TESTED: Wrist Vs.Chest Heart Rate (We Didn't EXPECT The Result)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- In this video, Devlin Eyden and Ntutu Letseka test wrist heart rate against chest heart. We were quite surprised by the end result.
When you're ready, we'd love to help you become a better runner.
Grab our full mobility flow here: coachparry.com/9m8u-Mobility-...
Grab a strength plan for runners here: coachparry.com/9jhi-Strength-...
And a training plan here: coachparry.com/kk76-Training-...
#running #runningcoach #heartrate - Спорт
It's like you guys were reading my mind... Perfect timing for this video.
Interesting video. Thx for sharing. I did a stress test and was testing my watch. The person doing the test wouldn’t let me run but kept pushing the treadmill higher to get heart rate up. My results were very different
My dog ate my chest strap. True story!
Have been running with Garmin Forerunner 255s connected to garmin hrm dual and Garmin forerunner 245 with optical HR only for the past 2 months. Almost in 99% runs the average overall HR difference for each run is only 1 bpm between HRM dual+Garmin forerunner 255s VS Garmin forerunner 245 (optical HR only)
using a 3rd measure "gold standard" such as 12-lead ECG would have been usefull to be the tie-breaker
Did anyone ever experience different HR readings from wristwatch, upon wearing softer versus harder shoes? That happens to me sometimes, running on cement or tarmac - better cushioned shoes tend to return lower HR readings than faster (or simply harder) shoes, at the same pace.
Often when I do a swim-run or bike-run brick w/o, my Garmin 745 will show crazy high HR values for the 1st appx 10min of the run and then normalize. This will happen when I am doing easy to moderate run pace. I was getting concerned so bought a chest strap to compare. With the chest strap did not get the HR spike at start of run under similar conditions.
Wrist heart rate depend on where your veines pass. Chest strap, get your heart beat by electrical pule. Ther’s no comparaison. You can have a closer results with a armband, but the chest strap is always win.
Maybe each device is approximating different time interval as one of reasons?
The last time I made HR spikes (on a chest strap) like that was when I got bored on the treadmill and almost fell off - big adrenaline burst!
Might the lags be different/worse because Ntutu has darker skin? I wonder about the issues wrist based HRMs have picking up readings on darker skin, so I’m really glad he is the subject. I also use my watch for HRV trends…I def prefer the ease of a watch but i think the lag on interval training combined with the issues around reading non white skin inevitably force me to invest in a chest strap.
Cool comparison!!! Not surprised on these results at all. I tested my Garmin Fenix Pro 6 vs my Garmin HRM chest strap (attached to my IPhone). They were within a few beats of each other on 5 different types of runs. I've used my watch going forward. Definitely think that more expensive watches work better on the wrist. I would also be interested to know if these HR differences were actually statistically significant (as in 3%, 5%, 10% difference) or just appear to be visually significant. I don't routinely use HR as a measure during efforts (to many variabilities like hydration, stress, wind, temp, altitude, etc.) but just as anecdotal info after. Wrist and chest seem comparable in that use case.
I've had similar accurate results when testing watch vs chest strap. There is a small lag in the watch picking up bigger HR changes, as noted in this video, but knowing that it's not big deal. My only problem is in cold weather my watch isn't as accurate and will show higher HR.
Glad Coach Parry showed this comparison. It seems the "cool" thing to say is that watches HR are a waste of time and horribly inaccurate. But I've always found the opposite. At least for my body type the watches are very accurate.
That’s interesting. If you don’t use HR as a measure, what do you focus on?
@@890bbailey Power! Not affected by wind, hills, altitude, etc, etc.
@@jimoconnor8597 Ah, that makes sense. What do you use to track power output?
I absolutely hated doing interval with the HR sensor in my Garmin watch. it was impossible to see if I ever reached needed intensity of the interval, and once my wrist was sweaty, the readings were just super random. HR strat is something that was worth the money for me. and for "dry" activities my watch is fantastic, but once I sweat, it's just useless. And it's Fenix 5, ofc it's an older model, but it was quite expensive when released and it can't really measure well. sad
I have noticed that occasionally my Garmin HRM strap returns spuriously high readings. My true max HR = 170, but occasionally my chest strap will spike as high as 225. I haven't been able to identify cause and effect... i.e. it happens both when I'm wearing a shirt and when running bare chested. Sometimes it happens early in the run, sometimes towards the end. Any ideas?
My "MyZone" Chest HRM suffers from occasional Cadence Lock - where it locks onto my cadence 180 normal 200 sprinting instead of my HR and it is downright annoying.
It is less likely to happen if I use electrode gel and a tight strap.
I use an Apple Watch and then switched to polar chest strap. Chest strap in smoother graph than Apple wrist based but Apple wrist based was miles better than Garmin. Sorry, but never been a Garmin fan. Polar plus Apple Watch works for me.
I never understood the serious YT runners bashing HR monitors on watches. They claim that they're wildly inconsistent and that it'll give them false (usually high) readings when they're done running...I've not once had this happen. My HR on my watch always coincides with what I feel like it should be, and it stays very consistent, all the time. Zero issues.
How accurate is apple watch? ... Asking because, it is much more practical option as it negates the need to have two devices. Looking for observations from other runners. I have tested mine (comparing with threadmill's sensor) and in zone 2 & 3 it is not more than 1 or 2 beats different but have not tested it VO2max type situation when there is lot of sweat.
There are some UA-cam channels devoted entirely to reviewing wearable technology, and what I've seen from those channels is that Apple watches are, surprisingly, better than most dedicated sports watches for HR accuracy compared to chest straps, but chest straps usually outperform optical HR sensors. For certain activities, optical sensors do not perform well at all.
What results exactly didn't you expect? It looks normal. Wrist sensors lag behind. That's a normal thing.
My Coros Pace 2 is always spot on.
Its not
@@Gelaarsderat with the arm band it is close enough for me and much nicer than wearing a chest strap😅
9:22 saw some short shorts…
Why don't you freaking look into the lens of the camera??
Fenix 7 is pretty weak for measuring HR, considering it did better than expected. There're a lot better watches out there, I myself own basically all consumer HR devices out there and for example the later Huawei watches have a considerably better HR sensor. It beats easily Venu 2 witch is itself a lot better than Fenix 7....
venu 2 and fenix 7 use the same sensor and software. The anomolous result you're referencing from TQS is just that. An anomaly. The Huawei and apples are about 0.01 - 0.08% more accurate that the OHV4 in last gen Garmin watches. FWIW.
All of which are about 92% as accurate as say a basic chest strap when compared with medical devices. Easy to find the studies ;)