Heart Rate Monitor Review

Chest-strap versus strapless heart-rate monitors

Heart-rate monitors are an integral piece of exercise equipment for many athletes. Monitoring your heart rate while you exercise can let you know if you're working hard enough to get cardiovascular benefits. Likewise, a heart-rate monitor can tell you if you are working out too hard, which can be ineffective and lead to injuries. Heart-rate monitors can have a host of features, but the most basic monitors track heart rate only. More advanced monitors also track calorie expenditure and provide personalized workout recommendations and fitness tests. Most dedicated heart-rate monitors don't include lap timers or GPS functionality; if you want these features, see our companion report on sports watches.

The best professional review of heart-rate monitors comes from ConsumerReports.org, which tests several types of monitors in a recent report. However, we found a variety of solid reviews in fitness publications like Women's Adventure Magazine, Triathlon Plus and Men's Journal magazine. These sources conduct group tests of heart-rate monitors, and each monitor is rated, which makes it easy to compare models. Reviews published in The New York Times, Outside magazine and Runner's World are also helpful, but their testing is less detailed. As for owner feedback, Amazon.com is the best source, with some monitors receiving hundreds of individual reviews. Many of these reviews are quite detailed, and they give a good sense of long-term reliability that is not measured in professional tests.

Most heart-rate monitors use a chest strap to monitor your pulse rate and transmit the data to a wristwatch display. There are other models, like the Mio Classic Select (*Est. $40), that use a fingertip sensor on the watch to measure heartbeat. This means there's no chest strap, but reviewers say these monitors are less convenient for serious athletes because you have to stop exercising to get a reading. As you would expect, your heart rate begins to fall once you stop exercising, and you may not get a true indication of your heart rate during exercise. Many users also claim that it often takes several tries to get a reading, and accuracy can be subpar. Overall, reviews for strapless heart-rate monitors indicate they are limited in their usefulness and not the best choice. A far better option is to go with a heart-rate monitor with a traditional chest strap.

Reviewers also suggest avoiding ring-type heart-rate monitors like the LifeSpan MyBeat Heart Rate Ring (*Est. $36). This heart-rate monitor is a small ring designed to be worn on your index finger. A reviewer for the Los Angeles Times finds it slow and inaccurate; the device takes more than 20 seconds to get a reading that is way off compared to conventional heart-rate monitors. Reviewers at Amazon.com are equally unenthusiastic, giving the LifeSpan Heart Rate Ring a 2-star rating. Users there say the LifeSpan heart-rate monitor is little more than a toy.