Garmin has just announced their HRM-200 chest strap, a product designed to be their affordable chest strap option, for scenarios that might not work as well with an optical HR sensor. But perhaps more interesting, is that it’s the first of likely many Garmin product refreshes that are aimed at complying with upcoming EU regulations on authentication and encryption requirements (the same ones that just started the death of ANT+ on Friday).
So, while it does ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart transmission like every other product on the market, it also carries with it the ability to encrypt your heart rate data stream, as well as provide authentication. I’m not aware of any other standalone heart rate sensor on the market that does both of those today, and certainly none from Garmin.
Fear not though, all of that is optional today. So if you just want an accurate and dependable chest strap at a reasonable price, this delivers, no extra complexity required. And, of course, in this review, I’m going to walk through how it works after using it for all of my workouts for a while now. That’ll cover the basics, as well as all the advanced bits, and of course, a look at heart rate accuracy.
Lastly, this is a media loaner from Garmin. I’ll shortly go out and buy my own for long-term usage purposes, then return this existing one. As always, I don’t accept advertising from any company I review, and no company sees my reviews before you do. So, if you found this review useful, consider becoming a DCR Supporter, which gets you an ad-free site, plus the behind-the-scenes video series between both myself (and my wife) on everything that happens in the DCR Sports Tech Cave/universe.
What’s New/Different:
If you were looking at the ‘previous model’ of this device, it’d effectively be the Garmin HRM-DUAL chest strap, introduced back in January 2019. That said, there frankly isn’t a lot of end-user difference here once you get it paired up. It’ll transmit your heart rate to the app of your choice over ANT+ or Bluetooth Smart, just like the HRM-DUAL did. The key differences are really within the pod design and new ‘Secure’ transmission modes.
In any case, here are those differences:
– Changed battery compartment design to comply with various kid-proof coin cell battery laws (Australia, US, etc…)
– Added clever ’tool’ to strap, to open said battery compartment without requiring another tool (e.g., screwdriver, etc…)
– Added status LED to front of pod
– Added button to front of pod for changing modes
– Added ability to switch between ‘Open’ (unsecured) and ’Secure’ (encrypted) transmission
– Added one extra channel of Bluetooth (thus unlimited concurrent ANT+ connections and 3 concurrent Bluetooth connections)
– Now offered in two sizes: XS-S and M-XL
– Same 3ATM/30m water resistance rating
– Same removable CR2032 coin cell battery + 1 year battery life
– Price is $79USD
At a high level, the key differences between the HRM-200 and the HRM-PRO/PRO-PLUS/HRM-FIT series are:
– HRM-200 doesn’t transmit additional Running Dynamic metrics (that your watch can mostly do these days without a strap anyway)
– HRM-200 doesn’t have offline saving features (to save data such as during swimming or football if a watch/app isn’t nearby)
– HRM-200 doesn’t transmit running pace/distance data indoors (or outdoors)
– HRM-200 doesn’t do offline capture of Garmin stats like Intensity Minutes, Steps, or Calories (when watch isn’t worn), something the others can do
– HRM-200 has a 3ATM (30m) water resistance level, versus 5ATM (50m) water resistance level. Practically speaking, that won’t matter since the HRM-200 doesn’t save HR data underwater (nor transmit through water), even if you were to use it diving to 30m or less
– HRM-200 is 63g, the HRM-PRO Plus is 52g. The HRM-200 is 11mm thick, and the HRM-PRO Plus is 8.6mm thick.
Beyond that, all of the other core technology is the same as those straps/sensors. For context, the HRM-DUAL these days sells for roughly $59 on Amazon, while the HRM-PRO Plus sells for usually about $99-$103 on Amazon. The women’s focused HRM-FIT continues to be more expensive at ~$149USD.
With all that covered, let’s get into it. Given this is a relatively simple/straightforward product, I’ll try and keep things as brief as possible.
Daily Usage:
The first thing to know about the product is that it comes in two sizes, a smaller size for smaller chests, and a larger size for larger chests. Of course, that’s just the strap portion. There are two portions to the product, the strap and the pod. Obviously, the pod comes in the box – but you can always buy a secondary strap down the road. Here’s the sizing chart:
XS-S:
Strap length: 22″–28″ (56–72 cm)
Fits chest size 23.5-33.5” (60-85cm)M-XL:
Strap length: 28″–42″ (72–106 cm)
Fits chest size 31.5-47”(80-119cm)
The split pod/strap design is not new to Garmin, or heart rate straps. Garmin has used the pod design for many years. However, you will notice the new LED light, which is the first time Garmin has had an LED or button on their strap.
Flipping the pod over, you’ll see the battery compartment. Said compartment complies with various newish laws in both Australia and the United States that require a tool design when a coin cell battery is involved (to ensure kids don’t swallow the coin cell/button batteries).
However, what’s incredibly clever here, is that the tool is built into the strap design. If you look at the clasp, you’ll see it has two little protrusions on it:
These bump-outs perfectly fit into the battery compartment notches, allowing you to rotate it and open it up. This rotation does require a fair amount of force, actually, quite a bit of force in fact – especially the first time. Closing it is easy though. I gave it to both my 7 and 8-year-old daughters to see if they could open it up, neither came anywhere near close to opening it. Thus, it’d be beyond impossible for a 2-year-old. Kudos Garmin, super clever.
Once opened, you’ll find a CR2032 battery inside, which should last roughly a year.
Ok, after closing it back up, it’s time to get it paired up.
At product launch (here in January 2025), the unit ships by default in ‘Open’ mode. This means by default it does not require encryption, nor authentication to see your heart rate. For newer Garmin devices however, it will require you hold the button down for 4 seconds to enter pairing mode, which is indicated by a blinking orange icon:
What’s kinda quirky about this, is that for older unaware Garmin devices, no pairing mode is needed. Same goes for literally every other device on the planet. But Garmin (or their lawyers) are in effect holding themselves to a higher standard by requiring you enter pairing mode to make you aware that the data is unencrypted/open. Whereas for all other devices out there, you don’t need to put it in pairing mode at all, just simply put it on your chest to wake up, and then search for the strap within the device.
Once in pairing mode, you can open up whatever watch/app/bike computer/Peloton bike/etc…. you have, and search for a heart rate sensor, it’ll find it on both ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart. It’s always transmitting concurrently (there’s negligible battery difference to keeping both signal types open).
On a newer Garmin unit though, at this point it’ll make you aware of the ability to use an encrypted session instead. But, assuming you ignore that, then it’ll continue pairing as normal.
After which, you’ll see it in your sensor pairing list as normal. Notice above at right, it has a little ‘unlocked’ icon, indicating it’s an open connection. If we tap on it, it shows more details about it:
You’ll notice above it lists this pairing as both ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart capable, currently selected for ANT+. Further, it lists this as Open, versus ‘Secure’. You can toggle between ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart, though it’ll give you a warning. That warning is because in some scenarios, notably a Garmin HRM-PRO series strap, there’s additional data not delivered via Bluetooth Smart (e.g. Running Efficiency metrics). But for this more basic strap it doesn’t have that data.
In any case, with all that set (which really only takes a few seconds), you’ll see your heart rate data on whatever device you have. Here, for example, on the Forerunner 965:
And likewise, post-workout, you’ll see all your summary stats as you’d expect. This is all at the device/app layer though, and really doesn’t have anything to do with the strap per se. This was a run I did connected to the Fenix 8:
The same seamless connectivity via the Open side was true for a slate of bike computers I used, including the Garmin Edge 1050, COROS DURA, and Wahoo ACE:
And likewise, also no issues on TrainerRoad, Zwift, and more:
Again, everything worked exactly as it has for more than half a decade, on both ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart. It’ll simply display your heart rate, that’s it.
If you don’t want to be fussed with anything else technical, you can simply skip to the Accuracy or Summary sections of this review, and be done with it – that’s all you need to know.
As a side note, while the Garmin and Polar straps and pods are nearly identical, there are some slight differences that make them not quite compatible.
Specifically, the Garmin pod design is deeply inset, such that the Garmin pod will not work on a Polar strap (it’ll barely hang-on, but quickly fall off, while also flexing slightly under the pod causing chaffing). However, the Polar pod does fit on the Garmin strap without issue. Below, the Garmin HRM-200 pod on the Polar H10 strap:
Again, just keep to the respective straps/pods on each company, and you’ll be good.
Authenticated & Encrypted Mode:
Of course, one of the biggest new features on the HRM-200 is the ability to authenticate and encrypt your heart rate data. That’s because upcoming European Union regulations require that a user be aware when they are sending personal information out in the open unencrypted. We’ll set aside the fact that literally zero people have ever asked for encrypted live heart rate data in a gym, but alas, this was sorta collateral damage for more important wireless communications that might occur from your phone to the internet. In the eyes of this regulation, all wireless things are treated the same. Thus, here we are (keeping in mind that Garmin unquestionably hates this as much as anyone else, they’re literally throwing away ANT+ long term because of it).
Nonetheless, at some point it’s likely Garmin will start shipping the HRM-200 in ‘Secure’ mode, versus ‘Open’ mode. But Garmin did note they have no intention of removing ANT+ from this strap. It’s here to stay.
So that gets us to the ‘Secure’ mode. There are essentially two modes for the heart rate strap:
Open Mode: This transmits in both ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart like every other HR strap on the market for the past two decades. Your data is not encrypted.
Secure Mode: This transmits only in Bluetooth Smart, and requires you manually go into pairing mode to start a pairing connection, and then encrypt all data sent between the strap and receiver devices (e.g., watch, bike computer, phone app, etc…).
To switch from Open Mode to Secure Mode, you simply double-tap the button, which will then change the blink pattern. Here’s the entire chart of the blinking patterns.
At first glance, it’s a bit overwhelming, but honestly, once you do it once, all you really care about is:
Two blinks: Secure mode
Three blinks: Open Mode
Constant blinks: Pairing mode (long-hold 4 seconds to start)
Sure, there are some other error-checking type options and firmware update lights, but frankly, you won’t run into them in day-to-day operation, but for completeness, here they are:
Ok, so let’s get back to our pairing. In this case, I’ve double-tapped to switch into Secure mode, and then I long-held for four seconds to start pairing mode. After which, I started searching for external HR monitors:
Note that at present, in current Garmin watch/bike computer firmware, if you want to switch from Open to Secure mode, you need to remove the ‘Open’ pairing on your watch and re-pair back in ‘Secure’ mode. Starting in the Q2 firmware update, you’ll be able to more seamlessly toggle back and forth.
This time, because it’s in secure pairing mode, you won’t see any additional messages about not being in secure mode. It just connects.
At which point, you’re done. If you were to look at the sensor pairings this time, you’ll see it just lists it as a Bluetooth connection only, and as a ’Secure’ connection. I would have thought a lock icon would be displayed here (akin to the unlock icon above), but this is also still beta firmware on Garmin’s watches, so perhaps that’ll come.
You’ll see in the sensor settings that it’s a Bluetooth (BLE) connection now, but otherwise, the data is exactly the same on your watch/bike computer – just a simple heart rate value.
Of course, in secure mode at present, that’s really only Garmin doing it. Polar and Google Pixel watches do some rebroadcasting transmission bits with authentication, but it’s unclear to me if that signal is also encrypted. And Google can’t pair to an external heart rate strap. I did try to pair it to the Polar Vantage M3 in Secure mode. While the watch reported success during the pairing process, the strap quickly gave an error LED. Despite that, the watch thinks it can connect to the HRM200 just fine, but only shows 30BPM as a constant value forever (this is the value it’ll show to any device that thinks it has a secure pairing, but doesn’t actually have an authenticated connection).
To be very clear (again), once I go back into ‘Open’ mode, it works just fine with the Polar devices. I really want to keep repeating this: Using it in normal ‘Open’ mode is the same as every other HR strap from the last decade or two. It’s no different here.
Finally, since I’m probably talking to more geeky people at this point in the review, the HRM-200 transmits HRV in the same way as past Garmin chest straps, on both ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart. You can see this in apps like HRV Logger:
Ok, with all that set, let’s take a quick look at heart rate accuracy.
Heart Rate Accuracy:
While many may associate chest straps with the gold standard of accuracy, that’s not always the case. In fact, in cooler times of the year (typically fall, or a warmer day in winter), chest straps actually struggle more than optical HR sensors, notably during the first few minutes of exercise, when you might not have any sweat yet. Further, in some cases, like the Wahoo TICKR series, it would eventually be susceptible to longer-term failures resulting in all assortment of bad things.
Thus, I test all heart rate sensors equally. In doing so I’m comparing the sensor (be it chest strap, optical HR sensor, ear sensor, etc…) to other ‘known good’ devices. And while every heart rate sensor can have a bad moment (yes, even the Polar H10), if you wear enough sensors at the same time, you can typically figure out which is the odd duck out. Thus, for my testing period, all of my workouts had the following setup:
1) Garmin HRM-200
2) Polar H10 or Garmin HRM-PRO Plus
3) Polar Verity Sense (optical HR sensor)
4) COROS HR Sensor (optical HR sensor)
5) Whoop 4.0 Band
6) Watch A: Usually a Garmin Fenix 8
7) Watch B: Usually an Apple Watch Ultra 2
Yes, that’s a stupid amount of data. Thus, in some of the charts I’ll try and simplify it, just for clarity purposes. I also had the AmazFit T-Rex 3 in the mix too, here and there. Some of the above sensors could do internal storage of the data (e.g. Polar Verity Sensors), others were paired to watches or bike computers to record the data, and finally, others were paired to phone apps to record the data.
With that, let’s take a look at a few different workouts across different sport types. First up, we’ve got an interval run. These were longer 12-minute intervals, but fun nonetheless. In this case, I had an assortment of other sensors, though no secondary chest strap (the app I was recording on…sigh…failed). In any event, here we go:
As you can see, they were all virtually identical. Some slight variations from the AmazFit T-Rex 3 at the beginning due to colder temps, but otherwise everyone else for the next 90 minutes just had fun as one cohesive HR party.
Next, we’ve got some hill repeats. These are always interesting for chest sensors and optical HR sensors alike. Sometimes you can get so-called ‘cadence lock’ when going downhill. Typically that impacts optical HR sensors more than chest sensors, but there’s a long history of chest straps falling victim to this concept (which is basically that the thunk of your footsteps is so prominent it tricks HR sensors into thinking it’s your heart rate).
And of course, on the uphill part, we get to test how quickly the heart rate rises. In any event, here it is compared to an absolute boatload of concurrent sensors:
As you can see, only the Whoop 4 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 displayed issues. The Apple Watch Ultra 2 was lagging on some of the intervals (uphill), sometimes quite considerably, though it didn’t have any issues on the downhill portions.
Next, let’s look at one of a number of different indoor trainer rides. Well, technically, it was an outdoor trainer ride. But either way, it was stationary (and cold). Here it is compared to that same huge slate of secondary sensors:
There’s really no need to analyze this further, everyone is in complete agreement throughout all of these intervals over the course of nearly 2 hours. The only one that briefly disagreed was the Whoop 4.0 band, and only just briefly.
Next, another indoor trainer ride, this one with some substantial longer-term intensity, before a bit of an easy descent within Zwift. Here’s that data:
As you can see, only some slight differences from the Whoop 4 again, and one Apple Watch Ultra 2 hiccup.
Now, before we head outdoors, here’s a slate of different devices all recording from the same HRM-200. I’ve got two different Garmin bike computers (via ANT+), and then also Zwift via Bluetooth. I did this on most of my rides, each time with different devices. No difference:
The goal of the above is to validate there aren’t any drop-out issues, or signal issues with multiple connections.
Ok, finally, an outdoor ride. This had some flats, some descents, some ups, all in an effort to see how well things handled. Again, chest straps can often have issues in cooler weather (which this was) with just a light jersey (as I was wearing), in terms of accuracy. Here’s that data:
Here we don’t really see any difference between the two chest straps, nor any errors on the initial descents compared to other sensors. The Polar Verity Sense did struggle in the beginning though on the initial warm-up period, but then seemed fine after that. The Fenix 8 occasionally struggled early on as well. This time the Apple Watch Ultra 2 didn’t struggle.
Lastly, some of you might ask about swimming usage. Because the HRM-200 does not store data (whereas the HRM-PRO/HRM-FIT does), it’s not useful in swimming. That’s compounded by the fact that digital signals like ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart can only go about 1”/3cm in water before being blocked. Whereas older 5 kHz analog signals (like older Polar straps) can actually transmit through water to much older Polar watches. Though no current/recent Polar watch supports those signals.
(Note: All of the charts in these accuracy sections were created using the DCR Analyzer tool. It allows you to compare power meters/trainers, heart rate, cadence, speed/pace, GPS tracks, and plenty more. You can use it as well for your own gadget comparisons, more details here.)
Heart Rate Strap Comparison:
I’ll likely do a separate post comparing the options here, but essentially I see three comparison sets. The first is within the Garmin range, which is as follows:
– HRM-DUAL (being replaced by HRM-200) at $59
– HRM-200 (this review) at $79
– HRM-PRO Plus at ~$100
– HRM-FIT (for women) at ~$150
Basically, the key differences between the HRM-DUAL and HRM-200 is the authentication/encryption piece at the software layer, and then the different pod design (including safer coin cell battery compartment if kids are around). Beyond that, essentially same-same. Whereas on the HRM-PRO Plus and HRM-FIT level, you’re paying for all the added features I outlined in the first section. Those features are pretty much *ONLY* useful if you’re in the Garmin ecosystem with a Garmin watch, and even then, have debatable value for 95% of the people.
Then the second category comparison is the more general heart rate strap/mainstream options. There are, of course, countless generic ANT+/Bluetooth smart heart rate straps out there, often for quite cheap. But among the bigger tech companies doing HR straps, some of the most popular comparative options are (current real-world Amazon pricing, as these all stay pretty constant):
– Garmin HRM-200 at $79
– Wahoo TRACKR at $89
– Polar H9 at ~$56
– Polar H10 at ~$85
You can see these below, though the Polar H9/10 are visually near identical:
At this level, I’d struggle to see why you’d buy the Wahoo TRACKR, a strap that when it launched I was worried it was slightly overpriced with a proprietaryish connector, and now even moreso with the Garmin HRM-200 being far better in terms of future-proofing. As far as the Polar H9/10 goes, for 99% of the population, the Polar H9 is the best option. It does dual ANT+/Bluetooth Smart, though it doesn’t have the offline data feature of the H10 (which is frankly finicky to use anyway).
Again, there are other cheaper random options out there, but these are the ones I have the most familiarity with. I’ll do a deeper dive though in the coming weeks.
Wrap-Up:
The Garmin HRM-200 is kinda a sleeper agent of a product. At the surface, it’s basically just a refresh of the now 6-year-old Garmin HRM-DUAL strap, keeping up with the times. For most people, you’d never notice the difference – it works exactly as advertised with minimal fuss. It’s easy to recommend, because it works easily and is at a price point that’s logical (Garmin often charges a substantial premium for things, but this isn’t one of those things).
But as the photo above notes, it’s got quite a bit more under the covers to make it more future-proof. It also very clearly spells out Garmin’s likely roadmap for sensor refreshes for a chunk of this year. Garmin’s recent Forerunner/Fenix/Edge/etc beta programs easily show that the secure connectivity pieces is an important piece of the company’s future, even if it’s purely driven by lawyers and regulatory requirements. As a result, Garmin has positioned itself as really the first major (if not only) heart rate sensor that’s compliant. But it also likely illuminates the path for higher-end Garmin HR sensors. After all, Garmin can’t easily add a physical button (which complies with the human ‘authorization’ component) to their existing HRM-PRO Plus (which will be 2 years old this summer). Nor can it do it for the HRM-FIT. Same goes for coin cell battery compliance. Both will undoubtedly require refreshes.
But setting that aside, if you’re looking for a reasonably priced heart rate strap that works well across every Garmin and non-Garmin device I’ve tested it with, the HRM-200 is an easy future-proofed option that’s hard to find fault with.
With that, thanks for reading!
Found This Post Useful? Support The Site!
Hopefully you found this review/post useful. At the end of the day, I’m an athlete just like you looking for the most detail possible on a new purchase – so my review is written from the standpoint of how I used the device. The reviews generally take a lot of hours to put together, so it’s a fair bit of work (and labor of love). As you probably noticed by looking below, I also take time to answer all the questions posted in the comments – and there’s quite a bit of detail in there as well.
If you're shopping for the Garmin HRM-200 or any other accessory items, please consider using the affiliate links below! As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn’t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot.
Here's a few other variants or sibling products that are worth considering:
And of course – you can always sign-up to be a DCR Supporter! That gets you an ad-free DCR, access to the DCR Quarantine Corner video series packed with behind the scenes tidbits...and it also makes you awesome. And being awesome is what it’s all about!
Thanks for reading! And as always, feel free to post comments or questions in the comments section below, I’ll be happy to try and answer them as quickly as possible. And lastly, if you felt this review was useful – I always appreciate feedback in the comments below. Thanks!
Bummer on the incompatibility with other straps. Polar strap used to work better for me with hrm-dual, while now i am testing the magene strap, which is 75% cheaper (10$!), 25% lighter and does exactly the same job. The cost is not insignificant as I can’t get the straps to last more than a year or so.
Big yay for no screwdriver needee for battery change tho!
Ugh that the snap connector distance is not compatible with polar. I think they used to be mutually compatible or at least it was close enough that I used an old Garmin HRM-Run pre-red ring pod on a polar pro replacement strap.
One thing that does happen occasionally is spurious sensor pairing in a gym or group run whereby your watch tries to autopair to someone else’s HRM or Stryd. In rare circumstances you can end up with someone else’s HR data if you absentmindedly accept the pairing. I have seen this happen twice IRL. So… assuming it works properly without messing anything up the encryption and authorization layer would prevent that I think. Or in a much more competitive world cheating on e-sports by modifying the ANT+ data in flight would become impossible (this is a thing at least demoed at DEF CON). Also snarfing data from competitors in the peloton would from a team car would become impossible (if that is even a thing).
Does this imply a Garmin HRM-Pro and Polar H10 successor should also come or can this encryption stuff be implemented purely with a firmware update and the control channel in the phone app?
Is there really any need for a standalone heart rate strap if you have a Garmin watch? Seems like wrist based heart rate tracking is as good as standalone straps now?
Not always. When I go cross country skiing (maybe tomorrow!) I wear my watch on the outside of my clothing so I can see it. So the wrist based HR sensor can’t be used. There are other situations where wrist based HR doesn’t work as well as a chest strap, mostly when the wrist is bent or under strain.
Yes, if you care about HR training there is a reason to have an HR sensor. No oHR at the wrist has data that is as clean as a good chest strap or even a bicep oHR strap. But if you only casually use HR then it isn’t important. The wrist HR is very good for all day capture.
Hello, I found that poles disturb HR accuracy anyway (at least on me FR 955)… Accuracy seems pretty good for all other sports otherwise – but trail running with poles or ski mountaineering does not worl for me (always wearing the watch inside the clothes of course).
While Ray has long since stopped mentioning it, oHR doesn’t work equally for all skin tones. At this point it’s as good as it’s going to get so pointless keep mentioning it, but it’s not a solved problem. Wrist HR requires correct strap tightness otherwise it’s useless – this is much simpler with a chest strap since if it’s too loose it’ll fall off and bother you. Finally, some (quite a few) people find that oHR at the wrist will measure cadence rather than HR. This can often be sorted with strap tightness but some people just have stretchy veins.
Mostly the people with issues are either oblivious to them or are using other methods now so it’s not discussed as much as it used to be, but the issues are still there nonetheless and are unlikely to be fixed any more going forwards.
Finally, there’s no reason a chest HRM couldn’t measure constant ECG data throughout an activity. It’s certainly capable of measuring this, so with some storage and processing power we could collect considerably more detailed data. I don’t think anyone is asking for this, and I doubt it would be a lot more useful than the dumb ticker tape data we currently have, but oHR isn’t capable of getting this information.
> there’s no reason a chest HRM couldn’t measure constant ECG data throughout an activity.
The option System > Advanced > Log HRV (off by default) does store high resolution sampling data that Runnalyze and Kubios can analyze it. Kubios, I believe, does generate a single-lead ECG trace from that.
Kubios in particular is quite a serious software package for analyzing heart rate data for scientific research and medicine that is nearly $700 per license. There is a free version but that lacks the ECG waveform analysis. But anyway I think the data is optionally there now.
Notably, Kubios has 3 recommended HR sensors:
– Polar H10
– Polar Verity Sense
– Movesense
The Movesense medical is a validated Class II medical device and apparently the best available thing for capturing R-R interval data without an ECG machine but is also 350 euro each without the strap.
I have also seen independent research papers that validate Movesense and Polar H10 HRM devices for lab research but not notably not Garmin and less formally it is my understanding that the quality of the data for ECG analysis is not quite there with Garmin chest straps and that have some artifacting that spoils the data. This is not a problem for accurate heart rate capture but is for HRV analysis or for trying to capture an ECG trace without a medical ECG hookup.
There’s some cases where the wrist is not great. For example, in indoor rowing I’ve seen many people struggle with dropouts from the optical sensor, and this can also be the case with dumbbell workouts or anything where the wrist is moving a bit. Sometimes this can be fixed by adjusting the strap but other times not.
It’s a slight bit obsolete, but we’ve been working on this very thing, on fitnesshrv.com. No www befor that. It’s totally alpha, but it works with an ant+ and an H10, and it’ll trap everything you set up.
I wanted to get old PerfPro Studio to incorporate it, but they’re focused entirely on VQ Velocity stuff.
Anyway, ping me if you have questions.
All strap HRM’s effectively are single-lead ECG’s. They derive RR intervals and heartrate from that.
Will Garmin support another BLE GATT profile that allows a connection to collect the ECG data like Polar and Movesense do?
Movesense has their own BLE profiles but has open-sourced their firmware and there is an open-source project that offers a more traditional GATT profile-based approach to make it easier to support collecting heartrate, RR ECG and acceleration data.
With the Polar H10 (and Movesense with the PD firmware) it is easy to capture the ECG data. It does have a about a half second latency between what is measured and when you get it via BLE.
We have an ecg app for windows that captures ECG from Polar H10’s and displays it for you:
link to fitnesshrv.com
The option System > Advanced > Log HRV (off by default) does store high resolution sampling data that Runnalyze and Kubios can analyze it. Kubios, I believe, does generate a single-lead ECG trace from that.
I have also seen independent research papers that validate Movesense and Polar H10 HRM devices for lab research but not notably not Garmin and less formally it is my understanding that the quality of the data for ECG analysis is not quite there with Garmin chest straps
Just to be completely explicit about some things that are implied in a few of the replies to this:
The Movesense Medical and the Polar H10 both transmit a single-lead ECG signal as well as HR and RR data. The Garmin units only transmit HR and RR – the RR is not really high-resolution sampling data, it’s just a stream of values representing the time between one R wave and the next. It’s fine for HRV but it’s not possible to reconstruct an ECG from it. So yes, there are absolutely things that you can do with the Movesense and the H10 that you can’t with any Garmin strap.
The H10 transmits ECG data at 130Hz, which would make for a substantially larger log file.
Yes, my Garmin watch is mounted on my road bike.
Setting aside all the encryption mess, the addition of a status LED to the strap is really nice and would be welcome on every strap.
However, the amount of documentation related to the button, LED and the whole open / secure mode switching is mind-boggling for a chest strap.
Here’s to hoping that new Varia Radar with USB-C will follow soon.
Noooo! Not everything needs lights. We need to discourage adding lights to everything, not encourage it. If there’s a good reason for a light then fair enough, but most chest straps are dumb on/off affairs and do not need lights – if they aren’t working then swap the battery.
The Ring Chime is the worst offender of this and has a blazingly bright blue light which Amazon reset to always on with every firmware update :(
It looks like they are using the same blink pattern with only different LED colors to indicate different battery levels.
This in accessibility failure. Red-green colorblindness is common.
The obvious solution is more EU regulation for accessibility.
I’m quite surprised that garmin has gone down the strap route for this new authentication approach. There is no reason for someone to ‘upgrade’ to this if they have a strap already. I would have expected them to go with an optical sensor – that would be new for garmin, proving this new authentication technology whilst opening up a new revenue stream.
An optical garmin sensor feels like its about 2yrs overdue now, especially as they have the optical sensor there ready to go, and ‘just’ need to repackage it.
I guess from their perspective… if you want optical heart rate, then they want you to buy a watch. You can then either record on this or re-broadcast your HR.
If you’re not happy with optical HR readings you get, then use a strap.
Why on earth would Garmin want to move to a technology that is more complex, more prone to user error, and overall nowhere near as accurate as the current chest HRMs? Unless they wanted to send their business into the ground, they should avoid optical cheat HRMs like the plague. What a silly comment.
LOL- thanks for the constructive feedback on my comment.
I have polar optical HR and its excellent. Tested against a strap during intervals and its been spot on to that reference. As with much of Ray’s testing, optical HR on a well placed strap can be very accurate.
I find wrist based optical HR unreliable and fairly poor for anything other than easy runs, and its obviously not possible in winter when I am wearing my watch above clothes.
I dont get on at all with chest straps. Never have. They slip on me, they feel very uncomfortable, and I hate wearing them.
I suspect there are MANY runners like me who have used optical straps for a long time. I started with the Mio, went to scosche, TICR and now with Polar. Garmin are missing out on a significant market.
(in summary, I think your comment was far sillier than mine, so ner ner).
Yeah, I’ve asked Garmin repeatedly about a Polar Verity Sense-like (or Whoop) product, and they say they aren’t at all against it. But in the totem pole, it just hasn’t risen to the top in terms of priority.
Akin to the quote they gave me around ANT+ and what happens to those employees: “We don’t have a shortage of ideas, we have a shortage of people.”
Does it pass the sweating tests? (one of the main problem with Wahoo heart rate monitors, and older Garmin)
I sweat like a hurricane. So far, haven’t killed it. But obviously, far too early to know there.
That battery cover is incredibly difficult to remove (and has an o-ring built-in), which should helkp.
I’ve had a Whoop for a while now, I hate the point of a subscription so I probably won’t renew.
But I don’t like wearing my monster 52mm Epix Pro in bed.
I’m wondering if I could just wear the new strap 24/7 just like the Whoop, and get all of my data from Garmin now.
It can´t blink an SOS? No flashlight? (j/k!).
I’m curious how the pro teams are going to deal with this in the context of power meters. If they have to change bike mid race, they’ll need to manually connect the head unit to the new power meter no?
Specifically if they’re using neutral service.
Also, the physical button on this to change modes seems like overkill no? I’d have thought that it could simply be toggled using the Garmin Connect app via bluetooth?
They will do it like now:
Connect once the riders spare bikes to the bike computer and done. Only difference will be that you have to do one two button presses more than now, but in the workshop not on the road.
This has also be done now, or do you think the riders add the power meter to the computer after the bike change?
Would it make more sense to get this one or the pro plus if you have the Forerunner 645? I’m thinking the extra running dynamics might be worth it?
Most pro teams don’t have riders re-pair during races, usually because the athlete has enough of a mess to deal with.
That said, some teams *DO* actually write down the power meter ANT+ ID on the handlebar or in small tape elsewhere on frame for exactly this purpose on spares. It’s are, but I know somewhere this past summer I took a picture of one team doing that.
They also do it on the side of most trainers, usually in white-out or stickers.
I have to think that Garmin is going to start broadcasting their advance metrics over BLE for the HRM-PRO+ refresh and their other higher end straps. I don’t really understand why there is a difference in what is transmitted over the two protocols in the first place.
I’d also guess that they won’t bother updating the current gen of straps to broadcast those metrics over BLE since I’m pretty sure Garmin considers their straps to be consumable and they expect people to be upgrading anyway.
I asked about this, they didn’t give a hard answer, but gave a “yeah, we’re already thinking about that” type of answer, which basically means it’ll likely happen before these laws come into place.
There’s various things that’ll be happening over the next few months. For example, the ability to switch between unsecured and secured from the watch/bike computer will come in the Q2 updates. Just one example of a number of milestones.
They didn’t see the need to boil the ocean for January, when most of this stuff doesn’t kick in till summer or later. Yet concurrently, they noted that with a company as big as Garmin, they couldn’t risk (from a compliance standpoint), waiting till the last minute to see if the EU kicks the can down the road again.
Ray – related to your comment on the need for a physical button. Couldn’t any strap with an accelerometer be configured to accept a “double tap” on the device or some unique motion to be the human “authorization” component?
I’m going to guess for whatever reason the lawyers rejected that.
Garmin as a corporate culture (both from a financial ROI standpoint, and product risk standpoint) is *incredibly* conservative. Not talking politics, but risk/financials.
i like the fact Garmin stays with the traditional contacts (where the pod can be detached from the strap) and this seems overall like a solid product.
It’s a bit unfortunate all of the newer HRMs have a much shorter battery life than older generations. The only remaining long-living one is the HRM-Dual (3.5 years).
PS: The whole LED+Button thing is overengineered but indeed probably related to this EU regulation thing which Ray wrote about.
Haven’t read the full review yet, but just wanted to jump down here and say the Wahoo chest strap that has the sealed battery with charger is a far better design, being that people go through chest straps like crazy from leakage at the coin cell compartment.
After the battery change part, there is a picture with the sensor class „Extended Display“. Garmin isn’t supporting the Varia glasses anymore I thought?
Wich ones are connected to the watch and how useful do you think it is?
Extended Display has nothing to do with the Varia Vision display. BTW: the F8 series fw surprisingly supports Varia Vision.
Edge computers are also an extended display. Useful in triathlon.
The more interesting tidbit is the recent FR965 beta firmware that changed all those icons. Some fun ones in there!
I could see professional cycling teams embracing encrypted hear rate data.
I’ll stick with my current HRM straps especially since I use running efficiency metrics.
Surprisingly, none have asked for it. Or at least, none have expressed that interest in all my discussions.
In fact, knowing the teams fairly well, I’m going to bet the opposite: They’re gonna hate it.
One thing most people don’t realize is that bike tech stuff on most teams falls to the bike mechanics. And most (even WorldTour) level bike mechanics want absolutely nothing to do with power meters or bike computers. It causes them all sorts of headaches that can’t be solved easily with a toolbox.
Teams do usually have sport scientists, but whether or not they are tech-forward is a coin flip. Most are, but that doesn’t mean they want to deal with tech troubleshooting. They prefer to look at training load graphs and such.
If team A can gather enough data about the riders of team B, they could in theory (and maybe also in practice) include that information in tactics in multi-stage/day races. It could show when a rider has a bad day before you can actually see it for example.
Like a lot of things, it doesn’t matter until a certain team uses it and seems to have success with it, although I doubt they will be public about gathering data from riders from other teams..
For myself, I don’t care, but if my next hrm has it, I’ll probable enable it. For the moment my hrm-run works fine
I bought HRM Pro Plus yesterday… 🤦🏻♂️
Is there a list anywhere of which devices are capable of pairing in the encrypted mode?
I don’t have a 100% accurate list, but roughly:
– Garmin Edge x40 & x50 series
– Garmin Fenix 8 Series
– Garmin Enduro 3
– Garmin Forerunner x65 series
– Garmin Forerunner x55 series
And…I’m sure a bunch more I’m forgetting.
As someone who works in the data privacy space, I am constantly annoyed by your shots at any an all data privacy laws. I get you came from the tech space were they absolutely don’t give a crap about privacy and seek to monetize the most minute detail of you life, but really dude?
I know the laws often times have trouble marrying to the reality of the technology and many times the regulators simply have no clue but to paint broad strokes about people users is misguided.
Some people actually do care about their data. The fact that you dismiss these concerns is troubling for any user to this site.
Oh come on, as Ray said, there’s a difference between short range stuff like this, and general wireless stuff.
So far, this stupid legislation has led to the death of Ant, for which I’ll always hate it. And indeed, I don’t know who or if any athletes asked for this…
This is by far the most bizarre comment of the day. Setting aside your incorrect assertation about privacy, the kicker here is that in all of your ranting you *STILL* didn’t say you wanted your heart rate strap data encrypted.
And thus, to this day, not a *SINGLE PERSON* has ever commented that they want that data encrypted. Nor has a *SINGLE* Pro Team I’ve talked to. Nobody. I’m just stating facts.
I don’t blame Garmin for this, and I don’t even really blame the EU for it. But getting on some high horse and saying I’m anti-privacy? I blame you for that.
What a weird comment.
I’m very much into data privacy, an expert in fact. So much so that I (working at a large tech company, just like Ray used to) pointed out a flaw in the UK DPA (aka GDPR) following Brexit that was subsequently fixed.
While I’m not in any way opposed to encrypting HR data, or any other Ant+ data, I’m also not concerned by someone gaining access to what is essentially a random string of numbers that my heart generates while I run. Ray’s take on this was bang on as far as I’m concerned, it’s nice to see Garmin being compliant, but the law is insane. Ant+ data isn’t even PII as far as the GDPR is concerned, and without linking it to your watch or account (in which case you’re compromised anyway) then it’s essentially anonymous. Encryption is a reasonable feature to add, but mandating it is not necessary. I’ve not read the new regs but I imagine it wouldn’t even apply in the real world because this isn’t PII, but Garmin have to be careful.
Feel free to come up with a scenario, any scenario, where this would be problematic. I’m confident you can’t think of anything realistic. Ray is an expert in this stuff, and as far as I can tell he was’nt flippant about data privacy, he just understands the topic.
Does the HRM-200 broadcast R-R intervals for HRV?
Yes
Just curious.
Has wirelesscharging ever been taken into consideration (not only by garmin) ??
Maybe External (and waterproof) connectors like watches, PM pedals ??…for sure i miss something but HR straps are the only sport tech that i use that needs this kind of batteries.
They’ve played with it on a few watches.
For HR straps, the coil tech needed to make that work basically kills the cost side of the equation, with no meaningful benefit.
The battery lasts at least a year and costs pennies. Why would you swap that for a device with a prematurely shortened life and charging weekly?
I’m glad we’re seeing a new product with a strap that can be replaced – any newer staps from Garmin end up being e-waste after a year or two due to strap wearing out.
Hopefully refreshed running/swimming straps will also come with deatachable pods and options to get a new strap, because honestly 100+ eruro devices going to trash is just annoying, including newest HRM-FIT at 150ish euro.
It’s easier to lose than to wear out or break some older of the Polar pods which often outlive the watch they came with by a generation or two.
I’m in market for a new strap, but one feature i am after is offline data syncing, currenytly have an older HRM-Run (i think?) with running dynamics, but dont really use those features – Looking at the garmin front the Pro Plus seems to be my only option, and the H10 from polar, are there any others you are aware of?
To confirm the use case – gym/workout with watch on the sideline/locker room, and getting ~80% coverage, but some dropouts, and would like to fill out the graphs. Cannot wear the watch during workout. (Taekwon-Do, but not during sparring)
Would love to hear more about the impact of cooler weather and chest strap monitors. I’ve struggled with multiple Polar and Wahoo chest straps over the years during the first 10-20 minutes of rides (yes, tried wetting them with all sorts of things), and particularly when it is cooler out.
I use Spectra 360 Premium Electrode Gel and have never had an issue with any HR monitor regardless of the temperature. Inexpensive and a tube lasts for months.
link to a.co
Thanks! I’ve heard tale of similar, but this is more specific. Appreciate the link.
link to heartratemonitorsusa.com for others if seeking to avoid Amazon.
I wonder if the secure connection affects battery life.
Looks lik it does.
From the hrm dual specs ; Up to 3.5 yr. at 1 hr./day
And hrm-200 specs ; Up to 12 months (using 1 hour per day)
I have a funny feeling Garmin may have finally realized the 3.5 years for the HRM-DUAL wasn’t probably super realistic. Most companies have always said basically a year for CR2032 coin cell usage with dual ANT+/BLE broadcasting.
I’m getting about 1 year (sometimes a bit more) with my wahoo tickr.
And last year used it for at least 1660 hours. (strava moving time, so elapsed time even more)
My experience is the battery of a HRM-Dual (and older straps) lasts “forever”. I don’t track it but at least 2 years with heavy training.
I just called my contact at Garmin in Olathe, and he couldn’t answer this….
Can the 200 broadcast an ECG signal, like the H10 can?????
I mean… surely……
Would it make more sense to get this one or the pro plus if you have the Forerunner 645? I’m thinking the extra running dynamics might be worth it?
> I’m thinking the extra running dynamics might be worth it?
If you know how to make them actionable (which I don’t) then yes. The only running dynamics that are captured from the HRM and not the wrist at this point is R/L balance.
IMO the actually useful features of the HRM-Pro are for swimming and pace/distance calibration for treadmill.
Agree. I’ve yet to get an answer from Garmin (a decade later) on how to make Running Dynamics (or Cycling Dynamics) actionable, aside from geekery or injury recovery.
And also agree the most useful features are swimming (or HR backfill for various field sports).
Ray, do you know by any chance, if Garmin will release new F965 this spring? Just need to replace my old one watch and wondering if it is worth to wait or simply go with current Fenix.
Given Garmin typically operates on a 2-year cycle for the Forerunner series, it’d certainly make sense. It was released March 2nd, 2023.
I have switched to Wahoo a few years back, got a bit worry with inability to switch strap on Garmin product at the time.
Re: strap incompatibility, is there actually an issue here? I have been using Wahoo TICKR exclusively on non-Wahoo straps (Garmin, Polar as well as “after market strap”).The TICKR strap is actually still in its’ original packaging. The spacings between the connecting buttons are probably not exactly the same, but not as bad as what appears to be the difference in the Garmin pod on Polar strap here.
I have also tried cutting the strap between the buttons and they remain operational (ie. the strap became separated at the pod, akin to Wahoo’s own strap. Evidently there isn’t any connecting electrodes between buttons. This should also work and fix the spacing issue on this new Garmin HRM pod?
Does it broadcast RR intervals like the polar H10? Doubt it because none of the other garmin HRMs do, but that would be a welcome change.
All of the Garmin units send RR intervals, it’s part of the ANT+ heart rate protocol (there is a toggle in Garmin watch settings to set whether they are recorded with the activity or not).
The unique thing the H10 does is transmit a separate signal containing the ECG trace. I doubt Garmin would add that in a lower end unit, would be nice to have in the next iteration of HRM-Pro.
Why can’t they make these things rechargeable. Then button batteries and seals are not an issue.
Of course they could make it rechargeable, but it draws so very little power that it lasts a year on a coin cell – I guess the cost of making it rechargeable is not really worth it if you are only going to change the coin cell on average 2-3 times per device life?
After all, there is all kinds of hassle involved with recharging – you don’t only need a rechargeable battery (which is much more expensive than a coin cell), you also need a way to feed in power – a usb-c port would *not* be a good idea on a heart rate strap, so maybe contactless charging? But that requires extra controllers and hardware…
Agree, I don’t get the rechargeable push on a device that has a 1-year+ battery life. And for most people doing less than 1hr/day (which, aside from people like me is legitimately most people), it’ll last likely 2-3 years.
I’d even be willing to be that the e-waste on a rechargeable device is *far* higher than a coin cell device, when that coin cell is only swapped a few times. Whereas something like power meter pedals, it’s probably much more balanced (because your swapping coin cells every 3-5 months for likely 4-6 years).
And then you get to the charging cable problem. As Peter noted, USB-C is definitely not what you want on a HR strap. While companies sell waterproof USB-C ports (as I show in my underwater iPhone videos), none of those have been proven to deal with sweat/salt on a *daily basis* for years. They die. We know that. Especially if you don’t rinse them out every day.
So we end up with proprietary charging cables. The Wahoo one is arguably one of the worst examples of this. We have this tiny little cable, that I have to remember where I put it, once a year. I appreciate that they share the same charging cable with Shokz, but I don’t use Shokz, so that’s not really super useful to me (and most consumers).
I have no problem with rechargeable on a gazillion other devices (and obviously, prefer it) – but heart rate straps that you swap a coin cell once a year? No way.
“I have yet to hear one single person on this planet that has asked for the encryption of the heart rate data”.
Here is one. There is no reason why the Bluetooth connection should not be encrypted in my mind. When it comes to encryption the mindset should be to do it unless there is a good reason *not* to.
Like https on websites, my traffic to dcrainmaker blog is encrypted on principle, not because it was decided that visiting dcrainmakers website is very personal and should be hidden from potential snoopers.
As shown by the complexity of the pairing process, there are good reasons _not to_. Ant has worked for two decades as-is, and being a short-range wireless protocol as opposed to your connection to dcrainmaker.com, it has very different risk profile. And, on top, it’s a readonly protocol. So really, what does encryption bring here, except for higher battery usage and more pairing complexity when using multiple devices?
Dear Ray,
Did you provide additional information somewhere about the impact of cold and dry winter weather on the accuracy of PPG heart rate measurements?
Many thanks and with kind regards,
AdMa
Looking forward to a company making a chest heart rate monitor with built in core temperature monitor.