|
May 2020
4:59pm, 6 May 2020
3,649 posts
|
StuH
One of them I had to use an app called 'ANT+ Enabler' to enable the chipset.
|
|
May 2020
5:02pm, 6 May 2020
10,984 posts
|
larkim
I've ran the Ant tester app on my phone (search Ant tester in google play store), confirmed no Ant here.
|
|
May 2020
9:54am, 13 May 2020
36,234 posts
|
Nellers
Just reporting in that I've got a week of readings logged with the app and it's started telling me if I should train normally or take it easy today. Today is a "take it easy" day.
I'm assuming it will be more accurate over a longer period as it seems to work from a baseline of your previous readings, so 30 data points should be more accurate than 7 I assume.
The other thing this has highlighted to me is my resting HR. When I started using an HRM back in 2009 I manually took my resting HR and recorded 46, which I've pretty much used ever since.
My average since using the app is 56, although it is trending slightly downward, I guess as I get more relaxed with taking the readings. I was initially alarmed that my fitness had deteriorated but I've since seen some stuff saying that resting HR usually creeps up as you age. Anyone else have any insights?
Also in terms of the ease of use of the app (HRV4training) it's dead simple to use, but I can't really comment on the accuracy/usefulness of it in any meaningful way.
|
|
May 2020
12:23pm, 13 May 2020
16,406 posts
|
Bazoaxe
My manually recorded HR used to be mid 40s as well. I had an app on my phone that I then used and that was high 40s and into 50s. I now wear my optical garmin which records mid 50s, albeit if I have had a glass of wine before bed then its up to and into the 60s
I suspect the manual approach is most accurate
|
|
May 2020
3:37pm, 22 May 2020
28 posts
|
TheBeardRunner (aka Abul Choudhury
I've got a Garmin FR225 I'm using for heart rate training but realise I really need to get a chest strap but the price is putting me off currently (about £50?).
|
|
May 2020
3:49pm, 22 May 2020
6,274 posts
|
TeeBee
I have a 225 and found the optical monitor really unreliable. Using the chest strap is so much better. I think the chest strap is a good investment, if monitoring your HR is important to - and you can afford it, of course.
And welcome to Fetch 
|
|
May 2020
4:10pm, 22 May 2020
7,863 posts
|
chunkywizard
The FR225 was the first OHM Garmin. It wan't very good. They are now on Gen 3 (I think) with the FR245 and its a lot better, but it does work for some people and not others. I think the cheapest new strap Garmin do is the HRM Dual, but it looks like the cheapest you can get it is about £45 new.
|
|
May 2020
4:29pm, 22 May 2020
29 posts
|
TheBeardRunner (aka Abul Choudhury
I can live with the 225 for the moment as only just begun my heart rate training journey and have accepted sometimes will jump around a bit. At least the zones that I set on Garmin Connect come up correctly on the watch. The actual Garmin heart graph of times in zones is completely wrong and has me in zone 5 90% of the time! 🤦♂️
|
|
May 2020
5:02pm, 22 May 2020
244 posts
|
Shades
Many of the earlier Garmins came with a chest strap but a lot of runners never used them. Even the old chest straps can be synced with the newer watches.
Maybe ask around your running club or perhaps kind Fetchies have a strap they don't use.
|
|
May 2020
5:17pm, 22 May 2020
2,752 posts
|
J2R
I use a CooSpo one off ebay, which cost me £20 or so, and it works fine. It's ANT+ (works with Garmin) and Bluetooth (everybody else). The nearest I can see at the moment is this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/CooSpo-Monitor-Bluetooth-Waterproof-Compatible/dp/B07D4J5VDK/ref=sr_1_4?crid=29CIV1PX5CVMT&dchild=1&keywords=ant%2B+heart+rate+monitor+chest+strap&qid=1590164109&sprefix=heart+rate+monitor+strap+ant%2B%2Caps%2C224&sr=8-4, which is rather more expensive but still much cheaper than a Garmin strap.
|
