Coros Optical Heart Rate Monitor Strap Test

Optical heart rate monitors on the back of watches are known to be unreliable. I wanted to see how the optical, strap sensor from Coros performed when compared to a chest strap heart rate monitor.

I’ve recorded my heart rate whilst training for well over 15 years. I’ve experimented with wrist based sensors but found them to be extremely unreliable compared to a chest strap so for the vast majority of my runs I have used a chest strap. I’m currently using the Garmin Run strap paired with a Garmin Fenix 5 watch.

I’d heard that optical sensors worn on your arm tended to be more accurate than wrist sensors so I thought I’d check out the claims. The Coros heart rate monitor strap still uses an optical sensor but it is designed to be worn on the forearm or upper arm.

Coros optical HRM strap

The Test

In this experiment I went for a run whilst wearing two watches, each one recording heart rate independently of the other. On my right wrist I wore the Fenix 5, paired with the Garmin chest strap and on my left wrist I wore the Coros Apex 2 Pro.

2 watch Taylor!

The run was done at an easy effort on undulating trail terrain. For the first 15 minutes I recorded heart rate from the wrist sensor on the Coros, then I switched over to the Coros arm strap which I wore on my upper arm. I then continued for a further 15 minutes at the same pace on similar terrain. I then took the arm strap off to see if the Coros watch would revert back to its wrist based sensor. The results were interesting!

photo of Coros and Garmin heart rate straps

Coros vs Garmin heart rate monitors

I wore the strap on my left upper arm

The results

I uploaded the activities to the relevant platforms, namely Garmin Connect and the Coros Training Hub. From there I exported the data as .fit files (this saves heart rate data etc). To analyse the data I imported the files into a free site called EnDuRA (https://bluecattechnical.shinyapps.io/EnDuRA) which I recommend if you are into geeky stats!

The graph below shows the results with the Coros trace in grey and the Garmin trace in darker blue. The first 15 minutes (900 seconds) show a large discrepancy between the Coros wrist sensor and the Garmin chest strap, with the Coros reading higher. Note at 306 seconds the Coros watch read 160bpm whilst the Garmin only read 133bpm. As it was a slow, easy effort I can guarantee that my heart rate wasn’t actually 160!

The gap in the middle of the chart is where I paused both watches to put the arm strap on and you can see that when I restarted the watches and resumed running the traces were much more aligned, at some points giving identical readings. Just before 2000 seconds I paused the watches again and took off the arm strap. When I restarted the watches the Coros watch failed to revert back to its wrist based sensor. So for the final segment of the run, other than a couple of erroneous blips, only the Garmin hear rate is shown on the chart.

chart comparing Coros and Garmin heart rate data

Comparison chart

Conclusion

For people who want to record an accurate heart rate during exercise but don’t like wearing a chest strap, the optical arm strap looks like a good option. This was the first test done at an easy pace. It clearly shows that the Coros arm based optical heart rate monitor gives a similar reading to the Garmin chest strap. The wrist based sensor reads much higher than the both the arm sensor and chest strap, and my perceived exertion!

I intend to do more tests at higher intensity and whilst doing interval training. Watch this space for more results!

See video below where I discuss the results.

If you found this review useful you can buy me a coffee to show your appreciation!

Heart Rate Monitors: chest strap versus wrist based.

Heart Rate Monitor watches come in two forms: chest strap and wrist sensor – but which is best?

Advances in technology mean that watches which measure heart rate are no longer the preserve of sports scientists, and now many moderately priced sports watches offer a heart rate monitor (HRM) feature. The first generation of such watches rely on a sensor that is worn around the chest, next to the skin and which measures the heart’s electrical impulses and sends a signal to the watch. However it is now possible to get a watch with an inbuilt optical sensor that measures heart rate through the skin and so dispenses with the need for the chest strap. These sensors are built into the back of the watch, which is worn against the skin and can measure the light being refracted at different rates as blood pulses through your veins. So, which of the two versions is best? Here are my pros and cons:

Wrist based (optical) monitors

In my experience watches using the wrist based optical sensor give less accurate readings than chest straps. However this doesn’t mean that everyone will experience the same issues; skin tone, visceral fat, body hair, and skin temperature can all affect the optical reading although advances in technology may iron out some initial problems with early model optical sensors. This photo shows me wearing two wrist based HRM watches, one showing a heart rate of 118 beats per minute, the other 147, a big discrepancy! Which, if any, should I believe? Note I also wore one watch on each wrist and tested them several times, seldom getting the same reading.

photo of wrist based heart rate monitors

big discrepancy between watches!

On the plus side, wrist based monitors dispense with the need for the chest strap that some people find irritating and uncomfortable.

Chest strap monitors

As mentioned above, both from personal experience and other anecdotal evidence, if you want accurate readings you’re better opting for a watch that uses a chest strap. However these are not without their shortcomings: my old chest strap would only work if it was moistened before wearing – licking it seemed to work (my current strap which came with the Garmin Fenix 3 is much more reliable); they can be uncomfortable and can slide down whilst running if they aren’t tight enough and they get sweaty and start to smell if not washed regularly. Also the battery needs changing occasionally although this is a fairly straightforward procedure.

photo of HRM chest strap with transmitter

HRM chest strap with transmitter

One bonus of the chest strap version is that some of the more sophisticated watches use the transmitter to measure “running dynamics” such as ground contact time, vertical oscillation and left / right ground contact balance. Whilst this might be more information than many runners might need I find it really interesting from a coaching point of view and also to analyse my own training, for example comparing ground contact time at different stages of a run or race.

picture of running statistics graph

geeky stats comparing ground contact time etc.

I also find it interesting to compare ground contact balance (the percentage of time each foot is in contact with the ground during a run). I’ve noticed that injuries or niggles lead to changes in the balance, a sore left hamstring for example will mean more time in contact with the ground on the left foot.

ground contact time comparison

more geeky starts – injury on right leg?

Another major reason that I prefer the chest strap over wrist based monitors is to do with how easy it is to see my watch during a run. I often glance at my watch whilst training, for example to check my heart rate so that I’m not running too fast on what is supposed to be an easy paced run, or if I’m doing intervals to know when to stop (e.g. 4 minutes fast, 2 minutes jog). Or it might simply be that I want to know how far I’ve gone or how long I’ve been running for. I prefer to wear my watch over my jacket or long sleeved top meaning that I can simply glance at it whilst running. It also means that the buttons are easily accessible to switch screens or record a lap.  If I was wearing a watch with optical HRM then the heart rate recording wouldn’t work if it was worn over layers of clothing. I’d need to pull back layers of clothing to see it and access the buttons or wear my sleeves pulled up slightly which would mean getting cold or wet wrists and arms in bad weather. In summer when wearing short sleeves this wouldn’t be an issue – but for most of the year it is!

photo comparison of heart rate watches

under or over? optical sensors need to touch the skin to work

Verdict

So for me the accuracy, the additional running dynamics offered from the transmitter and the fact that I can wear the watch over layers of clothing whilst the HRM is recording mean that I would choose a chest strap device over a wrist monitor.

fell running guide logo