Garmin 225 will have a HR monitor in the watch

rowingg wrote:

Think its worth it?

I would be very skeptical. It sounds like wrist-based heart rate monitoring is not very reliable during physical activity:

As a side note... I purchased the Garmin Forerunner 620 as an upgrade from my 110. The main reason was because the 620 is wifi enabled (which is awesome!), but a secondary reason was because it had a built-in accelerometer to track pace indoors (i.e. on the treadmill). That feature flat out doesn't work. It's maybe 85% accurate when running a consistent, easy pace. Throw in any sort of speed changes and it just doesn't pick those up accurately. I've gone back to pairing a calibrated foot pod when tracking my treadmill running. Garmin did tout this as one of the great, new features of the watch. I'm sure they would've found these problems during testing but simply decided to release a flawed feature rather than pulling the feature from the watch.

So in the same light, I would be very skeptical about this new wrist based HR technology. Maybe wait until some reviews come out. This guy does great reviews for this kind of thing:

Tech Junky wrote:

rowingg wrote:

Think its worth it?

I would be very skeptical.

...

Maybe wait until some reviews come out. This guy does great reviews for this kind of thing:

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-reviews

Hey, what do you know, that guy has already done a review:

You read it, I'm lazy. I'll read it later

My biggest question was the accuracy of the HRM. In that review, he went for a run (easy with surges) with a FR 220 + chest strap and the 225 and compared the HR data. There was essentially no difference.

In my opinion, it really depends on how often you plan to use a HRM. I have a schosche rythm+ and I use it maybe once a week. This allows me to use a cheap old forerunner 305 (you can probably get it for free, used from a triathlete). If you train with a HRM everyday, an integrated HR sensor could be nice but then you have to be ready to pay a lot.

My point is that today you can get GPS watches for a low price (even with chest strap) but the best solutions for HRM will cost you a lot and the training improvement is not really clear.

Ill wait for the 625 then

I use a Rythym+, and I've found the technology to be much more reliable than the EKG for me. I tend to not sweat much unless it's real hot, and can't keep a good contact. I've had zero spurious data from the optical sensor - just nice, smooth curves that line right up with manual pulse-checks, and what I'd expect based on the paces.

That said, I don't use HR much for my run training. Pace and respiration are more reliable indicators of effort for me, so I don't mind strapping on the HR mon when I need it, especially since it's an unobtrusive armband. I do use it for some trail running when I'm out for an easy jog and don't want to let my HR get too high on the climb, and also when cycling. Cycling for me right now is mostly done at a very easy (recovery) pace, and it's nice to have HR as a flag that I might be getting too exuberant.

I am interested in it but plan to wait until more early adapter reviews come in. Still have an old 301 that keeps a long battery life over the 305, both rather large especially the 301 which is like wearing a small tv on your wrist. With Apple's smartwatch entry we will probably see a wide range of new products in the upcoming year or two, so I will continue to use what I have but will keep tabs on new products.

rowingg wrote:

http://garmin.blogs.com/my_weblog/2015/05/forerunner-225-first-garmin-gps-running-watch-with-wrist-based-heart-rate.html#.VVIIXpOXC_Y

Think its worth it?

Optical HRMs aren't all created equal. For example, neither Apple nor Fitbit are especially reliable. The Garmin 225 uses Mio's tech, which is solid, unless they screwed up the implementation, which I doubt. I had a TomTom Cardio Runner, which also used Mio tech, and it worked perfectly. The only reason I got rid of it was that the lap button was a tap of the screen, which wasn't reliable.

You might also consider the Scosche Rhythm heart rate monitor for $80. It's an optical sensor that straps onto your arm. You can put it on your wrist, forearm, or upper arm. It's small and unobtrusive, and it's compatible with almost every watch out there. As someone who runs in the winter, I like to have my watch over my jacket, so an on-unit HRM isn't ideal.

$300 might seem a tad steep, but consider that the 220 costs $200, and the Rhythm would cost you 80, or the 220 with a chest strap would run you $250. The 225 gives you the convenience of everything on one unit, and it's a new product, so expect a slight premium. Your other options for reliable on-unit HRM are the TomTom Cardio Runner ($269 but always on sale, if you can handle the unreliable lap button) or the Epson Runsense SF-810 ($350, and also the most accurate GPS on the market by all accounts). For my money, the best deal out there right now is the Polar M400 (totally packed with features and $180) paired with a Scosche Rhythm.

If you're not in a rush to buy something, expect the optical HRM market to explode in the next year or so. Another issue is that optical HRM doesn't currently read accurate heart rate variability data. The data can be useful to track directly (much like resting heart rate in the morning), and it's also leveraged by some of Polar and Garmin's higher end watches to project VO2max, recovery time, etc. It's expected that optical HRMs will start to get more accurate with regard to variability in the near future.

I use the TomTom Cardio right now. The HR info is accurate, but agree the lap button is terrible!

Do you know if the Garmin 225 will have better features in terms of lap/splits?

What's also annoying is that the TomTom Cardio has a stop watch mode (no GPS), but the HR monitor doesn't work in that mode. What I'd like is HR/Stop Watch combo without any GPS data. This is basically for track workouts since the GPS data on the track is worthless.

I have been running with the Apple Watch lately and haven't been able to figure out why the HRM sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

When it works, it is incredibly accurate (within +-3 BPM) of my Garmin 620 chest strap but then some other times it doesn't display anything (or "reading...") or it is way off (like +- 50 BPM).

Also, complete lack of audit functionality after the run.

I hate running with a chest strap so in the end, my Apple Watch still wins but for the running aspect, it leaves a lot of room for improvement (GPS anyone?). For everything else, it is pretty much PERFECT.

For those with watches with HR built-in, does the HR work with your arm gets wet? I'm heard some people report that it works well until you start sweating.

I read the review wrote:

My biggest question was the accuracy of the HRM. In that review, he went for a run (easy with surges) with a FR 220 + chest strap and the 225 and compared the HR data. There was essentially no difference.

Well, if by "essentially no difference" you mean that the optical sensor was noticeably more accurate, you'd be right.

The mio design uses a rubber gasket around the hr sensor to prevent ambient light getting in, probably also helps prevent too much sweat getting in there.

Given the apparently better technology, not sure why anyone would want to put on one of those chest straps. Uncomfortable, plus you can't take your shirt off and run without everyone thinking you're crazy.

Apple Watch Runner wrote:

I have been running with the Apple Watch lately and haven't been able to figure out why the HRM sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

When it works, it is incredibly accurate (within +-3 BPM) of my Garmin 620 chest strap but then some other times it doesn't display anything (or "reading...") or it is way off (like +- 50 BPM).

Also, complete lack of audit functionality after the run.

I hate running with a chest strap so in the end, my Apple Watch still wins but for the running aspect, it leaves a lot of room for improvement (GPS anyone?). For everything else, it is pretty much PERFECT.

They just bought a company that does gps to the centermeter. Maybe in version 2.0.

I've seen tests popping up as it gets used showing the Apple watch is more reliable and accurate in many cases than other GPS options.