Blue Tooth Heart Rate Monitors - Quad Lock?

[AndrewJames]

Hi

I am about to order the quadlock smartphone mount and case.

I noticed they have a heartrate monitor

http://www.quadlockcase.com/products/bl ... te-monitor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I currently use the heart rate monitor at the treadmill at a local gym, I find it motivating to run to my recommended HR and keep it there as well as see the calories burned at
the end of a run.

It would be nice to have that ability on the bike or even for runs off the bike.

What do people think of this brand or even this type of chest strap Bluetooth device?

I realise there is the more serious cycling related monitors which bring in cadence, but I am not sure I need that yet

Thanks

[MattyK]

The downside will be needing to keep your phone screen from timing out/locking. Which will chew the battery if you run the screen constantly.

Good for a recording device to review later, but limiting if you want real-time monitoring.

[AndrewJames]

hmm, hadnt thought of that /

At the gym I of course simply keep viewing a treadmill connected to mains power.

I see there are a bunch of apps like this

http://www.polar.com/beat/



my preference was to be able to keep looking down at it, and to even have it beep and annoy me if I fall out of pre determined ranges etc. I would be running for approx 25-45mins and cycling not sure.
Maybe I need a mophie case (the one with extra battery) to make this work.

Coming home and reviewing after the fact doesnt really help, though if I could view it whilst running/cycling and then have a more in depth look at home i would do so.

[Mickzo]

I use the sosche rhythm + Bluetooth HR at the gym and while riding. It's worn on your arm rather than the chest. I use it with the wahoo fitness app at the gym. It works with Garmin edge 810 as well. So far I haven't had any issues. DC Rainmaker has done a review on the unit.

[AndrewJames]

Hi thanks for the link

I am concerned about strapless, optical sensor heart rate monitors partly due to this article

http://www.cnet.com/au/news/how-accurat ... -monitors/

As I stood on a treadmill in his office with an EKG machine connected to my chest, Dr. Jon Zaroff said my heart rate was 146. But as I glanced down at my Basis Carbon Steel device, with my heart rate quickly dropping, it still said I was at 93. Even after repeat tests done in a doctor's office, the finding wasn't a fluke -- the band was way off.

I put five leading smart devices with heart rate monitors to the test, measuring their accuracy with an EKG and the help of Dr. Zaroff, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente medical center in San Francisco. You can find my results below, but it seems the optical sensing technology used in many of today's new, wrist-based mobile heart rate monitors is sometimes inaccurate. That's in comparison to time-tested EKG machines (or the heart rate monitors that emulate them), which sense the electrical impulses that trigger your heartbeats.

For the casual user looking to get a resting heart rate, wrist-based devices are fine. No manufacturer claims that these bands work for extreme athletes, and most make it clear that this style of band is for casual use only -- never for medical use -- and that they work only when you're still. Usually, manufacturers package the heart-rate sensing technology with tried-and-true motion sensors that track steps and activity, too.

But aside from gauging huffing and puffing, heart rate tracking during exercise is one of the best ways to evaluate overall fitness. If you're looking to hit a target heart rate while moving, you may be better off using a chest-strap device or even the ol' finger-to-the-wrist method.

Biology makes optical sensing a complex and challenging task. Unlike chest strap heart rate monitors -- which closely emulate a real EKG machine by measuring electrical pulse -- these devices use light to track your blood. By illuminating your capillaries with an LED, a sensor adjacent to the light measures the frequency at which your blood pumps past (aka your heart rate). Moments later, you've got a BPM (beats per minute) reading

but I didnt realise that you can apparently only use wrist or optical based sensors when you are still? I definitely need it work whilst exercising.

What's left for optical heart rate monitors?

If you've bought one of these wrist-based devices, you're left with one option: use them to track somewhat-accurate heart rate during rest, the benefits of which are slim to none for most people, but lean on their other features -- activity tracking and sleep tracking -- to improve your health and fitness.

However your link, seems to show that DC Rainmaker chap, using them at the same time as strapped devices, so I am a little confused.

i did find this
http://www.heartratemonitorwithoutchest ... -accurate/

which seems to indicate, there is no evidence against optical devices, but maybe he hadnt found that first site above I link

[Mickzo]

I can't confirm the accuracy of the rhythm+ as I haven't tested it against an EKG machine. I use it at the gym and while riding and it seems fine to me. If you want to stick with chest strap Bluetooth hr monitors there's the wahoo fitness one or the viiiiva.

[Baalzamon]

Hi thanks for the link

I am concerned about strapless, optical sensor heart rate monitors partly due to this article

http://www.cnet.com/au/news/how-accurat ... -monitors/

As I stood on a treadmill in his office with an EKG machine connected to my chest, Dr. Jon Zaroff said my heart rate was 146. But as I glanced down at my Basis Carbon Steel device, with my heart rate quickly dropping, it still said I was at 93. Even after repeat tests done in a doctor's office, the finding wasn't a fluke -- the band was way off.

I put five leading smart devices with heart rate monitors to the test, measuring their accuracy with an EKG and the help of Dr. Zaroff, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente medical center in San Francisco. You can find my results below, but it seems the optical sensing technology used in many of today's new, wrist-based mobile heart rate monitors is sometimes inaccurate. That's in comparison to time-tested EKG machines (or the heart rate monitors that emulate them), which sense the electrical impulses that trigger your heartbeats.

For the casual user looking to get a resting heart rate, wrist-based devices are fine. No manufacturer claims that these bands work for extreme athletes, and most make it clear that this style of band is for casual use only -- never for medical use -- and that they work only when you're still. Usually, manufacturers package the heart-rate sensing technology with tried-and-true motion sensors that track steps and activity, too.

But aside from gauging huffing and puffing, heart rate tracking during exercise is one of the best ways to evaluate overall fitness. If you're looking to hit a target heart rate while moving, you may be better off using a chest-strap device or even the ol' finger-to-the-wrist method.

Biology makes optical sensing a complex and challenging task. Unlike chest strap heart rate monitors -- which closely emulate a real EKG machine by measuring electrical pulse -- these devices use light to track your blood. By illuminating your capillaries with an LED, a sensor adjacent to the light measures the frequency at which your blood pumps past (aka your heart rate). Moments later, you've got a BPM (beats per minute) reading

but I didnt realise that you can apparently only use wrist or optical based sensors when you are still? I definitely need it work whilst exercising.

What's left for optical heart rate monitors?

If you've bought one of these wrist-based devices, you're left with one option: use them to track somewhat-accurate heart rate during rest, the benefits of which are slim to none for most people, but lean on their other features -- activity tracking and sleep tracking -- to improve your health and fitness.

However your link, seems to show that DC Rainmaker chap, using them at the same time as strapped devices, so I am a little confused.

i did find this
http://www.heartratemonitorwithoutchest ... -accurate/

which seems to indicate, there is no evidence against optical devices, but maybe he hadnt found that first site above I link

Well that Cnet article, the person doing it should have asked Basis like I have. Why is my Garmin Edge 810 showing this HR and why is my basis B1 showing 50 less. Turns out the Basis B1 band takes sampling at intervals. Think it would need to be even more bulkier if they were doing HR readings every second.