Heart rate monitor: whats the cheapest most functional option

I am looking for just a cheap way to measure heart rate.  I dont need a smart watch with gps or anything crazy.  just the cheapest way to measure heart rate accurately while biking and running for training. there's tons of discussion here and elsewhere im seeing about this watch with this monitor on this app and i just cant find what im looking for.  I just need to measure heart rate for training.

Thanks!

get a cheap fitbit

Wahoo Tickr

Dane B wrote: get a cheap fitbit

every discussion ive read so far mention that fitbit is in a class action lawsuit due to their monitors being inaccurate.  looking for the cheapest accurate option, not exactly the cheapest possible.

Mark O'Neal wrote: Wahoo Tickr

do you have experience with this? I've been reading the wrist based HR Monitors are not as accurate/reliable as the chest based ones.

You could get a pulse oximeter on Ebay for ~$28 with free shipping. Its the type you stick on your finger, but they can be used one handed. Might be a little awkward for biking, but maybe ok for running, or other uses. Gives you your pulse and oxygen %. I have a spare. My wife bought an extra for her dad, but it turned out he had one already. I could sell it to you for $20 plus shipping. PM me if interested. It's new in the box. I think the brand is Contec, but I'm not home to check at the moment.

JD Borgeson wrote:

do you have experience with this? I've been reading the wrist based HR Monitors are not as accurate/reliable as the chest based ones.

Whatever devices you are considering - I'd say look them up on dcrainmaker.com. There will be a heart rate accuracy section that should give you a good picture of how the divece will actually perform. His info has been pretty good for the devices I've had, and at setting expectations on purchases. Here, for example is the info on the Wahoo Tickr: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2020/05/wahoos-new-2020-tickr-tickr-x-in-depth-review.html#heart-rate-accuracy

There will also be info in the summary section and product comparison that may point you towards a better option for your needs.

I recently was using, and was very happy with, the Fitbit Charge 3.  Except for outdoors, and except when it mattered.

To get a good HR reading it needs to be snug on your wrist which caused some mild discomfort.  Indoors, I could manage with that.  Outdoors, I couldn't, and after enough times of hanging out on the rock face, looking at a hand jam and fiddling to take off the tracker I started looking for an alternative.

With lockdown I've not used my alternative, but it's this, and I'll *provisionally* recommend the same for you.

https://www.polar.com/us-en/products/accessories/oh1-optical-heart-rate-sensor

It's optical (arguably less accurate, but more comfortable than a chest strap), but goes high on your arm so should be well out of the way of hand jams and the like.
It works standalone (offload data later), or with bluetooth (send data to your phone) and also ant+ (send data to a fitness watch).

I looked at the TICKR stuff.  The chest straps feel edit to add: feels like it would be too uncomfortable in general (caveat: never worn one, so I might be wrong), and their arm strap doesn't store data locally.

If you want cheap, the polar strap by itself could be your thing.  If you want extra functionality, get a fitness watch (garmin instinct perhaps) to pair with it.

Edit to add: read this for arm band comparisons -- https://www.clevertraining.com/blog/scosche-rhythm-24-vs-wahoo-tickr-fit-vs-polar-oh1/  I also went with the polar as it was the only one with a stated preference for wearing on the upper arm, not lower arm.  Note the firmware updated "OH1+" now has ant+ connectivity.

I have a Wahoo Tickr that works great and has for several years. You want a chest strap monitor, the wrist ones aren't accurate enough. Mine was around $50. 

I would just get an old lower end Garmin with a chest strap. Something like this would work fine. Only thing with the older watches is battery life isn't as good if you plan on using it for bigger trips. For day to day training it's fine. 

Dave Baker wrote: 

I looked at the TICKR stuff.  The chest strap feels too uncomfortable in general (caveat: never worn one, so I might be wrong),

Hmmm. I wear one cycling  almost daily. Put it on under my jersey and totally forget it's there. 

Senor Arroz wrote:

Hmmm. I wear one cycling  almost daily. Put it on under my jersey and totally forget it's there. 

That's great feedback to hear.  Thank you.

A follow-up -- have you worn it climbing?

I was expecting it to be awkward to adjust (I keep my t-shirt tucked into my harness), and expecting it to get bumped around my whatever I have hanging off the gear sling around my shoulder.

A friend of mine wears the chest strap running and mentioned that sometimes you need to fuss with (lick, etc) the electrodes to re-establish electrical contact - another thing that I don't want to do underneath my climbing gear.

In the end, given $70 for a arm strap with arguably lower accuracy, or $50 for a chest strap with a list of expected shortcomings made it easy to pony up the extra 20.  I'd love to know if I chose poorly, though.

Edit: oh shoot.  The original post was for biking/running to train for climbing.  Not for climbing.  Yeah, I agree with Senor here.  Get the chest strap.  Easier, cheaper, better.

JD Borgeson wrote:

every discussion ive read so far mention that fitbit is in a class action lawsuit due to their monitors being inaccurate.  looking for the cheapest accurate option, not exactly the cheapest possible.

well, that's certainly pertinent info

Dave Baker wrote:

A follow-up -- have you worn it climbing?

Can't imagine for the life of me why I'd wear a HRM climbing. I've worn it running and cycling, though.

A friend of mine wears the chest strap running and mentioned that sometimes you need to fuss with (lick, etc) the electrodes to re-establish electrical contact - another thing that I don't want to do underneath my climbing gear.

I had an old Polar HRM that would lose contact. The Wahoo Tickr never has. Nor is it hard to establish contact. Just put it on and go. Links to my phone with the Wahoo Fitness app. 

Dave Baker wrote: The chest straps feel edit to add: feels like it would be too uncomfortable in general (caveat: never worn one, so I might be wrong)

???? 

Anyway - if you want accurate data, optical isn't the way to go. The chest strap provides the best data while on the move. Depending on how much you sweat, you might have issues keeping the electrodes connected. I sweat a lot, so would lick the monitor (or whatever) before putting it on....then never had issues after that. I only ever experienced that sort of connection problem in bitter cold, at the beginning of workouts. I have used chest strap monitors extensively for probably 5-6 years - rowing (on the water, on an ergometer), cycling (indoor / outdoor), running (training, races up to marathon distance, etc), and in numerous triathlons. It is slightly strange at first for sure but functionally no different than wearing a watch on your wrist (ie., a rubber thing wrapped around a body part) and isn't distracting once you start exercising.

I've used the optical HR watches (Suunto & Garmin) and find the results frustrating. To wit, having the watch off center on your wrist will read different results. I find that I don't like the level of tightness required to get a consistent reading too. Additionally, I HATE wearing a watch while climbing, so have no way to track HR there (although I would argue RPE would most likely be a better gauge of exertion while climbing than HR which would likely spike after your strongest exertion than during and could be elevated due to fear/exposure as much or more than due to physical exertion). 

DC Rainmaker, as suggested above, is a wonderful resource and the gold standard for any and all data. 

I hope this doesn't sound like a goofy, off-topic answer, but the "cheapest" way is to pay attention to your breathing. :D

I was looking into buying an HR monitor, but in the end I decided that for monitoring intensity I was better off without another gadget:

https://www.uphillathlete.com/breath-intensity-monitoring-part-one/

John Reeve wrote: I hope this doesn't sound like a goofy, off-topic answer, but the "cheapest" way is to pay attention to your breathing. :D

I was looking into buying an HR monitor, but in the end I decided that for monitoring intensity I was better off without another gadget:

https://www.uphillathlete.com/breath-intensity-monitoring-part-one/

Not arguing with you but, rather, buttressing your point. The way I learned how to pay attention to intensity was by using a HRM to measure my various zones and, particularly my max. Then I was able to really learn how those different zones FEEL. Now, for example, I can easily ratchet my cadence down into an area where I'm not revving too hard to go for miles just by how it feels. 

I have one of these that I'd be willing to sell for $50 shipped.  It works great and paired easily with my phone.  I now use another device.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00QSRQ0R6/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Wahoo Ticker Bluetooth HR chest strap and use a smart phone to record. Im not sure why a HR monitor for climbing would be useful. Hell, with the proliferation of power meters their only marginally useful for cycling. Might be useful for running....I wouldn’t know.

Jack Crackerson wrote: Anyway - if you want accurate data, optical isn't the way to go. The chest strap provides the best data while on the move.

Agreed. If you want more than just a rough indication of your current activity level then a chest HRM is the way to go. Optical HRMs are inherently less reliable. They try to measure changes in wrist blood flow caused by heartbeats, but wrist blood flow is also affected by arm movements. Some of these devices get confused if your running cadence is about the same as your heartbeat.

 Depending on how much you sweat, you might have issues keeping the electrodes connected

For long activities I'll sometimes hold my chest electrodes in place with a bit of Hypafix tape.

DC Rainmaker, as suggested above, is a wonderful resource and the gold standard for any and all data. 

Just bear in mind that he's in the business of selling fitness devices. For another source of information see https://fellrnr.com/wiki/Product_Reviews. His reviews aren't as extensive or up-to-date as DC Rainmaker's, but he's more forthcoming in his criticisms.

csproul wrote: Wahoo Ticker Bluetooth HR chest strap and use a smart phone to record. Im not sure why a HR monitor for climbing would be useful. Hell, with the proliferation of power meters their only marginally useful for cycling. Might be useful for running....I wouldn’t know.

Training based on heart rate zones.