Most accurate way of tracking hr

For average HR, I find that my Fenix and my chest HRMs (Garmin and Magene) are pretty much the same. However, the Fenix is slow to react to changes so I don't use it when I'm doing any sort of interval training.

I assume that you've set your Max HR correctly?

Chest straps are usually better, as they measure the electrical activity. Wrist is just optical detecting blood flow movement (I think) so won't be quite as responsive as a chest strap

Optical wrist sensors are prone to picking up running cadence as it flaps about on your wrist, doing the strap up as tight as possible will help. They are prone to wacky recording when holding onto a handlebar as well, my Fitbit charge 5 typically reads 20-30 BPM lower than my chest strap.

Chest straps are always more accurate, Garmin or Polar are good brands. Wahoo Tickr v1 was great, v2 was such a disaster in terms of reliability they renamed the V3 the Trackr

Arm bands are more accurate than wrist/watch monitors

Chest bands are more accurate then either of them.

Personally, I use an armband as I don't like the chest strap when running. It's more than accurate enough for me.

@scotroutes set it as in 220- age

Chest strap for best accuracy.

The comments above cover my experiences. The Fenix does an OK job of measuring over a period of time. It's completely useless at recording sudden changes, and on the bike it makes it up completely. 

I think it only connects to external monitors when recording activity.

The newer optical HR sensors are loads better. Trustworthy now for me

@loum examples?

Instinct 2 solar works for me.
Vivoactive and forerunner (think 265) for friends. Others have had probs with older fenix.

Dcrainmaker site is great for new reviews.

I've lost track of what the latest recommendations would be cos the one I've had for two years just works. Bit ugly, would like newer shiny, but there's just no good reason.

set it as in 220- age

That's a very old-skool way of working out max HR. It's not a horrendous guide for the general populous but for a lot of people with some fitness it's not great.

As an example, mine should be 175bpm ish. This year I ran a marathon an averaged 177 for the 26 miles and regularly hit 195 (and occasionally 200) on occasions doing harder efforts.

Educate me please

What do I do then

What do I do then

Find your nearest parkrun, do a decent warmup, and then run it as hard as you can. You should be puking when you cross the line.

Your Garmin will have recorded your max heart rate or pretty damn close to it.

And, yes, use a chest strap.

Yeah, 220-age is only a (very shit) starting point. I'm coming up for 66 and still occasionally see my HR over 180 when I'm really pushing.

At 220-age my max HR would be 155, which is still at the top end of zone 2 for me.

I have a Fenix 6, and the optical HRM is better than my old vivoactive 3. For example when I was running and did interval sessions it seemed pretty accurate.

However on the bike it can be a bit off. Like you I've been honking it up some hills unable to speak and it thinks I'm doing 120 BPM, but it feels more like 190. Oddly I have found it's more accurate on my left wrist when cycling. So maybe swap wrists and see if that works?

I did have a chest HRM but rarely used it as it seemed a faff, think I gifted it to someone of here many years ago.

Edit: Don't know if it's a Garmin thing or a Fenix 6 and later specific thing, but after sustained efforts with a high heart rate is has informed me that it's altered my HR zones. So it seems to do it semi automatically.

And I'm a low beater. Always have been. But my resting HR is only in the 30s too.

I wouldn't do a parkrun for a max HR - to long. Rep runs up a short hard hill will get you there.

And I find my fenix worse than useless whilst exercising. Hr belt every time.

@jeffl my default wrist is left, watch on the right is ?

What's the highest you've ever seen? A couple 2, 3 min hills flat out to failure will give you max.

A parkrun should give you a pretty good idea of your aerobic threshold if you look at a graph of heartrate and look for where it flattens for most of the race

Zones are just a guess based on averages. I can hold a 160bpm average over 4 hours despite a max of 185 - so it might be accurate.

That said, a coospo chest strap is under £25, works as well as a Garmin one (syncs to watch etc), so an easy way to find out

Educate me please

What do I do then

Training levels are better set against your lactate threshold HR than your max HR. Your LTHR can change so tracking it is a better way to train or monitor fitness. Plus, we rarely reach true max (or need to if you're not training for sprinting) and I'm not convinced it's a great idea to suddenly go out trying to hit it at the start of a training plan. Not as a bloke in your 40s or 50s as many of us here are anyway.

So you could ignore max HR and use a 20MP test to find your threshold, or simply get a good idea of threshold by seeing what HR you're at when you get to that redline point that you can just about hold for 5-7 mins - your lactate threshold / 20MP HR will be a few % lower.

FWIW I use a chest strap HRM, it's good, reliable. I don't know what my Max HR is, I have an idea of where it'll be but I can't remember the last time I saw my HRM read within 10-15bpm of it. None of any training I'll do gets me much over my LTHR simply because I'm not training for output at that level.

I've found the Tickr Fit armband sensor a good halfway house. Used on the same workout indoor as a chest strap, it gave the same values throughout, outside it very occasionally throws a wobbly, but it's a rare occurrence. Rechargeable, which is nice and, for me at least, a lot more comfortable than a chest strap HRM. Supposed to be worn on forearm, works just as well on bicep ime.

My experience of watch-based sensors is that they have to be tight to be even slightly dependable, so much so that they're then uncomfortable, and I don't really like wearing a watch anyway, particularly when running.

My Garmin FR255 optical wrist monitor is basically flawless for me. Earlier models weren't quite as good.

I've a vivoactive 4.  It's pretty much bang-on what a chest strap shows apart from having a bit of a lag, maybe 20-30 sec

(have you looked to see what HR it actually thinks you were hitting? As implied above, maybe it's the xone thresholds need setting.  I think mine had to go in manually)

The newer optical HR sensors are loads better. Trustworthy now for me

This, used to use a chest sensor but with my new instinct 2 it's simply not neccesasry - the new optical sensors are much more accurate and faster to react.

On thing to check on your bike is that the cuff of your glove is not slipping under the watch and lifting it off your skin.

The newer optical HR sensors are loads better. Trustworthy now for me

Sitting here now trying one out, pretty much the latest and greatest Samsung (well, not an ultra, i'm not made of money).

It's about 10-15 under compared to either of the chest straps i use, and lags horrendously.

The Garmin i took back yesterday was worse (Forerunner 255).

The Samsung has however detected my irregular heartbeat, which i've had forever and has been missed many times!

I'd get a chest strap that's compatible with your watch (the fenix will pair with an external HRM, i just checked) and use that when you are training.

Watching the TdF - didn't see many riding with an armband sensor.

I use a chest strap on the bike (partly cos I always have) cos i can put the watch on the bars, and don't want an armband getting in the way if I'm riding through tight trees. I use the watch's optical sensor if I am just walking the dog (those miles all count too don't they?).

To find my max HR I'll just ride at max effort up Ditchling (or your local hill) - that usually works. For LTHR i use crickles and that calculates it for me, and it can vary depending on amount of training and changing fitness levels. If you use zones to train you will need to set custom zones to reflect your actual LTHR.

Chest straps don't work outdoors on a bike for me. They were ok indoors and running but in a bike absolutely rubbish. I use a tickr fit optical on my forearm which is consistent in and outdoor across sports. Backup is the sensor in the watch though this exhibits cadence lock more than I'd like so I try not to use it

and don’t want an armband getting in the way if I’m riding through tight trees.

My Polar armband doesn't get in the way. It's on my upper arm under my jersey. I also use Crickles but don't pay a lot of attention to FTHR on that because as you say the figure it gives depends on the intensity of recent efforts. Spend a week doing long slow stuff and the figure Crickles gives will decline quite quickly whereas your actual FTHR won't decline that quickly.

Educate me please

What do I do then

I would suggest a 20minute test to find your Functional Threshold Heart Rate then work out your zones from there. The a look here

My Polar watch (Vantage M2) is surprisingly accurate.

I wasn't convinced when I first got it, so went for a couple of rides with a chest strap and my old Garmin. HR was basically the same on both devices.

I've a fenix 7 pro so fanciest wrist monitor. It is pretty accurate when I compare it to my chest strap (Garmin pro), tho it is a bit slow reacting (vastly faster than the instinct tho). This is running tho, never trusted the wrist ones for mtbing. That being said, if I'm planning on doing exercise I use the chest strap. Used to have a magane one - was ok for a few months then just started making it up, even with new batteries (hence the posh Garmin one now).

I use a myzone chest strap. Pretty accurate I find. Just need to regularly wash it and give it a dry/airing after every use. The max HR formula they use is better for me too:

211 – (0.64 x age in years)

Optical HR only works for me on less sweaty/intense activities and outdoor. I do find that using the watch on stronger arm and further up the wrist/forearm gives slightly better results.

As per, some of, the others. For real accuracy a chest band is best but can be annoying.

I have a fenix 6 and find it lags for rapid changes in pace and can also be dubious for anything which has lots of wrist action (stop s****ing at the back). As such works better for running/road rides than mountain biking and if I was being serious about hr zone training would go for the band.

Your experience seems odd though. Is the watch tight enough? For a run unless you are doing intervals I would expect it to be reasonably accurate. For riding uphill I would expect it to be a bit behind but not reporting casual when you are breathing out your arse.

I’ve a Fenix 7 - the HR monitoring on that is fine for rest/slow heart rate, but is simply inaccurate (for me) during any activity..

I just use a Garmin chest strap during sport.

Not sure why the watch isn’t any good for me during activity - I’ve seen reviews etc where it’s lauded as being accurate..maybe my wrist is too small or something?

DrP

TBH I've had very few issues with my instinct solar (apparently a newer, better optical HR sensor to the original instinct?) before that I used Garmin chest straps which were good but tended to die after about 5 years.

So it's one less device/item to worry about if you're already wearing it, and HR broadcasting to other devices seems to work well.

How ancient is a FENIX 5 now? Might just be it's an older device and optical HR wasn't as good back when it was released...

I had a Fenix 7 warranty replacement that took 30 minutes to react to increased HR....

Garmin had no more stock of that model so kindly sent me a Fenix 7 Pro....new HR sensor on that model and certainly seems much better, however if I was  truly fussed about accuracy, I'd use my polar H7 chest strap, which rarely comes out of the drawer!