UKC

I bought an ALDI heart rate monitor but have never got it to work. I still quit like the idea of a Bluetooth heart rate monitor so would quite like recommendations for a basic modle that works with Android marshmallow.

Cheers

In reply to The Lemming:

Was looking at these the other day. Couldn't get it to connect, or couldn't find anything that would read it?

In reply to The Lemming:

What version is Marshmallow in real numbers?

In reply to Orgsm:

Latest version of Android. Number 6

In reply to The Lemming:

Ok, it should be compatible then provided you've paired the HR strap with the phone.

In reply to The Lemming:

Probably you aren't interested in Fitbit Charge HR (or the smarter ones)? I was quite surprised to have an average 131BPM for 7 hours...

I got the Charge HR for Christmas and it seems to work quite well (apart from needing to charge it every 4/5 days!). Haven't used for sports too much yet, but worked well even in winter conditions. It tracks sleep, steps, floors, etc. and has very nice tailored dashboard for desktops/tablets/phones.

In reply to PPP:

I've got one as well, but sports tend to let it down somewhat. When I get my HR up in the 170s (chest strap) the Fitbit fails to match. It's just as bad at the low end - I get a resting HR or about 40 using the chest strap (also via an NHS monitor) whislt the fitbit suggests 50 ish.

In reply to The Lemming:

I note, purely as a comment on your other thread, a lack of 'dislikes' for this one.

In reply to The Lemming:
If it's one of the newer Crane branded ones it will be Bluetooth 4.0 aka Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).
Provided your phone talks that it should pair no bothers. Could be worthwhile checking to see if it does.
Were you pairing it in the phones Bluetooth menu or to a monitoring app?

I got one for myself and one for the missus as they were on special for a fiver.
I also have a Wahoo Tickr Run which I mostly use. Once the Wahoo packs in I'll fall back to my Aldi one.
Would recommend the Wahoo one but it is spendy.
Quick edit. The Wahoo never dropped out and has been bang on into the 200's heart rate wise. The Aldi ones can sometimes drop alright. Then again they are a fraction of the price of the Wahoo. They also pair to the Satmap Active 12 where as the Wahoo crashed it.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


I dare you.

In reply to RoK:



I have a Nexus 5x which has Bluetooth 4.2 which makes it all the more confusing as I can not make it play nicely. I shall take it back to ALDI this week as I can't get it to work.

In reply to The Lemming:

I'm fairly obsessed by my Fitbit HR charge now, especially as I've never been involved with this sort of thing before and I can sync it perfectly and look at all the graphs even though I'm a techno numpty.

Sleep patterns are fascinating and the Weekend Warrior challenge at work means I find myself jogging on the spot at 11,30pm Sunday night to try and steal a league place on the DoF....

In reply to The Lemming:

Another shout for the Fitbit Charge HR - its really helped me keep my fitness up (in a more general non-climbing sense). Interestingly, unlike ianstevens, I found that the HR readings during sports lined up perfectly with the readings from my garmin with the HR strap.

In reply to The Lemming:

I've got a Wahoo Tickr and it's OK. HRMs are always let down by battery life but the Tickr at least seems to get 12h or so from a single cell.

In reply to thedatastream:
I've got a Wahoo Tickr it has never missed a beat and the app is lightweight and good, as well as uploading direct to Strava.

Haven't changed the battery in ages - certainly more than 12 hrs. I think they quote 100 hours in spec, I certainly get more than half that figure...

In reply to Removed User:

Another vote for the Wahoo, I have an older version and it has been reliable and surprisingly easy on the batteries.

b

In reply to The Lemming:

Wahoo Tickr for me. Pairs instantly with a phone (iphone or android) and/or a Garmin. Not even thought about battery life yet, so probably heading towards the 100 hour figure mentioned above. Comfortable.

In reply to ianstevens:

If the HR counters work on electrical spikes perhaps it depends on how the thresholds are set; so it may be that instead of just counting QRS spikes, it is possible that they double count at times. That certainly happens sometimes with ECG monitors. In addition not everyone is going to have normal sinus rhythms so what does the software do in that circumstance? How are VPCs dealt with etc(Ventricular Premature Contractions)?
So it may be that at higher rates that some people have a rhythm disturbance which cannot be coped with by the software. So opinions of how a given piece of kit works may not always be comparing like with like.

In reply to veteye:

I appreciate that - however I've got a lot more faith in the chest strap system than a couple of lights on the back of my wrist. Furthermore, according to the Fitbit my HR only reaches ~160 when doing 70 sec laps of the track (important context: I'm 25, and have a recent road 10k of 38:22 and hilly 1/2 of 88:00) which doesn't seem right - especially given how I feel at the time! Around the middle numbers (65-140) they tend to align quite nicely. I think the wrist-based system of the Fitbit has more potential to be prone to error: leakage of light in/out and surface capillary closure (this is where HR is measured by the fitbit) being one of them.

That said, the sleep function seems good and the software is all very nice. It fills in the non-training gaps in the day nicely, which for me can vary massively; wandering about the lab is very different to a day of writing, and this information allows to me to plan my diet in an more informed manner and it's shown. For exercise (which I assume is what the OP wants) I'd still suggest that a proper HR strap from Garmin/Suunto/Wahoo is the way to go.

In reply to ianstevens:

I would also suggest that people not just rely on the electrical gear, but actually make the effort to measure their heart rate by means of feeling their heart beating, and their pulse in the wrist or elsewhere, at some point, in order to compare what they work out by those means, with the reading of the HRMs. That way they can decide if there are problems with the monitors that are obvious. I would see it as being worthwhile to do this on a couple of occasions.

I have to point out, Ian, that I am ignorant of individual models as I tend to only measure my HR at the end of a run or if I think that my HR is a bit fast in some other activity. I do it with old fashioned watch and my finger on my wrist.

In reply to The Lemming:

Thanks everybody. I shall check out fitbit's.

Cheers all

In reply to veteye:


Bit of a thicko question, can these Heart Rate monitors display and record P, QRS and T waves?

That would become an hypochondriac's utopia especially if used with a twenty quid Blood Pressure monitor.

In reply to The Lemming:


My HR Charge Fitbit just shows HR at the moment (on my wrist) or HR over the last hours/days on charts on my mb phone. I'm even more of a thicko than you as I don't understand the question....but I think the answer is "No"

In reply to The Lemming:

Are you trying to pair it to the phone in the settings menu or just to an app? I think you pair via the app rather than directly to the phone. Could be worth a try.

In reply to The Lemming:

No, they don't (although the Suunto ones reckon they can discern R-R variations and extract a (rubbish) derived version of something meant to be equivalent to vO2 max).

b

In reply to The Lemming:
Returned the ALDI Bluetooth heart rate monitor and went for a bog standard Polar watch.

Argos have a Polar FT2 for £30, if anybody is looking for a cheap monitor with few frills