Under Armour Sport Wireless Heart Rate review: A different kind of fitness wearable

Most fitness trackers want to keep one eye on your heart rate – and why not? It’s the body’s very own giveaway as to whether you’re literally going that extra mile. In the past, the fitness wearable industry has measured this in one of two ways: an invasive but accurate chest strap, or a non-invasive but questionably accurate wrist sensor.

Perhaps aware of the deficiencies of measuring via the wrist, a couple of companies are thinking outside of the box. A few weeks ago, I reviewed the Moov HR Sweat, which measures heart rate through the head; now, Under Armour and JBL have teamed up to produce a pair of sport wireless earphones that monitor your pulse through the ear.

On the surface, this sounds a little bizarre; but the more you consider it, the more it begins to make sense. Not only do the majority of runners like a bit of music to keep them motivated, but if you’re measuring through the ear then those very same earphones can offer up audio feedback as to how close to cardiac arrest you are, too.[gallery:1]

But if this is as sensible as it sounds then why is it that Under Armour and JBL are only one of a few companies to launch devices with such capability, and is it worth the price of entry? Let’s find out.

Under Armour Sport Wireless Heart Rate review: Design

There isn’t a great deal to say about wireless earphones. First, these are sports earphones and as such are designed to stay in place via a small frame that tucks over the top of the ears. This makes them a little fiddly to get in place to achieve a snug fit, but once the earphones are engaged, they’ll remain securely in place. Unlike Apple’s AirPods, these aren’t individual ear buds that can be separated; they’re held together with cabling that also hosts the headphones’ rudimentary volume controls.

The most important thing about the design is that while the app will give you periodic updates to the schedule you pick, you can also get a heart-rate readout at any time, simply by tapping the right earbud. Whether you think that’s more convenient than glancing at your wrist will vary from person to person, but I like it. It feels more natural and it’s less distracting than switching screens on a smartwatch.[gallery:3]

Under Armour Sport Wireless Heart Rate review: Performance

We’ll first tackle an important issue for wireless earphones: battery life. Under Armour claims you’re looking at five hours continuous audio playback with the heart-rate functionality enabled – and that seems fair. There isn’t much to worry about if they don’t make it that far, however: the earphones charge in two hours via micro-USB, so you should rarely be caught out. On the one occasion I forgot to charge them, I was still able to eke out enough power to see me through a 20-minute run (without heart-rate tracking) following the first dreaded “battery low” notification popped up on my walk to the start line.

The audio is supplied by JBL, and once firmly secured, the sound quality is decent – certainly good enough for a run around a park, or a session at the gym – although these earphones don’t offer active noise-cancelling. For me, that’s absolutely fine; running in London with noise-cancelling headphones is a recipe for a visit to one of the city’s many fine medical establishments.

What do I mean by “decent?” I mean significantly better than the bundled headphones you get with smartphones – but not the best I’ve heard. While the sound quality is good, there’s a tendency for heavy basslines to dominate, overpowering more subtle sounds. The mid to high tones are similarly affected, with harsh, aggressive notes across the board. There’s little room for subtlety, in other words, which isn’t the worst thing in the world if you’re in a noisy gym, but may be a bit off-putting on a serene trail run.[gallery:6]

Like I said, decent. The trouble is that “decent” is fantastic for a pair of £15 earphones. It’s good for a pair of £50 earphones. For earphones that cost £1670, and that are specifically designed for exercise only, it’s a tough sell. I love them and would be unlikely to use anything else for running, given that they’re wireless, stay in place and offer decent sound quality – but would I pay £170 for them? I can’t see it.

But let’s get on to the other side of performance: the heart-rate sensor. The numbers appear accurate. While running multiple 5km runs, the earphones would give me readouts of between 155 and 180bpm (beats per minutes). That seems close to what other devices I’ve tested have offered and is far more accurate than the Fitbit Blaze on my wrist, which claims I never break 145bps. Given that on one of these occasions I did my second-best ever 5km time (25:04, since you ask), I’m going to take Under Armour’s word on this one.

Continues on page 2

Under Armour Sport Wireless Heart Rate review: App

Having your heart rate read out at intervals is good, too, although it’s debatable how much you can do with that information in isolation. Since the earphones piggyback on your phone’s other data sensors, you can get regular updates on other metrics, too. By default, the app will tell you the time elapsed, distance travelled and your heart rate every kilometre; you can make this as frequent or infrequent as you choose. You can also set a time for your workout, or a distance to cover, making it pretty flexible.

The Under Armour Record app doesn’t require the Under Armour earphones to work and is actually a free download for iOS and Android. It’s a very good one, too. Essentially, it acts as a fitness hub: you can link it to existing apps, including MyFitnessPal and Withings, alongside software from rival wearable manufacturers Garmin, Jawbone, MisFit, Moov and Fitbit, and it condenses all that data into a neat overall fitness profile.

Given there’s a number of features that overlap between all these platforms, you may find this a little puzzling, but with Under Armour competing with some big established names, it’s perhaps no wonder it provides as many opportunities as possible to share data – even if it does mean namechecking more established opponents.

Whenever you load the app, you’re greeted with a hub showing you your targets for activity, nutrition, fitness and sleep. Tapping any one of these provides deeper insights, drawn from whatever app you’ve connected to. In my case, this meant that the food I was entering in MyFitnessPal was taken into account in the nutrition part of the app, while sleep and activity were taken from Fitbit.

When it comes to activity tracking proper, the app works similarly to Runkeeper and Endomondo. You have to manually activate exercise sessions in the app (a clear disadvantage over smartwatches) and, as long as you keep your phone on you, you’ll receive regular updates on your pace and how far you’ve travelled – with a colourful map delivered at the end of your journey. Rather neatly, the app not only lets you assign workouts to different exercises (gym, treadmill, walking and so on), it also allows sub-categorisation, so you can mark a run as a race or a quick jog.

The app also lets you create challenges to take on the community of wannabe athletes that populate the service, and it’s possible to compete on every metric from steps taken to weight shed. It’s an excellent app, and it integrates well with the earphones. But since it’s available free for anyone, it isn’t a clear selling point for the Under Armour earbuds themselves.

Under Armour Sport Wireless Heart Rate review: Verdict

I really like Under Armour’s wireless heart-rate headphones, but I have a hard time recommending them to people unless they really, really like running. The issue is the price, and there are two problems with it. First, if you’re paying £170 for earbuds then you want great sound quality, and these earphones provide something that’s good, but not good enough to justify the outlay. And second, these are sports earphones and as such it’s unlikely that they’ll replace your usual buds – unless you’re happy to wear sporting earphones wherever you go.

The raw functionality of the Under Armour earphones is good – great even. I far prefer having my progress reported back to me via audio than having to cycle through a bunch of screens, mid-stride, and take my eye off the road.[gallery:7]

But, like the Moov HR Sweat (offers limited exercises), and the Oakley Radar Pace glasses (cost over £450 and make you look a total pillock), the Under Armour Sport Wireless Heart Rate headphones fall just shy of greatness. To me, audio exercise feedback feels like the future, but no manufacturer yet has made the product to convince the public at large. When one does, I’ll be first in line.