Hmm, no comments yet? I was hoping someone would chime in with personal experience with these.

For comparison, here they are on Amazon:

• Breeze ($20) - 3.5 stars on Amazon at $70
  
• Venture ($35) - 2 stars on Amazon at $58
  
• Movita ($35) - 3.5 stars on Amazon at $42
  

I was hoping for some kind of data upload feature

Great in 4 3. I always wanted to know my top heart rate during sex. Now its all possible

Why you need three? ..... oh, man, you are lucky

newjerseymax wrote:Great in 4 3. I always wanted to know my top heart rate during sex. Now its all possible

I dunno about anyone else here, but I would find it rather difficult to run, bike, or lift with two fingers on my wrist the whole time.

With this needlessly silly "finger touch" ECG system, you could realistically only take heart rate measurements every few minutes, as opposed to continuously. I wouldn't trust the information on calories burned, or cardiovascular benefits reaped, when your instrument is working with many fewer data points...

general review:
http://walking.about.com/od/prhrm/gr/mio.htm

Motiva page
http://www.mioglobal.com/collections/watch/products/motiva
motiva guide:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0099/2862/files/English_Motiva_User_Guide.pdf?5280
video:

guide
http://mymio.mioglobal.com/files/file/Breeze-user-guide(1).pdf

from guide page:
http://mymio.mioglobal.com/guides

Venture:




mio video page:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Miowatch

sorry, that's all I can do on this one tonight

I got one of these a while back and rarely ever use it, it is fairly temperamental as to how long it takes to get a reading and running with two fingers perfectly placed on the buttons is very difficult. It has small benefits but generally is very annoying to use.

It does not actively monitor your heartrate. I managed to buy this without realising that and was disappointed when I first used it.

leptogenesis wrote:I dunno about anyone else here, but I would find it rather difficult to run, bike, or lift with two fingers on my wrist the whole time.

With this needlessly silly "finger touch" ECG system, you could realistically only take heart rate measurements every few minutes, as opposed to continuously. I wouldn't trust the information on calories burned, or cardiovascular benefits reaped, when your instrument is working with many fewer data points...

The whole point is that these are not meant for continuous heart rate measurements. The way these work is that you measure your heart rate every so often and at points where your heart rate changes. When I use mine, I measure it at the beginning of my workout, as I'm warming up as my heart rate works up to its target zone, periodically while I'm in my target heart rate zone, and then as I cool down. If I'm doing interval training, I measure it when my interval switches (from moderate to high and back to moderate). I might take 20-30 heart rate measurements during a 40 minute workout. It sounds like a lot, but it's really just putting your fingers on the watch and pushing down a few seconds on the sensors till they record your heart rate.

What you're trading for less accurate heart rate measurements is the convenience and comfort of not having to wear a chest strap. You can just put the watch on and go. You don't even have to wear the watch as long as one hand is touching the back and the other hand touches the sensors.

In addition, you're fooling yourself if you really think the continuous heart rate monitors are "accurate" in providing you with calories burned. Look up the difference between accuracy and precision. Yes, they may provide more data points for your heart rate during a workout, but in the end the estimate of calories burned from heart rates is just that -- an estimate. So depending on the formula the heart rate monitor is using, you could just be giving it more data points for what ultimately is a garbage calorie count.

Once I reach my target heart rate, it tends to stay pretty consistent, maybe varying 10-15 beats per minute, or 6-10%. So yes, a continuous heart rate monitor will tell you what your heart rate was every second of your workout, whereas an on-demand heart rate monitor may be 10% off if I don't take enough readings, but do you really know for sure that your calorie estimation is any closer than 10% accurate with a continuous heart rate monitor? There's no way to know for sure. The calorie count it gives you could be 50% more than what you actually burn, making the difference in counts between a continuous and on-demand heart rate monitor negligible.

I do know is that for an instant in time, the on-demand measurement the Mio gives is just as accurate as the continuous monitor that uses a chest trap. I have both and have worn both at the same time and they're always withing a couple beats of each other and I've also compared them with my pulse.

Anyway, it just depends on how anal you are about having precise data on calories burned which is inaccurate to begin with. I choose the convenience of the on-demand monitor most of the time. As long as I'm consistent by comparing workouts with each other, it's more than good enough.

I will agree that these probably are not good for bike riders. They work fine for runners and are great for people lifting weights. I like not having to wear a chest strap while laying down on benches and taking deep breaths. Again, you'd take measurements during rest periods and just after lifts. I don't measure heart rate or track calorie burn while lifting weights anyway because I don't think calorie burn based on heart rate measurements during weightlifting is very accurate.

@Thunderthighs... @rkstevens Definitely needs a Quality post for his write-up!

I do agree with his comments. I have a strapless heart rate monitor (different brand). And I feel that the convenience outweighs the need for continuous monitoring in my case.

I have 2 different models like this. Cool idea but it is so frustrating when you get your heart rate up and your curious so you put your fingers on the stupid little thing and it doesn't read! It flashes, and flashes, and tells you to keep your fingers on, then it displays a rate (that is clearly wrong), it changes (to another clearly wrong number), starts flashing again, and by the time you actually have the right number your heart rate is back down again! And I think its even worse when you sweat (who does that when they work out?).

newjerseymax wrote:Great in 4 3. I always wanted to know my top heart rate during sex. Now its all possible

Better than determining your heart rate durin sex is knowing your 'hard rate' during sex. But that uses a different appendage than your arm.

I purchased a similar model of Mio heart monitor watch about three months ago and have used it almost daily for measuring my heart rate during exercise with very satisfactory results. Every time I have double-checked it against a counted pulse rate it has be within 3-4 beats and often exactly the same. After the first couple of days I realized I could rely on the numbers the watch displayed. But like any electrode contacting skin it can be defeated by perspiration. It works well if my skin is just moist, but even small droplets of sweat collecting on the back of the watch will work mischief.

I've adjusted to the sweat related errors by taking various measures to keep the rear of the watch dry during my more intense activites. All of these have worked well:

_ Loosen the watch band by a few notches and then hold the watch to my arm only when I am taking my heart rate
_ Loop the watch band through my belt and place a finger or two of one hand at the back and fingers of the opposite hand at the front when I check my heartrate.
_ Carry the watch in my hand or pocket and use the same technique of fingers of opposite hands at front and back

Also be aware that placing fingers of the same hand at both front and back will not get a result. That's not a design flaw of the watch, it's due to basic principles of electrocardiography. I'll spare you the detailed explanation.

I opted for this type of heart monitoring watch over the chest band variety for two reasons. First, I already sweat plenty in loose fitting shirts, so a close fitting strap just sounds too uncomfortable and restricting. But more importantly, I have little confidence in the accuracy of strap-on electrodes. As a healthcare professional I have done thousands of resting EKGs and set up hundreds of exercise stress tests and holter monitors. For those last two tests where the user is active, careful setup is crucial to getting reliable results. Poor contact with the skin or significant perspiration will easily introduce artefactual signals that obscure or skew the results, even after careful cleaning and abrasion of the skin. I don't have experience with any strap on electrodes in an exercise setting, but I find it unlikely that I could count on reliable results from such a system after 40-90 minutes of moderate sweat-inducing exercise.

All of rkstevens comments above regarding the presumed accuracy and the value of continuous monitoring match my own experience. I now only check my heart rate between intervals in a manner similar to rk's. Over time I have found I'm able to estimate my heart rate just by awareness of the depth and frequency of my breathing and a subjective assessment of exertion. For a test and a bit of entertainment today, I estimated my heart rate by these indices and then checked my estimate against the reading on the Mio, and at rates ranging from 110 to the 150's my perceived rate was within 4-6 bpm at most of the measured vaule.

So the take-home message of this long winded post is that I believe my Mio watch is a reliable and valuable part of my daily exercise regimen. So much so that I bought the Venture model here today. My current watch has many of the same features plus a pedometer (also very reliable), but it doesn't have the interval timer or user accessible battery of the Venture. Both very desirable assets to me.

So mine has not been shipped yet? Anyone else with this problem