Heart rate monitor: whats the cheapest most functional option

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

Same as for any other activity.  I want data on physical effort, stress response, comparative values between different sessions, etc.

Jack Crackerson wrote: 

???? 

My original phrasing used "feel" which could be misunderstood to mean "it physically felt uncomfortable" whereas I meant "I anticipate it to feel uncomfortable".  Again, just related to wearing a chest strap while climbing, and not relevant to running/cycling.

I have a Polar H10 that I've been very happy with and very accurate. I know it was accurate based on tests that I did at the local University lab earlier this year. I've never had issues with it staying tight or coming loose. Most wrist based HR monitors aren't very accurate and have a tendancy to drift.

Thanks for the advice everyone! I will take what ive learned and do some digging. and yeah if you have anything to offer you think i might be interested in, DM me!

I wear a Polar H7 chest strap a lot.  I have climbed ice, rock and mixed with it.....plus lots of biking, hiking, and running.  I have had it slid down my chest before when ice climbing.....which was a pain to get under all my layers to replace.  But for the most part it always stays put.  It is very simple to replace the battery and I have never had any chaffing issues with it.  It will pair to my phone with a number of apps.  As I am sure others have said a chest strap is more accurate than a wrist monitor in a watch, and usually cheaper too.

Nick Sweeney wrote:

Training based on heart rate zones.

For the aerobic activity associated with climbing, I.e running, hiking, approaches etc maybe, but for rock climbing I don’t see the utility of heart rate zones. The muscle groups taxed while climbing are likely too small to cause the  significant changes to heart rate as is the case with the large muscle groups used for aerobic exercise.

Even in cycling (I raced at a fairly high level for over 15 years), HR based training is only marginally useful. HR fluctuates with temperature, fatigue, stress, etc...not a great objective measure. Power based training has largely replaced HR based training. HR has some utility to see that your aerobic numbers are in alignment with what your power numbers are telling you and that your perceived exertion matches your HR/power.

For rock climbing, I’d imagine your forearms will be pumped and anaerobic long before your heart rate would give you any indication. The muscle group is relatively small compared to large leg muscles, so the heart is probably not the limiting factor in determining whether you are aerobic/anaerobic.  I doubt that measuring HR is going yield useful zones that will tell you whether your forearm muscles are aerobic / threshold / anaerobic.

csproul wrote:

For the aerobic activity associated with climbing, I.e running, hiking, approaches etc maybe, but for rock climbing I don’t see the utility of heart rate zones. The muscle groups taxed while climbing are likely too small to cause the  significant changes to heart rate as is the case with the large muscle groups used for aerobic exercise. 

Agreed with this. Coupled with other inputs beyond muscular fatigue spiking HR for climbing, can't imagine the data is that worthwhile. Unless you're Honnold who has said if his heart rate is elevated, something is wrong...or getting laps on a route / auto-bae well within your climbing limit to get miles on rock at an endurance HR...but I'd still argue that HR isn't the best tool here.

Hell...I'll argue that HR alone is a poor training tool in general for any sport. Too many variables impact it to even trust it as your sole measure of training output (temperature, humidity, wind, hydration, elevation, fatigue, stress, sleep level, etc). Gotta add some form of perceived effort measure (or lactate test / power / etc) to truly evaluate HR. Certainly a phenomenal guide though! 

Blake Bolton wrote: I have a Polar H10 that I've been very happy with and very accurate.

I am also using the H10 and would recommend it for OP.  It's under $100, pairs with any smartphone, super accurate, simple.

I don't know why anyone is even arguing about the usefulness, OP clearly stated that they were going to use it for running and biking, which are very appropriate uses of HR.

csproul wrote:

For the aerobic activity associated with climbing, I.e running, hiking, approaches etc maybe, but for rock climbing I don’t see the utility of heart rate zones. The muscle groups taxed while climbing are likely too small to cause the  significant changes to heart rate as is the case with the large muscle groups used for aerobic exercise.

That's a great summary.

Two fingers on a pulse and count for a minute ;-)

Gumby King wrote: Two fingers on a pulse and count for a minute ;-)

Is there an app for that? :)

csproul wrote:

For the aerobic activity associated with climbing, I.e running, hiking, approaches etc maybe, but for rock climbing I don’t see the utility of heart rate zones. The muscle groups taxed while climbing are likely too small to cause the  significant changes to heart rate as is the case with the large muscle groups used for aerobic exercise.

Perhaps for ARCing? House/Johnson do mention HR training in their book.

Even in cycling (I raced at a fairly high level for over 15 years), HR based training is only marginally useful. HR fluctuates with temperature, fatigue, stress, etc...not a great objective measure. Power based training has largely replaced HR based training. HR has some utility to see that your aerobic numbers are in alignment with what your power numbers are telling you and that your perceived exertion matches your HR/power.

I agree with you that power meters have taken over, but if I'm not mistaken, they can be a little pricey, and each bike has to be equipped with the power meter to get it to work (usually on the crank? sometimes pedals, not oftentimes anymore: wheel). Where HR is much more portable. Prices are going down (hurray!) but cheap: it ain't.

Plus power meters for running sort of exist but aren't super good yet. So if you do both cycling and running, do you train via power for cycling and then HR for running? I don't know if a coach would do that.

And you're very right about how perceived exertion and HR fluctuate, given you a false sense of how you can perform and how you are performing. HR training is most useful over time to see a trend, which again may be different than using a power meter, as you can essentially race a race off of one of those.

I think though there's benefit with a HR monitor in establishing HR Zones, and getting a sense where you are, so that then you can train/race without it. The big Maffetone HR training takeaway was that people who want to train below their aerobic threshold to work on a base may be training too fast/too high of an HR and they have to ratchet it down a bit, which feels unnatural.

Is there benefit of using both an HR monitor and a power meter to establish what throws off a perceived effort? Like, you mention heat, which could affect some people more than others. I think it affects me, but I don't have any data to prove it.

yeah as stated, it's not for climbing; i just trust mountain project users over random internet articles and i know you guys do more than just climb for the most part.  I just use a stationary bike (with no sensors) and do some running for conditioning, and i just want to be able to keep a consistent intensity for a time period.  not really to measure/quantify performance or keep logs or anything. 

FrankPS wrote:

Is there an app for that? :)

Yeah, there's  apps that use your camera's phone and flash to establish HR. Just have to put your index finger on the lens and wait for the results. 

Kyle Tarry wrote:

I am also using the H10 and would recommend it for OP.  It's under $100, pairs with any smartphone, super accurate, simple.

I don't know why anyone is even arguing about the usefulness, OP clearly stated that they were going to use it for running and biking, which are very appropriate uses of HR.

Ah  yes, you are correct s/he did say that. I’d say any chest strap type Bluetooth transmitter then. As I and others mentioned, the Wahoo Tickr works with any Bluetooth enabled smartphone and a free app to record, about $40 new. Of course, if you want to have the output on something other than a phone, ie a watch or handlebar mounted screen, this may not be a good option.

Dave Baker wrote:
Same as for any other activity.  I want data on physical effort, stress response, comparative values between different sessions, etc.

I don't know how you climb but if I'm getting into my upper HR zones (above "moderate")  while rock climbing for more than a few short moments I'm in trouble.

I'm a big fan of HR monitors for endurance sports like cycling or running but just don't see getting much actionable or useful information from monitoring my HR while climbing. I suppose you could learn what your pulse is at when you suddenly feel it racing and pump out. Not sure what you do with that knowledge, though.

Anything other than a chest strap is a waste of time.  A Garmin 910xt or 920xt will run about $50 used - older models, but many still in use today.  The chest straps need replacing every few years - sweat destroys the electrical pickup and the elastic.

Long Ranger wrote:

Yeah, there's  apps that use your camera's phone and flash to establish HR. Just have to put your index finger on the lens and wait for the results. 

There is a Clock app as well.  I think the advanced ones even have a stopwatch ;-)

Wahoo tickr (the tickr is a chest strap) is probably your best bet for the functionality and the cost. It is accurate if you have good connectivity. Mine is a little buggy when it gets cold and I am running. I've noticed it has to be pretty damn cold while not wear a lot of insulating layers. It will spike or get stuck on a heart rate and I have to periodically hold my hand over the device and warm it up to get it to get it to read accurately. Despite all that I would still recommend it. It is bluetooth and ant+. I have also tried out the tickr fit (the arm based optical device) and it is accurate enough. Definitely more so than the Garmin wrist based optical heart rate. DC Rainmaker does in depth tech reviews. Also looks like wahoo revamped the tickr chest strap lines.

tickr fit
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2018/01/wahoo-tickr-fit-optical-hr-sensor-in-depth-review.html

Tikr
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2020/05/wahoos-new-2020-tickr-tickr-x-in-depth-review.html

Bill Schick wrote: Anything other than a chest strap is a waste of time. 

That has been my experience as well. 

People having trouble with the straps picking up - try wetting your chest, not the strap itself. You'd be surprised.

jdejace wrote:

Agreed. 

People having trouble with the straps picking up - try wetting your chest, not the strap itself. You'd be surprised. 

If you’re still having problems with the contacts you can buy an electrode gel. I rarely have problems unless it is too cold and windy to moisten the contact points, but my wife has real problems getting the straps to work and has used the gel before.