Do you really need an heart rate monitor or is the sportwatch enough?
Published
I decided to make this comparison when reviewing last week’s slow run I saw that the average heart rate detected by my Garmin Forerunner 735XT was 171 beats per minute. Something was definitely wrong, and it was probably related to the fact that during an activity like running the wrist sensor is moved and loses accuracy. It could also be due to the gloves I use, as one of them is in contact with the watch during training. I therefore decided to test how much the detection of the sportwatch differed from a heart rate monitor, the Garmin Premium Heart Rate Monitor. To carry out the test I used two different watches, the Garmin Forerunner 735XT and the Garmin Forerunner 35, the latter connected with the heart rate monitor.
Running
The training recorded was an medium 12km, in which I had to maintain a constant pace of 3:37 min/km. Once the activity was completed, I superimposed the heart rate graphs as a function of time:
Cycling
Since I didn’t go to the athletics field because of snow, I trained at home today. I chose to warm up on an exercise bike, 15 minutes at a constant speed of 40 km/h. Despite the fact that the activity was not as long as running, I was able to obtain a homologous graph to that of the average.
To conclude
The conclusion I’ve come to, at least as far as running is concerned, is that for consistent results the band proves to be an excellent tool. With regard to other activities where the wrist sensor remains more or less stationary, such as cycling, its reliability increases considerably, narrowing the difference with the chest belt.