|
Oct 2021
11:40am, 5 Oct 2021
15,625 posts
|
larkim
Absolutely SPR. Wasn't trying to say my experience was universal, but as with all these things we often hear the negatives and don't hear the positives. I wasn't expecting the HRM to be as good as it is on the watch, so I am delighted.
I suspect I do wear my watch reasonably tight and the rubberised strap on the 645 keeps it secure.
I suppose if it does give any universal truth it might be that the tech is intrinsically valid, but the real world implementation of it on a watch on a range of different wrists is that it will be the watch / person combination which causes the success or failure, rather than the watch itself. Though if the watch is designed without acknowledging how people might use it in the real world, then that is a design flaw of course.
|
|
Oct 2021
11:41am, 5 Oct 2021
1,124 posts
|
Big_G
I posted this on the Garmin thread a few weeks ago with a bit more detail from my own tests. I haven't corrected the typos :D
I still read the disclaimer from Garmin's own website, so don't bother with the OHR for running (I think it is accurate for RHR for me anyway). I tested my Fenix 6x with the additional HR data field that was mentioned a few pages back (so I had both the HR strap and wrist sensor displayed), and it was woeful compared to the HR the strap I use, so that confirms it to me (I think it was Larkim who was wondering where the data for the data field turns up - it is available on GC on a separate graph). I guess we are all different but me, the wrist sensor lags behind and takes a long time to catch up with a change in effort, plus it is not consistent in that it is sometimes it is displaying much higher values than the HR strap and some times much lower (I am talking +/- 20bpm). The average over the whole run was very similar between the two, but using it in real time isn't workable for me.
This is the disclaimer from the Garmin site about wrist sensors: 'While our wrist HR monitor technology is state of the art, there are inherent limitations with the technology that may cause some of the heart rate readings to be inaccurate under certain circumstances. These circumstances include the user’s physical characteristics, the fit of the device and the type and intensity of the activity....'.
For me, the 'certain circumstances' appears to be 'running'! I was hoping that the wrist sensor readings would at least be in the right ballpark on the Fenix, but I also had the same issue with the 735XT.
|
|
Oct 2021
11:54am, 5 Oct 2021
15,626 posts
|
larkim
Good re-post Big_G. The only test I've not done is with a chest strap vs the wrist, but as I've posted in the past for me the chest strap was the least relaible option I had anyway, mainly (it seemed) down to static from t-shirts confusing the transmission of data from the strap. So it was a rare beast indeed when the Garmin red strap gave a trace which had any credibility in the real world.
The OH1+ for me was a godsend as every single run I used it for presented viable data, and now the fact that the 645 matches the OH1+ with a very very high degree of precision means I trust those two over a chest strap. If I get hold of my old red chest strap again (son has borrowed it) I'll do a test some day to see about lag as I sort of "know" that the electrical signals is the "gold standard" of evidencing heart rate so if there are lag issues with optical readings on my arm then I'd see them there.
|
|
Oct 2021
12:07pm, 5 Oct 2021
3,844 posts
|
J2R
For accuracy I would still go for a chest strap over a wrist sensor every time. Having said that, the wrist sensor on my Coros Pace 2 has proved to be very much more useful than the Polar M430 and TomTom Runner watches I've tried before, which were so unreliable as to be worthless in this respect. For 80-90% of the time, the Coros gives a plausible figure, which is OK for me at the moment, as I'm only doing occasional checking anyway. For mission-critical stuff I'll use a chest strap.
|
|
Oct 2021
9:50am, 14 Oct 2021
1,164 posts
|
Big_G
Not sure where to post this question - here or the Garmin thread.
I have searched both threads and there's not a huge amount of recent info, but I have just purchased a Stryd footpod, and was wondering if anyone here makes use of them? I know some use them as a replacement for GPS in terms of potentially more accurate mile splits, but I am mainly interested in having (even!) more data to peruse and seeing how the power figures align (or not) with HR zones. I have read a lot of reviews but was just wondering if anyone here uses one.
|
|
Oct 2021
9:56am, 14 Oct 2021
12,802 posts
|
chunkywizard
I don't but I do use the Garmin CIQ Power fields to get Power data in my fit file. For me power isn't that interesting as it basically relates to pace and so I use that.
|
|
Oct 2021
8:06am, 15 Oct 2021
35,992 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
My HR seems low now 120-125 on easy runs is this because I’m fit or just old ? Or combination of two 😂
|
|
Oct 2021
9:24am, 15 Oct 2021
18,559 posts
|
Chrisull
A bit of both I'd say
|
|
Oct 2021
11:47am, 15 Oct 2021
35,996 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
Yep I’d agree
|
|
Oct 2021
11:47am, 15 Oct 2021
35,997 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
RHR of 46
|
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023