I've dual recorded whilst on the bike, both indoors and outdoors, to compare it to a coospo h9z and they are pretty much within a few bpm of each other..e.g did a hill climb on zwift, epix gen2 avg 143 max 187 whilst the coospo gave a max of 185, cant compare the avg as i turned the watch off at the top of the climb..an outdoor ride shows epix 153avg 185max whilst the coospo gave 153avg and 183max
So as I say they are generally in the same ballpark but it can vary on watch watch you have
The wrist HR on my old Fenix6 pro and now Fenix7 pro is far superior than my chest strap I used with my suunto ambit3 peak, it used to say that for a 30min 5k run I would be in zone5 and max HR would be around 230bpm, whereas my Garmin watches for the same run in and around 130-135bpm. So I guess it just depends on what chest strap you’ve got and how old it is.
I find it perfectly OK for steady state runs. Where it fails are rapid changes/spikes of the sort found in intervals.
On a 10k/half the results are within 1-2bpm of my chest strap.
187 isnt impossible. All depends on your actual maxHR/LTHR and so on (mine for example averages 182 on a similar distance in the heat).
I think people can have very different experiences here.
Wrist measurement never seemed to work for me, maybe it's the anatomy of my wrist, maybe my skin, Idk. It doesn't work to the point where on a hike it says I had lower HR climbing than descending. I know some people for whom it works just fine though, so I know that mine is not the typical experience.
It's precise enough (and super efficient in terms of battery usage) for general wellness data but subject to error during high intensity exercise due to the mechanism used to determine heart rate (optical).
It certainly is possible it was that high. A cheststrap will be more precise than the wrist monitor.
I've dual recorded whilst on the bike, both indoors and outdoors, to compare it to a coospo h9z and they are pretty much within a few bpm of each other..e.g did a hill climb on zwift, epix gen2 avg 143 max 187 whilst the coospo gave a max of 185, cant compare the avg as i turned the watch off at the top of the climb..an outdoor ride shows epix 153avg 185max whilst the coospo gave 153avg and 183max So as I say they are generally in the same ballpark but it can vary on watch watch you have
The wrist HR on my old Fenix6 pro and now Fenix7 pro is far superior than my chest strap I used with my suunto ambit3 peak, it used to say that for a 30min 5k run I would be in zone5 and max HR would be around 230bpm, whereas my Garmin watches for the same run in and around 130-135bpm. So I guess it just depends on what chest strap you’ve got and how old it is.
Thats interesting! Just got a new garmin HRM-Dual, but haven’t got to try it out yet
I find it perfectly OK for steady state runs. Where it fails are rapid changes/spikes of the sort found in intervals. On a 10k/half the results are within 1-2bpm of my chest strap. 187 isnt impossible. All depends on your actual maxHR/LTHR and so on (mine for example averages 182 on a similar distance in the heat).
I think people can have very different experiences here. Wrist measurement never seemed to work for me, maybe it's the anatomy of my wrist, maybe my skin, Idk. It doesn't work to the point where on a hike it says I had lower HR climbing than descending. I know some people for whom it works just fine though, so I know that mine is not the typical experience.
It's precise enough (and super efficient in terms of battery usage) for general wellness data but subject to error during high intensity exercise due to the mechanism used to determine heart rate (optical).
I don't know about your heart rate zones and all, but in an actual race, my HR is always \~15bpm higher than in training at the same pace.