"DrollTroll" <fitcat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:487f8eb9$0$7360$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Jerry" <Jerry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g5it37$ulo$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Are they as accurate as the chest strap kind?
>>
>> Are any brands known to be better or worse on accuracy?
>
> See the 6/30 thread on rec.running--numerous links.
>
> My impression is that most are pretty accurate, as they work on
basically
> the same principles as cheststrap, afaict.
>
> Key drawback: they are not continuous read-out, which is a major major
> issue. You must touch them and hold them, as they then take your pulse.
> And therefore, cannot perform *any* diagnostics, such as max or avg,
which
> are nice to have, if you are fooling around with hrms.
>
> I was dead set against strapless, until I realized that the alternatives
> yield too much ito of versatility.
>
> The Polar cheststraps are actually pretty comfortable. Altho, at 6'
180,
> the "medium" strap is barely big enough, and I"m by no means
> barrel-chested.
> The new cheststraps require no lubrication, and for me, not even
> moistening.
>
> If all you want them for is an occasional touch pulse, then indeed they
> would be a better choice.
Should clarify:
There are actually at least *four* kinds of strapless.
1. The wristwatch type that you have to touch--generally accurate, but
not
continuous readout.
2. A ring-type, that afaict has been discontinued--unreliable. Woulda
been
perfect for me.
3. Finger/glove type--two models I've seen. Interferes with grip, tho,
if
doing other exercises (and, gripping also interferes with readings), a
little persnickety in positioning. continuous readout.
4. Ear-lobe type, that uses a wire to a wristwatch readout. Only 1 model
of this I've seen. continuous readout.
--
DT
> --
> DT
>
|
