The Running Thread Vol 2

[joshcowin]

wrencho said:

Wrist based HR is virtually useless. If you are wanting to train in HR zones best to get a chest strap

Is it? Got any recent info to prove that?

[wrencho]

an optical monitor that requires constant contact with the skin without moving, in contact with a a part of the body that has some many variables (hair, skin tone, moles, shape) is never going to be as accurate as a chest strap that measures electrical activity. There have been lots of studies that show the accuracy of chest straps against ECG's. I don't recall the same for opticals.

[smn159]

Wrist sensor on mine works really well and is comparable with the chest strap that I use occasionally (Garmin 955)

[GregK2]

Someone posted a graph a few pages back with wrist HR and chest strap plotted and there wasn't much in it at all, so to say wrist is almost useless is a bit strong. Chest is optimal but wrist still does a good job if worn correctly

[Slowboathome]

In my (limited) experience, the wrist reading is fine for steady runs but I need a chest strap if there are going to be rapid changes of heart rate (eg for hills or sprints). The wrist sensor struggles with these.

[Piginapoke]

Slowboathome said:

In my (limited) experience, the wrist reading is fine for steady runs but I need a chest strap if there are going to be rapid changes of heart rate (eg for hills or sprints). The wrist sensor struggles with these.

Apple Watch series 8 gives identical readings to my chest strap.

[ajap1979]

Must admit, I think most half decent watches these days are as accurate as a chest strap.

[Still Mulling]

ajap1979 said:

Must admit, I think most half decent watches these days are as accurate as a chest strap.

Depends. For steady state stuff, near enough for 98% of users. For intervals, mixed aerobic (e.g. circuits) or weightlifting, no. I speak from my own data comparisons Swimming also has its obvious disadvantages with wrist-based.

[Camoradi]

Swansea half marathon for me yesterday. I wanted to average 7 min/mile, and managed to do exactly that, despite going a bit too quick in the early miles.

1:31:43 chip time and 8th in my age group. Very happy with that but my legs are borked today

[smn159]

Still Mulling said:

ajap1979 said:

Must admit, I think most half decent watches these days are as accurate as a chest strap.

Depends. For steady state stuff, near enough for 98% of users. For intervals, mixed aerobic (e.g. circuits) or weightlifting, no. I speak from my own data comparisons Swimming also has its obvious disadvantages with wrist-based.

Yeah I tend to use pace rather than HR for intervals and only use HR for base paced runs, mostly to check that I'm actually in Zone 2, and tempo runs.

I'll use the strap for long threshold intervals just on the off chance that Garmin sees fit to recalculate my LT, but it seems to have given up on that recently...

[Austin_Metro]

Camoradi said:

Swansea half marathon for me yesterday. I wanted to average 7 min/mile, and managed to do exactly that, despite going a bit too quick in the early miles.

1:31:43 chip time and 8th in my age group. Very happy with that but my legs are borked today

That’s a Great effort. Well done.

[Austin_Metro]

Whilst we are on chest strap hrm … I need one because the optical on my fenix 6 only switches on when it wants to. And switches off too. During runs.

I dont really know what to get. I looked at wahoo tckr at 40 which seemed good but I don’t know if is compatible.

I’m reluctant to buy a garmin chest hrm because I am only getting it because their watch product is a bit shonky but is there more data from their product?

Any views and recommendations please?

Austin.

[smn159]

I've got the Garmin one and it's been solid. Make sure that you get one that does HRV if your watch calculates lactate threshold, otherwise it won't work.

[Slowboathome]

Austin_Metro said:

I’m reluctant to buy a garmin chest hrm because I am only getting it because their watch product is a bit shonky but is there more data from their product?

Any views and recommendations please?

Austin.

I've just bought the Garmin one. It's worked perfectly so far.

[Smitters]

Austin_Metro said:

Whilst we are on chest strap hrm … I need one because the optical on my fenix 6 only switches on when it wants to. And switches off too. During runs.

I dont really know what to get. I looked at wahoo tckr at 40 which seemed good but I don’t know if is compatible.

I’m reluctant to buy a garmin chest hrm because I am only getting it because their watch product is a bit shonky but is there more data from their product?

Any views and recommendations please?

Austin.

I have a Garmin FR245 and a Wahoo strap - they connect fine. Think of it like headphones - bluetooth headphones can connect to all sorts, not just something of the same brand. I reckon my Polar strap from 2005 which is ANT+ would also still connect if it still worked.

What you don't get is some of the running dynamics from Gamrin's high end straps, but at £40 or so, the equivalent Garmin strap doesn't do this stuff anyway. As a previous posted has mentioned, the Wahoo body will fit onto a replacement strap too, which is good news.

[joshcowin]

So it seems that the optical/watch heartrate has progressed to a point where it is an equivalent for 90% of runners to the chest strap.

So the next question is, what are you doing with the data? Do you watch it in real time and adjust things or look at it after the run?

I never look at it (HR), I run to paces, I have always felt that running to heartrate is affected too much by external variables and that constantly looking at this stuff is a bit of a 1% exercise!

[Austin_Metro]

joshcowin said:

So it seems that the optical/watch heartrate has progressed to a point where it is an equivalent for 90% of runners to the chest strap.

So the next question is, what are you doing with the data? Do you watch it in real time and adjust things or look at it after the run?

I never look at it (HR), I run to paces, I have always felt that running to heartrate is affected too much by external variables and that constantly looking at this stuff is a bit of a 1% exercise!

Josh, from what you’ve said on here, you’re a more experienced runner than me … but I occasionally use my hr mid run to make sure I’m not going too hard and can pace my race. I did a park run recently and did first 2k at 4m 15 a km that’s quite quick for me … and basically too fast as I was near maximum hr. So I backed off for two km and then had a bit in the tank for the last 800m to drop under my pb.

[redrabbit29]

joshcowin said:

So it seems that the optical/watch heartrate has progressed to a point where it is an equivalent for 90% of runners to the chest strap.

So the next question is, what are you doing with the data? Do you watch it in real time and adjust things or look at it after the run?

I never look at it (HR), I run to paces, I have always felt that running to heartrate is affected too much by external variables and that constantly looking at this stuff is a bit of a 1% exercise!

I think it's personal preference. I don't think you're right or wrong. Some runners I know just ignore it and never look, they go by feel primarily.

I'm the oppositte. Mainly as I'm very anal and hate feeling like I'm not doing the right thing so looking at a pretty number helps me think that I'm doing something right.

When I do, i usually glance down every few minutes. Often I will look if I feel really good and want to see if my HR is as low as it feels, similarly if I am really struggling. I often do it try to try to ensure I am staying in Zone 2 (for me that's about 150bpm - that kind of range).

It benefits me as often I will feel like I'm going easy, look down and see my HR is much higher so I then either slow right down, or just walk for 30 seconds before resuming

[Slowboathome]

redrabbit29 said:

I usually glance down every few minutes. Often I will look if I feel really good and want to see if my HR is as low as it feels, similarly if I am really struggling. I often do it try to try to ensure I am staying in Zone 2 (for me that's about 150bpm - that kind of range).

It benefits me as often I will feel like I'm going easy, look down and see my HR is much higher so I then either slow right down, or just walk for 30 seconds before resuming

Pretty much this.

I've set the alert on my Garmin so it goes off if my heart goes above the Zone 2 range (usually on hills). I also keep an eye on it while I'm getting up to speed otherwise I can end up going too slowly.

I don't do anything with the data afterwards except for when I'm doing Parkrun - I log it then to track progress.

[joshcowin]

Austin_Metro said:

Josh, from what you’ve said on here, you’re a more experienced runner than me … but I occasionally use my hr mid run to make sure I’m not going too hard and can pace my race. I did a park run recently and did first 2k at 4m 15 a km that’s quite quick for me … and basically too fast as I was near maximum hr. So I backed off for two km and then had a bit in the tank for the last 800m to drop under my pb.

If you hadn't have looked at your HR could you have maintained that pace for the 5km? I would be worried that if I started tracking my HR I would run to numbers rather than run to how I feel which is ultimatly your body telling you how you can perform that day! I only ever go on feel and everyday is different!

I am off to look at some HR data now to see what I can learn.