Owning an Apple Watch convinced me to buy a chest HRM

[Julien]

Been using chest strap HR monitor watches for almost 15 yeas now (early adopter). Currently I use a Garmin 620 concurrently with my Watch. The Garmin uses ANT+ radio and can't pair with the Watch. Was thinking about buying a TICKR (it has ANT+ & BT) to pair with both but would lose a few metrics like Vertical Oscillation, Ground Contact Time and Stride Length (I'm addicted to data). So I decided to keep my Garmin HRM strap and just do with the optical HR on the Watch whatever it did. On the first run I started (May 25th) my Watch was reading about 30 to 40bpm too high. On my next run I learned how to correctly wear the Watch, one notch tighter (snug) and move up my wrist about ½".

Now I have done about 20 runs and 10 cardio machine sessions. My Watch is always near dead on the same as my Garmin 620 (yesterday's 6.5 miles easy run and Garmin average HR 148 and Watch 148). I am totally shocked at how dead on accurate the Watch can be (except in weight training). When worn properly the Watch is a 1st class HR monitor and can't be beat.

I will continue to wear both and use my Garmin as my primary run/cardio tracker and my Watch as my over all fitness tracker.

 

[H3rman]

I was about to buy one, then got to test a Polar one that communicates with the treadmill. Both the watch & Polar HRM were within 5bpm of each other, so I decided not to bother buying a chest strap as the watch is plenty accurate enough for cardio.

I have heard issues of it not being accurate for weight training though, due to the muscles expanding during weight training and constricting the arteries from expanding/contracting with your heart beat which makes it hard for the watch to get a proper reading. If I ever start weight training I'll buy a chest strap, but for cardio I'm going to stick to the watch.

 

[frumpy16]

I was about to buy one, then got to test a Polar one that communicates with the treadmill. Both the watch & Polar HRM were within 5bpm of each other, so I decided not to bother buying a chest strap as the watch is plenty accurate enough for cardio.

I have heard issues of it not being accurate for weight training though, due to the muscles expanding during weight training and constricting the arteries from expanding/contracting with your heart beat which makes it hard for the watch to get a proper reading. If I ever start weight training I'll buy a chest strap, but for cardio I'm going to stick to the watch.

Yep, exactly. AW works well for rhythmic motion like cardio but poorly for weights or group exercise type stuff.

 

[srshaw]

Hey, a fellow V800 user!! Love mine...

In your Flow settings you can enable the HR to be "shared" so even though it's paired to the V800 the watch can see it also. It's a bit finicky in the order you connect things up, but it does seem to work.

I usually just wear my V800 for running. I then put my run on strava. That way my steps, active calories and distance all seem to transfer into apple health (I have Apple Health sync from Flow and Strava). Shame they don't appear on the Apple Watch but oh well.

Now what would be perfect for me is a watch version of Polar Beat, (Having said that I'd still need a phone for GPS).

 

[r0k]

I'm very disappointed Apple didn't do a better job with heart rate but not enough to go out and buy yet another sensor. I'm hoping Apple gets around to fixing their heart rate and that they don't pull a google and decide to stop supporting it altogether.

 

[Jschultz]

Hey guys - sorry for the bump but I'm just trying to understand correctly.

I've got a Wahoo TICKR. When paired to the phone, it works with all third apps (Wahoo, Strava, etc.) but not with the watch's activity app, right?

Inversely, when paired to the watch, it works with the activity app, but that's it, correct? Also, once I connect the strap to the watch and it says it's connected, how do I know it's feeding to the watch and activity is not pulling from the optical sensor?

 

[frumpy16]

Hey guys - sorry for the bump but I'm just trying to understand correctly.

I've got a Wahoo TICKR. When paired to the phone, it works with all third apps (Wahoo, Strava, etc.) but not with the watch's activity app, right?

Inversely, when paired to the watch, it works with the activity app, but that's it, correct? Also, once I connect the strap to the watch and it says it's connected, how do I know it's feeding to the watch and activity is not pulling from the optical sensor?

Correct on both. Pair to your phone if you want third party access. Pairing to the watch will cause the watch to use the strap data over the optical. It just does.

Going forward with the new SDK, pairing to the watch may allow third party access. Not quite sure.

 

[Jschultz]

Correct on both. Pair to your phone if you want third party access. Pairing to the watch will cause the watch to use the strap data over the optical. It just does.

Going forward with the new SDK, pairing to the watch may allow third party access. Not quite sure.

Thanks for the confirmation. I just went for a quick 5 mile run to give the workout app a go using my chest strap. As noted, it just knew to use it; the optical sensor was turned off the entire time.

As noted in other threads, it's going to take time for me to get used to how the workout app calculated calories. Over a nearly identical average heart rate, wahoo gave me more calories for less time, while Apple gave me less calories for more time, and broken up in to resting and active calories. Not sure whose to trust.

 

[frumpy16]

Thanks for the confirmation. I just went for a quick 5 mile run to give the workout app a go using my chest strap. As noted, it just knew to use it; the optical sensor was turned off the entire time.

As noted in other threads, it's going to take time for me to get used to how the workout app calculated calories. Over a nearly identical average heart rate, wahoo gave me more calories for less time, while Apple gave me less calories for more time, and broken up in to resting and active calories. Not sure whose to trust.

Yeah that's a tough call. Apple did a lot of fitness research to get their algorithms to be accurate. It's hard to bet against Apple here in terms of calorie accuracy. FWIW, I did a tabata class yesterday and tracked with the "other" Activity and watch HRM. I manually entered the info into Runtastic afterward and the calories it calculated based on duration, activity type, and HR data were within 2 calories of what Apple said.

 

[aschaeferusn]

I'm really excited for watchOS 2 to come out so hopefully some of the run tracking apps can use the Apple Watch as a heart rate monitor. I, myself, would like to see my heart rate plotted over pace, elevation, distance, etc.

 

[Jschultz]

Yeah that's a tough call. Apple did a lot of fitness research to get their algorithms to be accurate. It's hard to bet against Apple here in terms of calorie accuracy. FWIW, I did a tabata class yesterday and tracked with the "other" Activity and watch HRM. I manually entered the info into Runtastic afterward and the calories it calculated based on duration, activity type, and HR data were within 2 calories of what Apple said.

Interesting. I'm totally cool with how Apple calculates it if it's the most accurate way. My biggest thing is while over-estimating is good for the ego, I would rather see lower or more accurate because I adjust my calorie intake based on what I burn. I used to be one of those people who totally overestimated how much I burned based off of 'estimates' and would gorge on food afterwards, thinking, "hey, I earned this." Not always the case.

 

[frumpy16]

I'm really excited for watchOS 2 to come out so hopefully some of the run tracking apps can use the Apple Watch as a heart rate monitor. I, myself, would like to see my heart rate plotted over pace, elevation, distance, etc.

This is essentially why I got the HR strap to "unlock" that type of insight. It does feel a little ridiculous to not use the sensor on my wrist and instead have to go with another accessory to get the data. Bring on the new OS2 apps!

 

[Fabienne]

I have used a Polar chest strap for years (with Didgifit, the Polar watch, and more). Then I tried the Apple Watch. I ran the watch against the chest strap and Digifit and I found that they were pretty much the same! That made me very happy and I gladly put aside my chest strap (it is not always ready to go, needs a battery and sometimes won't sync with my receiver). One thing to remember is that the calories that Apple figures for you are not the same as those figured for the Fitbit/Digifit and other devices. Apple takes out the BMI (or resting calories) and only shows you the workout calories you produce. So if you move 300 calories worth, but 100 of them are calories you would have expended just staying alive, then it shows you have produces 200 calories. That can be discouraging unless you know that and learn how to assess your activity level with only active calories expended.

 

[firewood]

My Apple Watch, using the built-in optical heart rate sensor, reports exactly the same heart rate as does my Wahoo chest strap during continuous exercise, which is great during steady walks or long runs.

But the built-in Watch HR sensor seems to have around a 10 second lag when doing rapid bursts of HIT or interval training, making it hard to determine when one reaches precise percentages of peak and resting heart rates, as well as running down the Watch battery more rapidly when used for long periods of exercise.

Using the Wahoo chest strap, paired to the Watch, appears to allow updating the heart rate measurement faster, about once per second (much less lag), and doesn't seem to run down the Watch battery as fast as using the built in IR LED optical sensor during exercise.

I've also tried using the Rhythm+ optical HRM arm-band, which provides a similar benefit (Watch battery life and HR update speed). It's more comfortable than the chest strap, even if it seems a bit weird to be wearing two optical HR sensing devices at the same time.

 

[Jschultz]

Are a lot of you guys that bothered by the strap? Most of the time I forget I'm even wearing it.

 

[nicho]

Using the Wahoo chest strap, paired to the Watch, appears to allow updating the heart rate measurement faster, about once per second (much less lag), and doesn't seem to run down the Watch battery as fast as using the built in IR LED optical sensor during exercise.

I've also tried using the Rhythm+ optical HRM arm-band, which provides a similar benefit (Watch battery life and HR update speed). It's more comfortable than the chest strap, even if it seems a bit weird to be wearing two optical HR sensing devices at the same time.

I'm considering getting the Wahoo. when you say it doesn't run down the battery as fast during exercise, is the difference noticeable or just a little better?

 

[Jschultz]

I'm considering getting the Wahoo. when you say it doesn't run down the battery as fast during exercise, is the difference noticeable or just a little better?

I would have to do an actual comparison using identical workouts, but I have a specific route I run on the evenings, and while using the strap, I see very little, if any extra drain, since the actual optical monitor is shut off at that point. It's simply receiving a BT transmission from the strap, and BT was already on anyways to pair with my phone. After a 60-90 minute run, I see maybe only a few percentage points loss. I also only glance at the watch to check HR every 10 minutes or so, which keeps battery usage down.

 

[nicho]

I would have to do an actual comparison using identical workouts, but I have a specific route I run on the evenings, and while using the strap, I see very little, if any extra drain, since the actual optical monitor is shut off at that point. It's simply receiving a BT transmission from the strap, and BT was already on anyways to pair with my phone. After a 60-90 minute run, I see maybe only a few percentage points loss. I also only glance at the watch to check HR every 10 minutes or so, which keeps battery usage down.

a few percentage points in 60-90 minutes sounds good. i'd estimate 25-40% of my battery usage goes on using the workout app each day.

 

[firewood]

I'm considering getting the Wahoo. when you say it doesn't run down the battery as fast during exercise, is the difference noticeable or just a little better?

I haven't tried a comparison test. But continuously blinking those IR LEDs under the watch has got to burn up on the order of 100 times+ more energy than a very low data rate Bluetooth LE connection.

 

[Jschultz]

I haven't tried a comparison test. But continuously blinking those IR LEDs under the watch has got to burn up on the order of 100 times+ more energy than a very low data rate Bluetooth LE connection.

It absolutely does. Sometimes my wife and I will go for a long (2+ hours) walk after dinner. I usually use the strap, but I've sometimes just used the built in optical sensor. The difference in battery life between both methods after that long a period is pretty significant.

a few percentage points in 60-90 minutes sounds good. i'd estimate 25-40% of my battery usage goes on using the workout app each day.

How much time are you logging in to the workout app each day? Now that I sparingly use the optical sensor (only for my 'brisk walks' to the train and home) I don't even think about battery life on the watch. I was never a really 'heavy' user anyways, but I could easily go every other day without charging.

 

[nicho]

How much time are you logging in to the workout app each day? Now that I sparingly use the optical sensor (only for my 'brisk walks' to the train and home) I don't even think about battery life on the watch. I was never a really 'heavy' user anyways, but I could easily go every other day without charging.

Anywhere between 45 minutes and 1hr 45. I didn't use it at all yesterday because I didn't feel up to going to the gym, and I ended the day on 53%. Usually it's around 20% when I go to bed; it once ran out but I've since turned off hey siri and, coincidence or not, the two days I had it enabled I finished at 0% and 5%... never have I had less than 20% by bedtime even with a one and a half hour workout (although I do get up relatively late some days, I don't need to be up and out by 7). All this is on a 38 btw.

 

[SHNXX]

Do any of you guys use it while doing weightlifting?

 

[exxxviii]

How much time are you logging in to the workout app each day? Now that I sparingly use the optical sensor (only for my 'brisk walks' to the train and home) I don't even think about battery life on the watch. I was never a really 'heavy' user anyways, but I could easily go every other day without charging.

I use my watch 4 times/week on 45 - 80 minute outdoor running workouts. Very roughly, I think a 1 hour workout burns an extra 10% (max, may only be 5%) of battery.

 

[jimnaze]

I had to buy bluetooth headphones anyway, so I decided on the Jabra Pulse headphones which actually have a HR monitor built into the ear bud. It works great with the apple exercise app, and since it works independently of the phone, I can run without having to carry a 6+ with me. So far it seems more accurate than the watch as every once in a while with just the watch, I'll see it searching for a reading or reading way low (sweat maybe? hairy arms?). Plus my theory is that the watch battery would conserve a little power while the buds did the heavy lifting monitoring my HR. Plus they sound pretty good too.

 

[WvB22]

Other way round, had a Polar (died in 2 days), then TICKR, then Watch.

Short version is the Watch wrist sensor/software is no way near as good as a chest strap, but way more convenient.

Bummed about the Watch, but offset that TICKR was not a waste!

Incidentally, I heard reports the Polar pollutes the Healthkit with like 20 readings per second. I could not open Show All Data in the Health app until I deleted the Polar data (Share Data... Data Sources... Polar... Edit.. Clear All). I would be interested to see if you run into problems.

Back on topic, I use the Tickr when I do a stepper workout (with irregular arm swinging/aerobics), as the Watch doesn't fare well, it often reports 1/2 or 3/4 of the correct rate.

Outdoor walks don't get reported well, especially in colder weather (Apple support docs warn about this) but I don't bother using the chest strap anymore for walking.

Yes exactly the same path. Kind of. First I thought the sensors of the watch were broken or something as I couldn't get good consistent readings during high intensity workouts like Insanity and T25. Most of the times HR would be like being half of what you would expect it to be. Truly erratic readings which I showed to an Apple genius. He figured out it was a software bug or faulty hardware. I installed WatchOS2 to see if it made any difference but it didn't. I then returned the watch to Apple and they replaced it telling it was a hardware fault. Apparently it's not because the replacement has exactly the same issues. The design of the Apple Watch as a serious HR monitor is simply flawed. Which is extremely disappointing as I hoped the Apple Watch would end wearing external bands. For mild running and exercising the watch may hold up well as long as you keep your arms still or at least in harmonious motions (like running). Other than that or if the watch is moved just a little it will totally fail to get proper readings. I wouldn't be upset about it if Apple would have clearly stated that the HR monitor is severely limited. But during the keynote of the Apple Watch you can see a slick movie seeing guys doing all kind of workouts including crossfit training and boxing. It's the first time I truly feel an Apple product can't deliver what they seem to promise.