I am considering getting an arm-based HR tracking device (like the Coros one). One-time payment preferrable over subscriptions like whoop. Which ones would you recommend (if any)? And why?
For activities or just in general? Coospo HW706 going well for me since April as an alternative to a chest strap.
For general wear, Iām still on a Garmin 245 - good for running/ general use/ endurance bike, but I find it doesnāt work during hard bike workouts which ever way I have my wrists.
Do you know how accurate is the coospo one? Seems very low price but willing to give it a try!
Looking for both activities and in general.
It matches rpe, and chest monitors. It replaced a coospo chest strap that I got at the start of covid (module still working but the strap connections rusted through my own poor maintenance). Great that itās rechargeable too. I only use a chest monitor racing now.
1 Like
IDK but it sounds like youāre looking for a fitness tracker and not just a HRM? Since Iāve been using Garmin, I recently got a Garmin Venu3 for that purpose. The DCR site has great objective testing and info on these devices.
I am just looking for a Whoop like device that does not include a subscription but could be use to monitor daily life + rides.
Can you keep it 24/7? Or just for rides?
Even expensive wrist watches are pretty poor at Heart Rate measurement. Itās not because the technology isnāt good, itās just less accurate because of placement, sweat, and many other biological factors. Invest in a good chest strap. It will pay for itself in correct training.
I regularly ride with my Garmin Fenix 7 Pro on and it gives wildly different heart rates than my chest strap. The watch is more accurate when resting and hanging out, but it does a pretty terrible job during activity. The other option is an arm band HR meter that goes around bicep. Those are still better than watches.
1 Like
I think it all depends on multiple factors, but to some extend, wrist based ones are getting better and better. I usually follow this YT channel: https://youtu.be/TLxoXqqX5CU?t=4152
He runs test comparisons against the Polar H10 chest strap, and some wrist based ones are pretty accurate already (equal or greater than 0.98 correlation). Garmin watches are good for GPS tracking but sometimes fail short on tracking HRā¦
1 Like
On but not the device recording the activity? Thatās fairly well documented.
When not recording an activity or in broadcast mode the sensor is in a lower power state and less capable of picking up the increased hr. When recording an activity they seem to do a decent job, not as good as the chest strap but itās improved.
My own experience seems to indicate that movement at least helps a little as in if I compare my 945 vs a reading from my strap on a trainer they can be wildly off. But if I compare on a ride recording on my head unit from chest strap vs the watch just on but not record itās closer, but still lower. If I run with the watch alone recording and compare to running with the strap the readings fall in line with each other since the watch is now in the high power mode for that activity.
1 Like
Wow, thatās good to know. Thanks for sharing the video. I watched some of the highlights. A bit skeptical of the approach and small # of test subjects, but looks like in general Apple Watch it one of the better ones which is quite surprising. I wish he added in a more popular garmin watchā¦ That one he mentioned is a model Iāve not even heard of, although researching now itās about the same price point as my current garmin watch, so should have similar specs.
Edit: I still think using a chest strap for workouts is the way to go.
1 Like
Yes, that is for sure. It needs more subjects, but a good starting point.
Indeed, Apple watches seem consistently more accurate, my problem with those is that they are not focused on athletes (from my POV), plus battery durationā¦yikes for any ultra racing.
I think he has videos on almost all mainstream watches, including Garmin ones, whoop, fitbit, googleā¦but on other videos
Agree, that would be the highest degree of accuracy so far, but some of these watches are getting pretty close (or arm based sensors like whoop, coros HRMā¦)
1 Like
I was not aware of this, although it does make sense now.
1 Like
Iām using the Polar Verity Sense since around three years. Itās strapped to the upper arm, quite tight. Compared to a chest HR sensor itās quite accurate. However it takes takes some seconds to adjust to big jumps in HR, sometimes 5 seconds or more. Other times itās faster, it probably depends on light detection and the algorithm computing the numbers.
Itās much better than a watch based optical sensor because it sits tightly on the skin and doesnāt move.
I bought it because I wanted a āfree chestā and didnāt like the feeling of slight pressure on my chest.
2 Likes
Hey, yeah. Thereās kinda where I started, looking at Whoop, and wound up with a Garmin Venu3. Hereās my thread on the topic. I think I want (need?) a fitness monitor. Which?
1 Like
Yeah, that is what I am wondering now. Maybe the fact that is on the upper arm, tight with the skin and maybe covering it with the short sleeve or sleeve helps with the light sensor? 
I have the HW9 and for the rare occasions I track HR itās excellent.
2 Likes
Just for rides. I use the garmin 245 for resting HR/ non-bike activities.
My own n=1 is that my 245 only struggles on the bike. I have no issues when running or hiking or whatever else.
The Coospo HW706 is optical, but I place further up my forearm (for turbo) or on bicep (outdoors) and I have never run into issues. Itās never caused me enough concern to bother comparing to a chest strap anyway. The 245 on the bike, or rather my wrist angle, was very obviously āoffā.
The additional benefit for me of the arm is that the chest straps/ sweat does irritate my eczema on my back - I suck it up for races, but itās great to reduce that irritation in the days between races.