or other coil) into the audio input of a phone/tablet/PC etc.

Re: Heart rate monitors: which to choose?
« Reply #89 on: 11 July, 2023, 03:35:00 pm »
The Tickr is working ok for me.

So far I've used it in the gym once, and 3 times when kayaking.

It is useful in the gym to confirm I'm going too hard (>170bpm being really too high).

Only see readings from kayaking once I've finished a session. Still useful seeing when I was in each zone, and helps me set effort levels for next time.

Mostly I'm aiming for 120-130 bpm for sustained exercise.
<i>Marmite slave</i>