I am looking at getting a chest strap monitor. I currently use a fitbit Ionic which was a replacement for the charge 3 which was nothing but trouble however I think it is throwing some spurious heart rates in there.
I am getting fitter however my heart rate whilst out running has gone through the roof. I used to do ave 145bpm on a 5k however it is currently up at 165 peaking at higher. I am 55 and have been running and gyming for a couple of years now. I do 5k in around 34.45 and that feels like a nice steady pace, I am not breathless and not pushing myself, I could also hols a conversation. The track undulates but is not steep. That said I am comparing like for like, i.e the same track.
The accuracy of wrist mount has been questioned and also using in bright sunshine. I run at sunrise in Cyprus so it is quite bright.
I am going to take the charge 3 out on Monday and run it on my other wrist to see what that does but I would also like some feedback on chest bands.
I see the Polar H10 gets some good reports but the TICKr is half the price.
Feedback will be much appreciated.
Jonathan
Written by
Jonno34
Marathon
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
I think in truth unless you've got a hardcore training regime set up based on accurate heart rate zones it's not really necessary... It's an interesting statistic to look at and to use for gauging vague zone training, but for most it's not something that has much of an impact. It just is what it is!
It you're still keen then certainly chest monitors are more accurate than wrist ones on the whole (though in fact I have had no trouble at all with my Garmin, but am perhaps in the minority!). I'm not sure about current brands and models however as so many seem to be moving away from chest straps. Might be worth grabbing a cheap older one from ebay to see how you get on with it before splashing out?
The point in question here is the peak heart rate. According to my Fitbit I am averaging my Max heart rate and peaking above that which is not good. I need to know if this is the fitbit giving an inacurate reading or if I have some sort of cardiac problem.
If that's genuinely your concern then I'd definitely not recommend using a fitness tool to diagnose it! They are only training devices, after all, and all heart rate monitors come with massive disclaimers. I don't think any would have the required accuracy to set your mind at ease... A doctor should definitely be the first port of call in that situation.
However, presumably you don't have any other symptoms and it's a passing thought rather than a real worry, so why not try a fitness MOT to get a proper baseline of your stats, including heart? It might give you a slightly more accurate response (though still not medically accurate of course). Most regular gyms don't have the required equipment, but we have a few more medical focused facilities that offer the works. I keep meaning to go to the one near my work for a vo2 max test to see what my measurement really is, rather than my Garmin just guessing all the time!
I am questioning the accuracy of my fitbit first, this has only really appeared since I changed it and does not seem to happen on the treadmill. I had a full Cardio MOT a couple of months ago. I also did 2 runs recently where I slowed my pace down by 1 min per km and it had little or no effect on the HR generated by wrist device.
I asked about a chest strap as they are more accurate and I want to verify the accuracy of the fitbit.
Any chest strap should certainly be better for that as they're electrical impulse based so tend to get a more immediate response. I'd still not bother buying a new one for casual running though, there are so many perfectly good second hand ones about as people upgrade to newer models.
The change in heart rate is for the same run, at the same pace, the only variable is a different HR monitor?
If so that answers your question. The Fitbit Charge is an activity tracker that doesn’t even have GPS. It has a poor reputation as a heart rate monitor.
The Ionic is a much better device. The HR monitor on it is more accurate. The Charge might even have been mistaking cadence for heart rate.
The charge 3 had a rate I was comfortable with it is the ionic which has me on ave 165 and peaks of 180. I want to know which is correct. Both fitbit devices have similar tech.
To add to my other response: most trackers use the 220 minus age formula which is known to be inaccurate and way too low. Even it’s inventor now discounts it. There are other better formulae that will put it a lot higher. 220 minus age puts my max hr at 146 but a more realistic calculation puts it at 165. Before I changed it, all my runs were in the top zone.
As per my original post my concern is why it has gone from 145 to 165, is it the device or something else. If it is not the device I will go to cardiologist.
Fair enough 😊 but I really think you are worrying about a brand of tracker that is notoriously unreliable. An ecg would put your mind at rest or spot any potential trouble, and your GP practice can do that for you. Instead of buying a chest strap, why not invest in a proper running watch- the wrist hr will be good enough, probably as accurate as a strap, just the hr won’t come down as fast when you go from effort to rest
I have had a full cardio. 2 x ECG, bloodwork for cardiac markers as I had had some pain which was a muscle spasm an ultrasound and an 24 hr ECG. I have had concerns which is why I had the above. My excersising rate seems to have gone up possibly when I changed fitbit. I am told the chest strap is more accurate which will tell me if I am getting spurious readings from the wrist device.
The Tickr has had a good reputation for quite a while now and it's a cheap option. You can always upgrade later if you get a bit stat obsessed (as some of us do).
Update. Went out this morning wearing my ionic a borrowed early model polar chest strap and wrist device and my wife's charge 3. Ionic on my normal wrist other 2 on the other. For the first km or so the ionic was mostly reading 30bpm more than the chest strap. Then it dropped and came a lot closer to normally within 10 and on occasion reading less. The average on the ionic was 145 a lot closer to where I want it to be. I am sure it was less on the polar and later I will get the charge 3 info.
So why the improvement on what felt like a hotter and harder day? Not sure tbh. Looking at the ionic it may be a notch tighter, I may have been holding the wrist differently being conscious of the issue or subconsciously mimicking the other wrist which had 2 devices. Try again on Wednesday.
There is a wahoo on the market for about 35£. It does not have memory which is not an issue however if it is ob Bluetooth to your phone can you still use the phone bluetooth for music?
I have a Garmin and Wahoo chest strap and am happy with both - even they can occasionally throw a wobbly and the straps need to be thoroughly wet before using them. I find then to be a bit painful to use - so I have only recently bought a Scosche Rhythm24 HRM which is worn on the upper arm either above or below the elbow. So far it seems to be working flawlessly for me . It talks to my Garmin watch via ANT+ protocol and also talks to Android Apps on my phone using Bluetooth
Update for those who may be interested and a thanks to all who helped especially FlickM3 who I may have offended along the way.
I ran with a borrowed Polar E17 and its accompanying watch device. This was steady and below my fitbit by anything up to 20-30 bpm, considerable!
I used it again but also did my fitbit up another notch and pushed it up my arm. They remained about 2-3 bpm of each other apart from when the polar had a couple of anomalies which I corrected by moving it a little.
I did the strap up on the polar for another run and both were good. So my fitbit works but needs careful placing. I still spend quite a bit of time in peak but probably only just. As I get further into a run my hr gradually goes up, I assume this is to push oxygen round or to counteract fluid loss or both. The run I did yesterday had me 146 as average and peaks on hills of 160. my target for cardio is 145. 80% was peak hr but at the low end and if I had stopped at 5k and not gone on to 7.5 I think it would have been under 50%.
So in short I now know where I am and what to do. Thanks again
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
What a beautiful morning for a run!
Heart Attack Journal
'Be Still, my Beating Heart'!
Marathon training after heart attack
Will a Garmin HRM Pro strap fit me?
