what is the best hr monitor?

Garmin HRM Tri - never had issues with it. The only downside is it's only ANT+

The 235 already has one :whoknows:

If you want reliable data, you gotta go with a chest strap. Wrist straps have so many reasons they could give you faulty data, that it is hard to rely on them. For example, mine does not record reliable data when I am powerhiking, or if it is cold out and my skin gets cold after a while, or if I am wearing a long sleeve shirt that partially allows light to hit the sensor. The chest strap works differently. Rather than using a pulse of light to try and see what's going on under the skin on your wrist, chest straps detect actual electrical activity in your chest. Much less prone to error. You just need to get a little sweaty to get the data. I have also found it is possible to shortcut that by making the chest strap wet ahead of time.

I have used the wahoo tickr x and whatever the latest low-end garmin strap is. I had some errors at the end of the life of my wahoo tickr x, where it would get stuck reporting a certain HR when running hard downhill. I think DC rainmaker noticed the same type of behavior from it.

BUT the wahoo tickr has more features than my low-end garmin strap, like ground contact time and the ability to record a workout with JUST the strap, no watch or phone. I liked that last feature because I could run by feel and not be tempted to check my pace or data, but then I had HR data afterwards.

There are higher-end garmin straps that record stuff like ground contact time, but you must have the correct garmin watch to be able to display those dynamics. The strap will not report the data to another device, like a non-garmin watch or a phone. So you need a specific (higher end) garmin watch to get some data from their high-end straps.

Finally, something to keep in mind when looking at a strap is that it is compatible with whatever device you will record your workouts on. It could be bluetooth or ant+. Some have both. But check that your devices are compatible.

I second the suggestion for a chest strap. I have the high-end Garmin that measures vertical oscillation, ground contact time, and cadence. The cadence is worthwhile if you care about cadence. The vertical oscillation and ground contact times are... insert shrugging shoulders here... useless to me. Basically, you run faster and ground contact time and vertical oscillation both go down. Perhaps there is a more nuanced way to use this data... in intervals, maybe? You can buy used Garmin chest straps on eBay. The elastic strap itself can be bought for about $6 on Amazon, but these $6 versions only give HR, not vertical oscillation, ground contact time, and cadence. I prefer these eBay straps because they come in different colors. And for my chest, 38", they fit better.

Zen desk! Perfect to keep your Human Resources up to date.

Garmin wrote:

Garmin HRM Tri - never had issues with it. The only downside is it's only ANT+

No, no no. Absolutely 100% no. This is the worst designed HR strap I've ever used. Every time you change the battery you have a worse than 50-50 chance that it will no longer be waterproof and will die the next time you wash it or swim in it.

My first one actually survived one or two battery changes before dying. After searching the internet and discovering that this is a problem other people have had with the strap that it is no longer waterproof after a battery change, I decided to use my replacement strap very sparingly trying to extend the life of the battery as long as possible before I had to change it. Unfortunately the battery only lasted about 6-7 months despite my efforts. When I changed the battery, I very carefully cranked down the screws as tight as I could get them and then I went as long as I could without swimming in it or washing it. Eventually it was getting nasty enough that it needed to be washed. I let it sit for 5 days after washing it, and when I went to try it out it was dead. Opened it up and it was full of moisture inside.

Garmin really needs to re-design their HRM-Tri. I would not advise spending a single penny on one unless you don't mind begging customer support for a new one every time it dies (the warranty is only one year so if it doesn't die in the first year customer support will be reluctant to replace and you'll have to do some convincing).

I currently primarily use the Wahoo TickrX, and I can highly recommend it. Though like most people I don't really use the X features as they don't integrate automatically with Garmin even though they technically could if Wahoo bothered to make them do so. So the Wahoo Tickr is my recommendation if you want to save a little money.

Alternatively, DC Rainmaker also seems to like optical sensors and recommends the Polar OH1+ (

). I personally have no experience with standalone optical HRMs and therefore have no opinion myself.

Garmin HRM tri....mine has been good for 4 years now.

I take a bit of dielectric clear/white grease and wipe some on the gasket

and screws. Spend plenty of time in the pool and never had a issue.

glaukos wrote:

Alternatively, DC Rainmaker also seems to like optical sensors and recommends the Polar OH1+ (

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/11/sports-technology-buyers.html#sensor-connectivity

). I personally have no experience with standalone optical HRMs and therefore have no opinion myself.

I have:

- a Polar OH1 (cheaper/older, but exactly similar to the OH1+ after a firmware update).

- a Garmin watch with built in optical HR sensor.

- several Garmin straps, including the HRM-TRI and the HRM-RUN.

My experience:

The optical HR sensor in the watch is hit or miss. It is very good for resting heart rate and for tracking daily non-training activity. For workouts it sucks. It will kind of lock itself onto one heart rate and reject any HR changes as noise, until the evidence becomes too overwhelming and it suddenly jumps to the correct heart rate. It is not just a simple averaging over time, it is much more erratic than that.

The OH1 is much better, even though it is the same principle. Perhaps because of another position on the arm, perhaps because of brighter LED lights, perhaps because of a lower weight ensuring a more constant pressure on the skin while I move around. The HR is equal to that, which I get from the chest strap, except that it is averaged over a longer time.

The HRM-TRI and HRM-RUN give immediate response to changes in heart rate, and they always seem correct, with one exception: When I run with wool underwear, I have to make very sure that I have good electrical connection to the skin. Otherwise I will get a false, high HR, which is probably caused by cadence lock-in in combination with some static electricity in the wool.

Another problem with the HRM-RUN and HRM-TRI straps is that they don't turn off immediately when I remove them. For a while, they will send a false HR signal of 220-250 BPM, and the watch will in some situations pick up on this. I have even experienced while kayaking that the watch decided to connect to my HRM-TRI, which was accidentally stowed away in the day hatch, while ignoring the HRM-RUN, which I was actually wearing.

Bumping this old thread because I am having an issue with finding a reliable HRM chest strap. I had used Garmin straps for years, most recently the HRM Run, and I also find there is about a 50% chance it will survive a battery change. Battery lasts for about 6 months for me running around 6-9 hours/week. When it doesn't survive a battery change, Garmin has sent me a new one a couple of times for free, so on average I end up buying a new one every 1.5 years.

I decided to switch to a Polar H10 hoping I wouldn't have the same issue. No dice - same issue. Worked fine for about 6 months, then had to change the battery, and now I can't get through a run without the readings going haywire at some point.

I run with a Garmin 645, which has a wrist HR monitor that I usually leave turned off. I am thinking of just using that instead. Even though it may be a little less accurate than a chest strap, I have never had it just go haywire on me.

Any advice? I follow all of the manufacturer's recommended cleaning procedures - rinse it off after every run, hand wash it with gentle detergent every few weeks. Nothing really seems to make a difference.

I have the Garmin HRM Tri purchased last year. I too have changed the battery twice. Why do you think the problem resides with a battery change?

Eventually, last month, I started getting weirdly high readings (not immediately after a battery change). I informed Garmin, and they sent me a replacement strap. The new one seems to be working alright.

However, this past week, with the high temps and humidity, I hit a new Maximum Heart Rate that was out of the ordinary. I haven't done enough testing to see if the strap is again at fault, but it doesn't appear to be, so far in my investigation.

OH1+ wrote:

The HRM-TRI and HRM-RUN give immediate response to changes in heart rate, and they always seem correct, with one exception: When I run with wool underwear, I have to make very sure that I have good electrical connection to the skin. Otherwise I will get a false, high HR, which is probably caused by cadence lock-in in combination with some static electricity in the wool.

I can maybe understand the possibility of static electricity affecting the strap, but 'cadence lock' would not enter the picture in that scenario? (Unless the software on the watch, in that case, defaults into some mode of erroneous interpretation of measurements from the optical wrist monitor?)

If one is wearing a polyester singlet soaked in sweat, would 'static electricity' potentially present a problem?

glaukos wrote:

Garmin wrote:

Garmin HRM Tri - never had issues with it. The only downside is it's only ANT+

No, no no. Absolutely 100% no. This is the worst designed HR strap I've ever used. Every time you change the battery you have a worse than 50-50 chance that it will no longer be waterproof and will die the next time you wash it or swim in it.

Interesting...but what if the user has not yet changed the battery? Is it possible, if the strap is being drowned in sweat, to nonetheless possibly go haywire, presenting abnormally high readings in that case?

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

glaukos wrote:

No, no no. Absolutely 100% no. This is the worst designed HR strap I've ever used. Every time you change the battery you have a worse than 50-50 chance that it will no longer be waterproof and will die the next time you wash it or swim in it.

Interesting...but what if the user has not yet changed the battery? Is it possible, if the strap is being drowned in sweat, to nonetheless possibly go haywire, presenting abnormally high readings in that case?

I use a Polar H10, and always have problems due to excessive sweat, which doesn’t make sense as the strap is supposedly designed to also be used underwater.

It’s fine during the colder months, but as soon as summer approaches, I get massive drop-outs. Wiping underneath the strap sometimes temporarily corrects it, but I’ve gone back to just using the HRM on my watch until it starts getting cooler again.

I'm having trouble accepting excessive sweat caused problems with the measurement, since I regularly use it in the pool, with apparently good readings. However, the electrical conductivity characteristics of sweat would possibly be quite different than pool water.

This is exactly when my Polar H10 starts to freak out - once I've been running for 40+ minutes and am just completely soaked through with sweat, that is when it starts to act weird. I am a very heavy sweater, but whatever, the damn thing should work!

Think I may just switch to the wrist for now. I'd rather something that is slightly less accurate but reliable vice something that is more accurate but much more prone to malfunction.

fisky wrote:

I second the suggestion for a chest strap. I have the high-end Garmin that measures vertical oscillation, ground contact time, and cadence. The cadence is worthwhile if you care about cadence. The vertical oscillation and ground contact times are... insert shrugging shoulders here... useless to me. Basically, you run faster and ground contact time and vertical oscillation both go down. Perhaps there is a more nuanced way to use this data... in intervals, maybe? You can buy used Garmin chest straps on eBay. The elastic strap itself can be bought for about $6 on Amazon, but these $6 versions only give HR, not vertical oscillation, ground contact time, and cadence. I prefer these eBay straps because they come in different colors. And for my chest, 38", they fit better.

You dont need a chest strap. Buy a Polar Vantage or Vantage 2 and you get reliable data from your wrist. Simple as that.

lexel wrote:

You dont need a chest strap. Buy a Polar Vantage or Vantage 2 and you get reliable data from your wrist. Simple as that.

You're in a small minority on this board that would put any credence into the accuracy of optical wrist measurement during high physical activity. At one time, I too was in that camp when I owned a Forerunner 245. The larger Forerunner 945 on my wrist provided occasions that demonstrated it was subject to light-bleed errors. Cadence lock errors are occasionally reported by others, as well.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

lexel wrote:

You dont need a chest strap. Buy a Polar Vantage or Vantage 2 and you get reliable data from your wrist. Simple as that.

You're in a small minority on this board that would put any credence into the accuracy of optical wrist measurement during high physical activity. At one time, I too was in that camp when I owned a Forerunner 245. The larger Forerunner 945 on my wrist provided occasions that demonstrated it was subject to light-bleed errors. Cadence lock errors are occasionally reported by others, as well.

Obviously Polar measures on the wrist different to Garmin. Polar has more LEDs and 4 pressure sensors. It is just better in that respect.

Of course i compared Polar V800 with chest to Polar Vantage V wrist measurement. It is spot on. However the HR measurement is about 12-16 seconds delayed on Vantage V .

Never had cadence problems.

For watt, cadence and speed i use the Stryd Pod now.

Further to my previous post, I do also use a Polar Vantage V.

When I’ve used it in conjunction with the Polar H10 paired with Polar Beat on my phone (and I’ve had no irregular reading issues) the HR readings are virtually the same, except that the H10 responds quicker to any sudden changes in HR.

However, whereas I have problems with the H10 in hotter (and therefore ‘sweatier’) conditions, the opposite is true with the Vantage V. In the winter months, the H10 seems to work fine, whereas the Vantage V is prone to having massive drop-outs due to what I can only assume to being the cold between my wrist and the device.