I use a Fenix with wristoptics, and it works fine in the summertime (you do not want a strap then!!!) and on the threadmill, but in the winter, I wear my watch on the outside of my running top sleeve, and also for biking or xc skiing the strap is the definite solution.
*treadmill
For the GPS: Remember to turn on Glonass, it is the russian satellite gps system, and it makes it much more accurate (check if the watch has got Glonass as a feature, my guess is that it has, at least for the priceranges over 200 $).
I've had HRMs for many years and HATE the strap. A constant irritant. Chafing, sliding around on the chest, another battery to replace, another item to take along on trips, etc.
My 235 is plenty accurate based on all the watches I've had. Just don't get mired in the details like if you see a spike to think you're having a heart attack like some newbies.
I love the 235, but get a one with a strap if you want to have the experience of going strapless later. :)
I've found that my FR15 is very accurate with the footpod when it's laced up firmly on the shoe.
Lots of trial and error, if it's not on the shoe correctly will lead to inaccurate results. I mean inaccurate by 50 to 80 meters.
I found if it's centered on the shoe on tightly on the laces, the sensor works best.
Then again, it's not a certified measuring instrument, lol. I think 50 to 80 meters is excellent in my books for a consumer good.
Another option is an arm strap like the Soche Rhythm. I paired one with my 230 and got much more reliable readings than I had with the 235's wrist monitor. The arm strap goes on your upper arm so it's out of the way and in a location where chafing and slipping aren't issues. DC Rainmaker has a review if you're interested.
As others have said, chest straps will give you the most consistently accurate data, but carry with them a degree of discomfort. I also would like to recommend that rather than using HR data during a workout use it to analyze the quality of your workout after completion. In this case consistency is important and not necessarily accuracy. Therefore optical HR may work just as well as a chest strap, so long as it's a quality watch.
Luv2run wrote:
Wrist is not as accurate. Strap is fine.
+1
the garmin wrist sensor is terrible. the chest strap is spot on.
If HRM is important and you want wrist based HR, then you need to go with a watch with the mio technology such as the tomtom gps watch. The Garmin wrist HRM tech is garbage, and they are too dumb/incompetent to figure out how to license the mio tech.
Actually, in DC Rainmaker’s review of the Forerunner 225, he mentions Garmin did license Mio technology. Garmin moved away from Mio after that.
Joe Jackson wrote:
About 1.5 years in with an FR35 and I consider the wrist-based HR sensor useless for actual running. So many issues most annoyingly that it will frequently pick up my running cadence resulting in a chart that shows me at my max HR for long periods of time. Or it reads ridiculously low. I don’t even look at that data for my runs any more. The day to day HR stuff including resting HR is mildly interesting so I leave the sensor on.
For efforts where I care to see my real HR I bought a Garmin chest strap to use with it. That is very accurate assuming you use it as directed including wetting the electrodes before use and not allowing them to dry out.
Any Garmin's chest strap recommendation?
bitterboy wrote:
Another option is an arm strap like the Soche Rhythm. I paired one with my 230 and got much more reliable readings than I had with the 235's wrist monitor. The arm strap goes on your upper arm so it's out of the way and in a location where chafing and slipping aren't issues. DC Rainmaker has a review if you're interested.
+1
That's exactly what i do but with a 220 and it works fine most of the time except when for brief stretches when it picks up cadence instead of HR.
The Scoche Rhythm+ is reliable, comfortable, and easy to use.
I've had mostly positive experiences with the apple watch's wrist based HR monitor. The readings themselves seem pretty accurate. Occasionally it won't read or it will have a period where it doesn't read data, usually if I'm outside and bundled up really well. But I didn't buy the watch for HR data. Despite this, the data is fun to look at and is pretty accurate overall.
Luv2run wrote:
Wrist is not as accurate. Strap is fine.
Wrist IS accurate if you have THIN wrists.
Fed up of the lies!
Does anyone else struggle with the Garmin strap itself? Can’t get mine tight enough, it’s not the easiest thing to adjust.