Scosche Rhythm+2.0 armband is as accurate as a chest heart monitor

Announced at the 2021 CES, the Scosche Rhythm+2.0 armband is a waterproof Apple Watch heart rate monitor alternative that the company claims is as accurate as a chest monitor.

Scosche has announced an update to its wearable heart rate monitor that makes it more accurate and last longer per charge. Athletes and those who want the most precise heart rate data often purchase dedicated monitors that want more accuracy than Apple Watch.

These dedicated monitors usually have to be strapped to your chest for the most accurate results, but Scosche claims their armband will provide similar results despite being placed on the arm. The armband is built with patented Valencell PerformTek biometrics, which has been lab-tested as highly accurate when performing virtually any exercise.

The Rhythm+2.0 uses green and yellow LEDs to measure blood flow for high accuracy with any skin tones. It has a built-in accelerometer for even more accurate measurements. The battery lasts through 24 hours of workouts between charges, up from 8 hours in the previous model.

The armband is rated IP68, making it dust and water-resistant under any condition and waterproof up to three meters. This means you can do standard swimming workouts without worry while getting accurate heart rate measurements.

You can wear the monitor on your forearm, bicep, or tricep and still get accurate results. This differs significantly from having to have a chest strap tightly fitted to your chest.

It is unknown how accurate the readings are compared to the Apple Watch. Apple uses red and green LEDs to measure heart rate and blood oxygen levels in the Apple Watch Series 6. Dedicated monitors often prove to be as accurate, if not more accurate than the Apple Watch, despite the price difference.

The Scosche Rhythm+2.0 armband will be available for purchase in Spring 2021 for $79.99.

7 Comments

loopless 343 comments · 16 Years

About 3 years ago

Why would anyone buy this over an AW? My AW has shown itself to be always accurate compared to the dedicated equipment at my health care clinic. And ones heart rate varies anyway unless you sit very still..so “more accurate” is hard to see value in. I swim and surf with the AW for years now, with no issues. So waterproof is not a winning feature over an AW.And my AW5 will last a whole day easily with battery life.

stubb 16 comments · 11 Years

loopless said:

Why would anyone buy this over an AW?

Issue with an AW is exporting HR data to something like a bicycle head unit for display and consolidation with other workout info. Some riders want to see and record HR data, Watts from a power meter, etc. both while they're riding and for later review.

Kuyangkoh 838 comments · 7 Years

stubb said:

loopless said:

Why would anyone buy this over an AW?

Issue with an AW is exporting HR data to something like a bicycle head unit for display and consolidation with other workout info. Some riders want to see and record HR data, Watts from a power meter, etc. both while they're riding and for later review.

AW have lots of apps that continues monitoring and recordings....you can also set your slow and higher hr...

GeorgeBMac 11421 comments · 8 Years

stubb said:

loopless said:

Why would anyone buy this over an AW?

Issue with an AW is exporting HR data to something like a bicycle head unit for display and consolidation with other workout info. Some riders want to see and record HR data, Watts from a power meter, etc. both while they're riding and for later review.

My grandson already does that: He simply mounts his iPhone onto his handle bars. Admittedly he does it mostly to manage his music, but his speed, time distance and heart rate is also right there as well.

loopless said:

Why would anyone buy this over an AW? My AW has shown itself to be always accurate compared to the dedicated equipment at my health care clinic. And ones heart rate varies anyway unless you sit very still..so “more accurate” is hard to see value in. I swim and surf with the AW for years now, with no issues. So waterproof is not a winning feature over an AW.And my AW5 will last a whole day easily with battery life.

It's not instead of an Apple Watch but in addition to....

A few years back when Cleveland Clinic (America's #1 heart hospital) was getting overwhelmed with questions from patients worried what their Apple Watches were telling them they did a study and found that "single lead EKG" chest straps were as accurate as hospital based equipment.   But optical wrist monitors such as the Apple Watch were about 10% less accurate in absolute terms.

But, there is an additional benefit to using a separate monitor:   the optical scanner on the Apple Watch is its largest drain on battery power when used to monitor exercise (rather than simply periodically through the day). And originally that was one of the marathoner's biggest complaints: the battery died before they completed their race. With a separate monitor you can link that monitor to the Apple Watch and turn off the watch's heart rate monitor. That gives the best of both worlds:   more accurate heart rate monitoring with much improved battery life.

I am not advocating that:   I only work out about 90 minutes a day and the Apple Watch heart monitor is accurate enough for my purposes.   But, there are others with other needs that this could help (although I don't understand why they don't just wear a chest strap -- it's pretty much the gold standard).