Heart monitor

[Stinky1953]

Can anyone please recommend a good wearable heart monitor so I see what's happening when I exercise. Thank you. Tim.

[CDreamer]

I always found the FitBit the most accurate but haven’t had one for about 5 years now as the build was terrible and they kept falling apart - I had 3 in 12 months which persuaded me to buy Apple Watch which has all the gizmos but I don’t believe it is as accurate as the FitBit.

Which did a good comparison which.co.uk/reviews/fitness...

[Stinky1953 in reply to CDreamer]

Thank you. I forgot Which? and I'm a member!

[philcollis in reply to Stinky1953]

Check with BHF they can advise best for what purpose you need i.e. clinical or health & wellbeing?

[Stinky1953 in reply to philcollis]

Thank you. I'll do that.

[RoyMacDonald in reply to CDreamer]

I've always used Garmin chest monitor and the Strava app. That's how my SVT was diagnosed as my heart rate was always normal at the Dr's and hospital. I printed out the results from my Garmin and showed them to the consultant.

[Stinky1953 in reply to RoyMacDonald]

Thank you.

[BuckleyBoy in reply to CDreamer]

I have had several Polar HRM's which I think gave fairly accurate pulse measurements, and the more expensive ones could record and display a graph on a PC. After several failures on the most expensive version I gave up with them and now use an Apple 5 watch. Much more convenient than wearing a chest strap, but I'm not sure how accurate they are. They can also give a rough graph on a linked iPhone of pulse recorded during an exercise session (long bike rides for me). The main drawback is the delay (20 - 30 secs) of displaying pulse rate from the actual event. I know when my HR jumps into exercise induced AF I can feel a thump in the chest, but the associated increased heart rate does not show up until 20 - 30 secs later.

I still have the most basic / cheap Polar watch, and with chest strap that is good for live display and average HR over a session.

[Stinky1953 in reply to BuckleyBoy]

Thank you. I have a Kardia 6 lead but wanted something that will gave an instant HR. I've bought a Fitbit 4 and most of the time it seems to me in agreement with the Kardia but even the Kardia seems confused and will give me a Possible AF reading of 111 and a minute later give me a Possible AF reading of 62 neither of which agrees with the number of "beats" recorded on the ECG.

[Jajarunner]

Polars wrist monitor is great ut the rest of jts function not vg, slow to connect to GPS etc. My Garmin is the dead opposite, all great except hr monitor is terrible even with chest strap. However, hubby's garmin gives me a good reading so goodness knows!

[Stinky1953 in reply to Jajarunner]

Thank you.

[CDreamer]

My conclusion from the replies and the reports I’ve read it that so far is that there is no clear recommendation for an accurate, robust fitness tracker with HR monitor at a reasonable price.

The watches are reasonably OK but have a time delay on HR and have lots of bells and whistles and are expensive and the dedicated fitness trackers are a lot cheaper but fall apart all too easily.

[Stinky1953 in reply to CDreamer]

Thank you. I agree it is a bit confusing.

[Billiam54]

Hi,

When exercising I use a Polar H10 chest strap which connects to my Coros watch. In periods when I am not exercising the Coros watch monitors my heart rate using wrist sensors. In my experience when exercising the chest monitor is far more accurate than a wrist HRM. The H10 will connect to a multitude of watches, Coros, Polar, Garmin to name but a couple, it will also connect to the Polar Beat App on the iPhone. Whatever watch you buy be sure to check the accuracy of the wrist based HRM against the chest strap. If you need to check the accuracy of the wrist based HRM further then Heartrate Free is a good App. Cheers.

[Stinky1953 in reply to Billiam54]

Thank you.

[momist]

Just be aware (seeing that this is an AF forum) that none of those which use little flashing lights on the back and a light sensor will detect or give an accurate view of what's happening when you are in AF.

As regards the Fitbit (which I have) the Charge2 seems OK and a third party strap for it is more reliable than the original. However, my son and his wife gave up on theirs and moved to Huawei ones that they seem to be delighted with.

[Stinky1953 in reply to momist]

Thank you. I've now got a Fitbit 4 and it is definitely picking up my AF and is generally in agreement with my Kardia

[momist in reply to Stinky1953]

Good to know Stinky1953 . Thanks.

I do wonder how though? The flashing lights type use the reflected colour of the skin to detect the pulse, on the basis that each heart beat swells the capillaries slightly and make the skin redder (hence using green light). This colour change is filtered out by an algorithm to find a regular variation within normal heart beat range. When in AF, not all heart beats produce a pulse, and the rate is often much higher than 'normal range'.

Does the FB4 use electronic measurement instead? Or are you in permanent AF with a less intense high beat?

[Stinky1953 in reply to momist]

To answer re the Fitbit it uses flashing lights to measure.

[Stinky1953]

I have been in AF now continuously for 17 days but not sure if this means permanent. What you say might explain why sometimes the Fitbit and the Kardia agree and sometimes not. Even the Kardia itself gets a little confused, one moment giving me an AF reading around 70-75 and the next minute 115 all the time with a very similar looking trace. Very confusing.

Tim.