anyone planning on getting the fitbit surge HR?

a fitbit with a continuous heart rate monitor - now, that sounds like exactly what i'd like. tracks resting as well as working out heart rate, wrist worn. anyone else considering one of these beasts?

Replies

Wilmingtonbelle

I have a flex, bought a force last year and then it was recalled

I'm holding out for the Surge. It's spendy but my Flex is 3 years old so I'm giving myself a prezzie as a reward for progress (*)

PwrLftr82

I want one really badly, but the hubs will probably not let me get one...I just got my Flex last Christmas (got a One the Christmas before that) so I think I have to wait for a bit. I can't justify spending money on another one while this one still works perfectly :'(

ChristinaLConway

Im planning on getting one

I cant wait to see how much progress I make between now and the undetermined release date. Ive only had my fitbit a few weeks and its my obsession.

glenbea

I want to get the Charge HR when it comes out early next year. The Surge is larger and looks more like a watch. It's a $100 more than the Charge HR which also has a watch, caller ID and does the same things. I have the Force now and love it. I've had no problems with it. A few people had skin irritations with it, but I haven't and I've had it since the Force first came out almost 2 years ago. The Charge HR would add the Heart Rate Monitor.

momwow17

I've had the Force for a year now and I've lost 50 lbs. I'm definitely buying the next generation Fitbit but I'm not sure which one. I think the GPS would be cool , but not sure it's worth an extra $100. Plus it doesn't look very feminine to me. Either way I wish it was coming out before Christmas! I can't wait!

Pandathon

I was on the market for a running watch and ended up buying a polar M400 a few days ago, so when Fitbit finally announced the Surge this week, at first I was full of doubt and regret...

But on second thought: what i love about my Fitbit One is it's tiny size and stealth, I don't want to wear a huge watch for daily activity tracking or sleeping and don't see the Surge as an alternative to the One. As a side note, it looks like all the new devices are wrist-bands, hope the smaller sized trackers won't be discontinued at some point...

So then there's the gps and heart rate monitor, which sound great. But are they any better than a dedicated entry-level running watch like the M400 or the Forerunner 220?
GPS will probably be the same precision but not so sure about the optical HRM compared to a good chest strap (which i can deal with for an hour every few days, i actually forget i'm wearing it until i hit the shower)...

That said, can't wait for the reviews, and also see how it compares to the microsoft band which also looks like a really cool device.

cindytw

I am intrigued as well. I would like a HR monitor, and I really like the Fitbit interface. I love my One, but I am on my 3rd one now as I keep losing the little devils! Luckily I have been able to find deals on them. I might be better with a band, BUT, I do have really sensitive skin so I am hoping I am not allergic to any of it. Wearing something on my wrist again would take some getting used to, I haven't worn a watch in about 5 years or more, since I had a putty knife accident and had scar tissue there. It has since subsided, so I hope it would be OK. I would more likely get the smaller one as something big will not work for me everyday.

heybales

I have NOT seen any of the normal HRM comments of EKG accurate - and other wrist models like this are NOT. They are for getting an idea of what your HR does through the day, sort of getting your circadian rhythm down type usefulness - but it's NOT useful for getting better calorie count because it's not accurate enough.

Besides - the formula for calories based on HR is not more accurate than the formula's Fitbit uses for walking and running calories already.
If you have your stride length correct anyway.

There are only a couple models of HRM that are wrist only classified as EKG - and you should see the imprint on the skin from the required tightness to obtain that.

heybales

Knew I'd seen it in other places. Read how it's getting the HR. Tell me that isn't going to automatically work well across many people. What if you like need to lose weight and have extra fat on your wrist?

http://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/Heart-rate-FAQs?c=Topics:Accuracy&p=charge_hr&fs=Search&l=en_US&pn=1

No studies yet on the accuracy across a range of people that I could find.

cindytw

heybales wrote: »

Knew I'd seen it in other places. Read how it's getting the HR. Tell me that isn't going to automatically work well across many people. What if you like need to lose weight and have extra fat on your wrist?

http://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/Heart-rate-FAQs?c=Topics:Accuracy&p=charge_hr&fs=Search&l=en_US&pn=1

No studies yet on the accuracy across a range of people that I could find.

It seems to say it is close to as accurate as a chest strap. That's fine for me because I haven't used either of my Polar chest straps (bluetooth or fitness watch) in quite some time because they seem to have "died". I have not felt it important enough to read on troubleshooting online. So, if my Fitbit tracked HR, I would be very happy. I want the smaller one and GPS is irrelevant with Runkeeper and similar programs out there. I always carry my phone anyway.

NancyN795

I want to get the Charge HR. I've had my One for just under a year and really depend on it. I was really surprised at how much I get out of it. I was lost when the battery went bad in my first one and I had a couple of days without a FitBit.

My biggest hesitation is having to wear something on my wrist. I'm very easily bothered by minor clothing issues and such (my husband frequently mentions The Princess and the Pea - and he's right), but I really like the idea of a HRM integrated with my indispensable FitBit. So, I guess I'll see if I can get used to a wristwatch again (I did wear one, many years ago, back in the dark ages).

I don't see getting the Surge because it is much more expensive, much bigger and I don't particularly need the GPS. Most of my cardio exercise is Zumba, although the new features that FitBit has added in their "Track your exercise" feature is going to end up encouraging me to walk more, at least for a while, just to try it out. The problem is, walking seems to aggravate my plantar fasciitis more than Zumba does. Plus, winter is coming. (Insert Game of Thrones theme.)

Kimsied

I haven't been on MFP for a month or so--wow things have changed! I am curious about the Charge HR. Fitbit actually sent me a Charge and I am wearing both my Charge and One right now to compare and write a review. This is my first time wearing a wrist worn fitbit, I've always been skeptical. I do prefer my One still, but I heard they are working on a way for people to associate two devices to a single account. If that happens I may be tempted to get a Charge HR, but I think I prefer my Bluetooth chest strap. I am pleasantly surprised that my One and Charge are giving similar calorie burn estimates so far. My One has more steps and the charge 40 more calories for the entire day so far (12am - 4 pm).

mamaboys3

I am also considering getting the Charge HR but will wait to see reviews on the accuracy of the HR monitor as I'm skeptical about a wrist-based monitor vice a chest strap. I've always been a Polar fan for exercise but really like the idea of all day continuous monitoring to get a more accurate idea of calorie burn (in theory anyway). I am also hesitant about wearing a monitor on my wrist so if FitBit does actually allow us to link two devices to one account, that would be awesome. I can then use my One on days when I can't wear a wrist device!

twentiesbrunette

My friend has the Polar Heart Rate Monitor & I was really impressed with it.. I like that it has the chest strap. I am not sure about the Charge HR regarding it being on the wrist & accuracy. I do plan on getting a Polar for Christmas since it syncs up with the new treadmills/ellipticals, etc at the gym. I think I will wait to hear what people say in 2015 after using the Charge HR.

heybales

mamaboys3 wrote: »

I've always been a Polar fan for exercise but really like the idea of all day continuous monitoring to get a more accurate idea of calorie burn (in theory anyway).

Actually, in theory you can NOT use HR for all day calorie estimation.

The ONLY relationship between HR and calorie burn is during aerobic exercise, steady-state same HR for 2-4 min. That is the only time the heart must beat faster to provide enough oxygen needed to burn the fuel being used for the exercise.

Below that aerobic exercise range, and above it anaerobic, there is no such relationship between what the HR is doing and the calorie burn.

Even been sitting there during a scary movie and HR jumps up. Or stressed at work same effect. Or finished 3 coffees. Your calorie burn didn't just go up some big amount, but if trying to base it on an increase of 20-30 bpm increase in HR, you'll get an inflated calorie burn.

mamaboys3

heybales wrote: »

mamaboys3 wrote: »

I've always been a Polar fan for exercise but really like the idea of all day continuous monitoring to get a more accurate idea of calorie burn (in theory anyway).

Actually, in theory you can NOT use HR for all day calorie estimation.

The ONLY relationship between HR and calorie burn is during aerobic exercise, steady-state same HR for 2-4 min. That is the only time the heart must beat faster to provide enough oxygen needed to burn the fuel being used for the exercise.

Below that aerobic exercise range, and above it anaerobic, there is no such relationship between what the HR is doing and the calorie burn.

Even been sitting there during a scary movie and HR jumps up. Or stressed at work same effect. Or finished 3 coffees. Your calorie burn didn't just go up some big amount, but if trying to base it on an increase of 20-30 bpm increase in HR, you'll get an inflated calorie burn.

I was just wondering about that -- thanks for the info. For example, I have mild asthma and every now and then take some albuterol prior to exercising. My HR increases from the medication, but I never really understood if the calorie burn increases as well. My Polar HR monitor says it does because it thinks I'm working harder when I know I'm not. I appreciate the info -- and one more reason to consider NOT buying the Charge HR!

heybales

So true for meds, and there are plenty of folks with conditions that cause constantly elevated HR, and in fact with meds it only lowers a little bit.

Totally wasted money in that case too.

Though, Fitbit knows this, or should, and will likely do what the other activity trackers do that have HR, it's merely a glimpse in to what it does all day - no calorie burn is actually based on it.

In fact if stride length is correct, and therefore pace is right, calculations for pace and mass are more accurate that HRM anyway.

Kimsied

I agree it is unlikely the surge calorie burn would be correct (if heart rate based) for non aerobic activity. Maybe if they are also using movement, I don't know enough about the surge or charge HR to guess. I have fitbit friends who also use a wrist hrm (I think Mio and some use Basis), they like it for walking when they don't feel like wearing their chest strap and claim the heart rate readings are pretty similar to the chest strap. I have a Schoshe armband monitor strap that uses the same technology and it usually gives similar or matching readings to my Polar chest strap. So I don't see any reason to second guess the device based on it being worn on the wrist (though I haven't tried it). I think it could be a good alternative for people who find chest straps uncomfortable or impractical.

But I wouldn't trust a heart rate based calorie burn for non-exercise. It is possible you might burn a little more at rest from your meds. But a fitness heart rate monitor won't be programmed to accommodate this--they work on the assumption you are exercising.

Of course, I am not privy to the details of the Charge HR, I just cannot see how they could use heart rate to estimate non exercise calorie burn (and from their description it sounds like they intend the HR data to be applied during exercise). I could be handy for people who need to monitor their heart rate for other reasons--though I doubt I would trust it as a medical device. But maybe for people who use biofeedback for stress management (I know people sometimes take their pulse for this purpose). I do think it is better thought out than the withings pulse as the pulse only does a spot check of heart rate.

Cre27

My concern is the accuracy, people I know who has the Flex steps are not really accurate.The movement of the arm should not count as steps, and the Flex does count any arm movement. I decided to get the Force for this reason. I would love to try the Surge/Charger, but I am concerned about the accuracy.

ilovemaisy

The flex doesn't count any arm movement?

heybales

ilovemaisy wrote: »

The flex doesn't count any arm movement?

It should not, it's trying to take that out of the sensor movement to detect impact of steps.

In real life though, it can depending on the arm movement, looking like arm movement with steps involved.

Same way it can be on wrist on shopping cart not moving, and if a smooth walker it may not see steps taken either.

Kimsied

ilovemaisy wrote: »

The flex doesn't count any arm movement?

I don't have the Flex, but I do have the new Charge. It really doesn't count arm movements as much as I expected it would. It will count some larger arm movements but I don't get "steps" with smaller movements like typing, etc. I did find it doesn't credit me with any steps for pushing a shopping cart, some people have that issue and some don't. I have mine set to "non-dominant" hand and I wear it on that wrist. I think the settings can make a difference. My Charge actually (usually) counts fewer steps than my One but it estimates slightly higher calories burned than the One (the difference is small for me though). I was worried that a wrist worn device would overcount. I actually haven't had that issue so my old position that the wrist worn are less accurate has softened. I still prefer my One though mainly because I don't always want my device to be visable.

luckydays27

I'll be getting one of the HR versions of FB once they come out and doing a side by side comparison just like I did with the FB One/Flex. My One has helped me lose 50+ lbs but I know that its not exactly right as I am eating a tad more than what MFP/FB says I should eat and I am still (very slowly) losing weight.

I want to try the new versions to see what TDEE number I get based on the "all day" HR input. If its no difference than my One, I will return it and keep eating a bit more than suggested.

heybales

luckydays27 wrote: »

I'll be getting one of the HR versions of FB once they come out and doing a side by side comparison just like I did with the FB One/Flex. My One has helped me lose 50+ lbs but I know that its not exactly right as I am eating a tad more than what MFP/FB says I should eat and I am still (very slowly) losing weight.

I want to try the new versions to see what TDEE number I get based on the "all day" HR input. If its no difference than my One, I will return it and keep eating a bit more than suggested.

Sadly, there is no correlation between HR and calorie burn outside of aerobic exercise.

They won't use HR for that purpose during the day, merely to provide some more daily info to perhaps find meaningful, or at least they'll try to convince you it is.

luckydays27

heybales wrote: »

luckydays27 wrote: »

I'll be getting one of the HR versions of FB once they come out and doing a side by side comparison just like I did with the FB One/Flex. My One has helped me lose 50+ lbs but I know that its not exactly right as I am eating a tad more than what MFP/FB says I should eat and I am still (very slowly) losing weight.

I want to try the new versions to see what TDEE number I get based on the "all day" HR input. If its no difference than my One, I will return it and keep eating a bit more than suggested.

Sadly, there is no correlation between HR and calorie burn outside of aerobic exercise.

They won't use HR for that purpose during the day, merely to provide some more daily info to perhaps find meaningful, or at least they'll try to convince you it is.

I read so many times that HRM are not good for giving calorie burns except for steady paced cardio exercises but since I have no other tool to use to figure out my calorie burn during exercise, I used my HRM during weight lifting (I rarely do cardio, nor do I want to). And I was able to consistently lose weight when that was my goal. Between the FB One and my Polar HRM, I was able to lose a total of 78 lbs and it was not hard doing it either. Because the "estimates" were close enough.

The newest FB with HR numbers are better than nothing at all and I am more than willing (and financially able) to give it a try come spring time. And if the estimates are still close enough, I will be happy. If not, it will go back to the store.

natacos

heybales wrote: »

luckydays27 wrote: »

I'll be getting one of the HR versions of FB once they come out and doing a side by side comparison just like I did with the FB One/Flex. My One has helped me lose 50+ lbs but I know that its not exactly right as I am eating a tad more than what MFP/FB says I should eat and I am still (very slowly) losing weight.

I want to try the new versions to see what TDEE number I get based on the "all day" HR input. If its no difference than my One, I will return it and keep eating a bit more than suggested.

Sadly, there is no correlation between HR and calorie burn outside of aerobic exercise.

They won't use HR for that purpose during the day, merely to provide some more daily info to perhaps find meaningful, or at least they'll try to convince you it is.

I was just wondering about this. Has FB communicated how the HR data will be used? Is it just a separate data point with its own charts? Does it kick in if you set it to activity tracking mode to help calculate calorie burn? Can it be used to better track sleep (assume your heartrate gets lower as you're in a deeper sleep? I think sometimes my current fitbit assumes I'm asleep when I'm not moving even if I'm wide awake and trying to fall asleep)

heybales

Actually, if you've had a good workout, the repair during the night can cause HR to be higher most of the night than normal, finally reach a low before waking up.
Also, during dreaming it will go up.
So HR as sleep verify won't work either. At least I hope they don't attempt to, this research has been around awhile.

There are several other activity trackers that use constant HR monitoring, with same level of accuracy (not great), to give general indications of health, stress, ect.

The idea of trying to sense HR through the skin has been around awhile. Should be interesting how well it works on chubby wrists, or people that don't like it that tight.

shadow2soul

I'm interested in it. I think I'll buy it directly from them, so if I don't like it or find it's accuracy is really bad, I can return it without too much hassle.

NotJustADieter

I'm considering it myself as well! Saving up for it is a bit of a hassle, but I am a big one for accuracy and my flex doesn't count stairs or HR....

missyjane824

I'm conflicted. I've had a One for over 2 years now and I really don't want to replace it when it's still working. It's paid for itself so many times over but still don't want to part with it. I love that it is so small and when I first got it didn't want the world to see it had something fitness related. The more time passes I'm warming up to either the Surge or Charge. I've done a bit of reading on them but will probably wait until both are available to make my final decision and by that time maybe my One will be on its last leg and need to be replaced.