|
Aug 2017
9:19pm, 22 Aug 2017
7,380 posts
|
LouLou
Do people find the wrist heart rate accurate on 230/235s? I only ask as my fitbit wrist HR is not accurate compared to my Garmin chest strap.
|
|
Aug 2017
9:24pm, 22 Aug 2017
4,690 posts
|
chunkywizard
It's very dependant on multiple factors. Mine is pretty good, even for intervals but it's not like that for everyone. Wear it tight (very, so it leaves a mark), and slightly higher than a normal watch.
|
|
Aug 2017
9:37pm, 22 Aug 2017
5,243 posts
|
Joe Hawk
Didn't like mine so sold it on.
The HR was generally okay just didnt like the watch
|
|
Aug 2017
9:45pm, 22 Aug 2017
1,793 posts
|
jdarun
well the 230 doesn't have a great wrist HRM 
I've found my 235 to be most better than the chest strap used to be. Not entirely confident of it on bike rides - if it's right then I have a very strange physiology!
The only time it failed badly in a run was my very first time out on, on a sunny day, when it locked on to cadence. Unfortunately that was two days before manchester marathon so I wore a chest strap for that which rather defeated the point of the impulse purchase. But it's not done that since under any conditions. I wonder if it locks on to the owners' pulse better over time.
|
|
Aug 2017
9:46pm, 22 Aug 2017
2,586 posts
|
larkim
Interesting experience tonight. Our park has a peculiar 267 ish grass track laid out on an insulating field, probably maximum 4 or 5m elevation change, could be less than that. Anyway, as the whole family was down in the park at the Club training session in various forms I did my 6 mile recovery run on the track. First three miles I ran the usual anticlockwise way around the track with 8:50s and HR 135 avgs. A bit higher than I expected but I always cost myself a few beats running on grass.
To spice things up (!) I reversed the route and for the same HR I was getting 8:30s. Now it could be a GPS tracking issue but it did feel easier.
The track effectively gradually descends from what would be the 100m starting point, and then rises "sharply" (!) only at the second bend. So it seems running a gradual descent and a short steep climb is slower than a steep descent and a gradual climb. An experiment of one, but I'm convinced
|
|
Aug 2017
9:02am, 23 Aug 2017
6,195 posts
|
paul the builder
On such a short loop maybe the effect of wearing your watch on the 'inside' or 'outside' arm isn't negligible anymore...?
|
|
Aug 2017
9:15am, 23 Aug 2017
4,691 posts
|
chunkywizard
one of the guys on the Garmin forum always says you should wear your watch on the inside of the track... ie left for anti-clock
|
|
Aug 2017
9:29am, 23 Aug 2017
2,588 posts
|
larkim
It is possible GPS errors made the difference I suppose. I just tracked 8 laps and they took 13m10s and 13m03s, so perhaps it was exaggerated by the watch inside / outside thing. Ah well, seemed interesting at the time!
Irrespective of which way you run round the track, the OCD in me says watches should always be worn on the left wrist anyway
|
|
Aug 2017
10:49am, 23 Aug 2017
11,693 posts
|
Bazoaxe
People who wear there watches on their right wrist are not normal. Or those who wear the watch face on the inside of the wrist. Weirdoes.
|
|
Aug 2017
10:58am, 23 Aug 2017
3,107 posts
|
Curly45
Left handers are proud to be weird
|
