Heart rate - Wrist vs Arm vs Chest

[ChristoErasmus]

Does anyone have some real world data about heart rate measured by wrist, arm and chest straps?

 

Is the variance significant between the three methods?

 

I have read numerous posts on the topic and all suggest that chest is most accurate followed by arm and then wrist but numbers are lacking the posts.

 

What I am trying to find out is if the measurements from any of these are way better than the other or is it safe to assume that with the "latest" technologies the measurements are fairly accurate and reliable.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Rudi Pollard]

I have a chest strap which I use on the bicycle but my Vivoactive has wrist based HR. The chest is far more accurate than the wrist measurement as there as a lot more factors influencing the reading on the wrist.

 

It depends on how snug the watch is to your wrist, how much light enters between the watch and the wrist, how much you sweat etc. The chest strap just works as advertised.

[Frosty]

I did a real world test, on the road and MTB, riding and racing. The results can be viewed in my feedback.

 

https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/161729-wrist-based-hr-vs-chest-strap/page-1

 

 

BTW, a simple search using the search bar, typing in keywords can render a few results about wrist-based HR. Give it a try, putting your own keywords and see what pops up. It’s a great tool that is often under utilized.

[Robbie Stewart]

My boet has a Polar M600 with wrist HR, and I use the Polar V800 with strap. He never gets consistent HR measuring using the wrist sensor, but after he got a chest strap, his HR is much more reliable and consistent. He also compared his wrist reading to my chest strap, which he strapped on at the same time, and the readings were way off on his wrist sensor. I would not easily go another route other than chest strap HR.

[SwissVan]

Polar... the watch heart rate experts recommend that you use a chest strap for the orthostatic test and tests to determine max Hr or LTH

 

There is a good reason for this

Consistency and accuracy

 

Wrist based readings also react slower to rapid changes.

 

The watch must must be very tight on your wrist to get some sort of accuracy and consistency.

 

And in the cold.... the wrist based readings can be inaccurate when you go from warm to cold, for example leave the house and go outside... they recommend you give them time to adapt to the cold

[Rob22]

I wear a Garmin chest strap but also have an Apple watch. Whenever I compare the two, they are surprisingly very similar. The watch is more accurate than you would think.

 

I suppose it depends on how accurate you need the information 

[Grebel]

I was using the wrist based HR on my Instinct and noticed while running and on the Wattbike at the gym, that sometimes the way I was feeling and the HR reading that was being displayed did not correspond. It took a while to "catch up". I started using a chest strap and the change is almost instant. Now when I am kaking off, the display on my watch corresponds.

[Duane_Bosch]

Did a spinning class yesterday. The HR on my wrist was in the 60's while the chest strap that we use in the class was in the 150's.

 

I've noticed that my wrist based unit (suunto spartan trainer) is wildly inaccurate in cold temperatures. Once I start sweating and warm up it's pretty accurate. I'm pretty sure the manufacturer goes so far as to say wrist based is not considered accurate.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Duane_Bosch

[Pieter-za]

It also depends on which oHR one is using, eg I got invalid results with my Suunto Spartan Trainer's oHR but much better results with my FR 645 oHR.  (This might / will differ from user to user and I don't think there is a 'generalised' answer to this.)

 

For  'everyday running' recording I now use the oHR but when I really need accurate HR data I switch to an HRM chest strap.  (With the frustration again that the FR645 has a bug at times where it won't update BTLE / ANT received HR for quite some time, which is a hassle when you are really going hard on an uphill (or race), but the HR shows say 120 bpm for some minutes before jumping suddenly to say 175.)

 

For cycling I always use chest HR, due to the angle of my wrist and fit of the watch.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Pieter-za

[arendoog]

I have done a comparison on a  Kickr IDT and a Garmin fenix X5  .They were very close ..The wrist measurements will be accurate 95% of the time imo .Since getting the fenix ,i have not used a strap again 

[Normsa]

I've found my Samsung Galaxy Watch to be close if not inline with my Garmin chest strap.

[daveno7]

intersting to see the results sway towards a chest HR monitor....well the actual heart is closest to the strap

but sometimes the pick-up of the HR can de slow due to the strap...keep it clean and change the battery when indicated in your Polar watch etc...for men having an excess of rain around this area will slow down the pick-up but don't worry.Another point is the careful position of the strap...it might slide downwards...

[Craai]

I always thought my Fenix 3 wrist HR is pretty accurate; until last night

I headed out for a late night run last night and decided to push a little. It felt like I went pretty hard and my speed was waaaay above my normal pace. However; when I got back HR reported an avg of 139bpm; where my max HR is about 185-190bpm. Looking at the data, there was nothing erratic about the HR (ie, not sudden spikes and recordings of 0 bpm); just a nice consistent band between 120 and 154bpm). So, either I'm am fit as anything (my boep seems to suggest otherwise) or HR was measured inaccurately. Will do a few more tests with chest strap and old faithul Garmin 310xt as backup devices and see how the results correlate. 

[SeaBee]

I always thought my Fenix 3 wrist HR is pretty accurate; until last night

I headed out for a late night run last night and decided to push a little. It felt like I went pretty hard and my speed was waaaay above my normal pace. However; when I got back HR reported an avg of 139bpm; where my max HR is about 185-190bpm. Looking at the data, there was nothing erratic about the HR (ie, not sudden spikes and recordings of 0 bpm); just a nice consistent band between 120 and 154bpm). So, either I'm am fit as anything (my boep seems to suggest otherwise) or HR was measured inaccurately. Will do a few more tests with chest strap and old faithul Garmin 310xt as backup devices and see how the results correlate. 

Or your legs were tired and could not "ask" for more effort from the heart? They were at max, but the rest of your was still fine, so to say. Though I get that more on bike rides than on runs... 

[JohanDiv]

Wrist:

 

 

Chest:

 

 

Not of the same activity, but this is the trend I get. Almost always flatlines when descending the mountain with the wrist monitor. Chest monitor always works perfectly.

[Jarred]

From a study conducted on cyclists in 2018- Apple Watch Series 1, Fitbit Charge, TomTom Touch, and Mio Fuse

 

If a comparison between devices is not feasible then, based on the results of this study, the Apple Watch and Mio Fuse devices appear to provide the most valid measures of HR during cycling; with the latter providing the best all-round response.

 

​There were no significant differences between wrist, chest and ECG measures, but the wrist devices often differed by >5bpm.

 

Chest strap is still the most accurate measurement