|
Oct 2018
11:28pm, 9 Oct 2018
38,359 posts
|
GlennR
I get on fine with the Garmin run strap, no chafing.
|
|
Oct 2018
11:29pm, 9 Oct 2018
9,887 posts
|
Badger
^agree with flanker there, and also found that the red one chafes much, much less than older straps - I've run nearly six and a half hours in one without a mark, where the older ones would have me bleeding in a couple of hours if I didn't tape my chest up first.
|
|
Oct 2018
12:40am, 10 Oct 2018
6,340 posts
|
The_Saint
I think there is a cognitive bias at work here, I used Firstbeat Athlete for many years with a variety of Garmin chest strap HRMs and a feature of Athlete was that it would show you just how much it had to clean up the HR data and it was often a shocking amount. So I migrate to the 735xt and then the 645 and unconsciously I go along with the widely held belief that optical is less accurate even though I know how hopeless the chest straps were.
|
|
Oct 2018
7:11am, 10 Oct 2018
5,798 posts
|
larkim
I don’t doubt the chest strap info is noisy, but it’s the sudden shifts around in heart beat for a consistent period of time on optical readings which means they are often rightly considered to be less trustworthy. I’ve seen plenty of instances where it seems to be reading “right” and then drop (or gain) 20-30bpm consistently for a sustained period of time (a few miles) for no physiological reason. Unless static is an issue, chest straps don’t do that.
|
|
Oct 2018
9:00am, 10 Oct 2018
6,341 posts
|
The_Saint
But they are still hopeless, just older hopeless
|
|
Oct 2018
10:57am, 10 Oct 2018
38,363 posts
|
GlennR
As it happens I have two recent HR traces from the same route using the same watch (Garmin FR 935), the first using optical, the second the HRM Run strap:
One thing that makes these more useful than they otherwise might be is that I was doing run-walk-run for both of them, so the measurement ability of the monitors was tested more than it otherwise might have been.
IMHO, the second is clearly the superior trace. Whether this was down to more reliable intrinsic measurement or a better algorithm I can't say for certain.
|
|
Oct 2018
11:18am, 10 Oct 2018
65,092 posts
|
Gobi
So to sum this up as a recommendation to wear a strap
I was in Amsterdam and realised I had forgotten my HRM strap and found a shop that was a Garmin reseller and the owner on chatting was a "serious athlete". He said to me that although they mainly sell with the Optical he wears a strap to track his heart rate for all sessions.
Found the thread on the Garmin forum and there is CW showing he is an exception with some lovely data :¬0
|
|
Oct 2018
12:10pm, 10 Oct 2018
1,407 posts
|
J2R
Unrelated to the discussion over the last few pages...
I'm still puzzled by a phenomenon I've seen a few times now this year, and first mentioned back in January or February, I think. My running club has a monthly competition, to see who can get the fastest time over a strava segment, and these segments are often very short, no more than 800 metres or so. I have found on a number of occasions with these that when I go absolutely flat out, the fastest speed I can sustain for that distance, my heart rate typically climbs for the first 2/3 or 3/4 of the distance and then either remains stable or even declines by a couple of bpm for the last bit, where I'm often pushing the hardest and maybe even speeding up a fraction.
Is this because I've gone anaerobic at this point? It's rather odd.
|
|
Oct 2018
12:27pm, 10 Oct 2018
16,829 posts
|
Dvorak
Because you have hit max hr, which is a peak and may not be sustainable over a distance? Might lactic recycling play a part?
Also, do you stop after such a segment, or slow down and carry on? Not that that would answer your question, but it may give interesting supplementary information.
|
|
Oct 2018
12:45pm, 10 Oct 2018
6,342 posts
|
The_Saint
That strikes me as your body's mechanisms to stop you killing yourself by over-exertion kicking in
|
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023