FitBit or HRM?
AmberLeeMichigan
Posts: 38 Member
I'm just getting started and I've been eyeing up the PolarFT7. I'd like to get an accurate calorie burn, so I'm thinking that is the way to go. I have one friend that has the 7 and she really likes it. She just got it for Christmas. I have about 5 friends that are telling me to get a Fitbit. What do you use? Are you happy with it? I can only afford to get one right now so I've been mulling it over.
0
Replies
-
I've had a Fitbit Zip. Loved it. I got it in April of 2013 and it still works even though it's been through the wash once. I gave it to my mom last year when I bought the Fitbit Flex. I had bad luck with the Flex and in December ended up getting a Garmin VivoFit. Along with Fitbit, I had also been using a Pyle Sports HRM ($30 HRM with chest strap) to help with calorie burns for activities that I needed to manually log.
I love the VivoFit band. It's an awesome tracker. However, I'm not sure how I feel about the software that goes with it. Garmin Connect (software that goes to VivoFit and other Garmin devices) has been having issues since Jan 1st. I'm waiting to see if it's from the overload of traffic this month or if it's a regular problem. If it's a regular problem I will go back to Fitbit and probably get the ChargeHR or Surge (models with built in HRM).
One of the things I love about the VivoFit is it's ability to be linked to a HRM. I actually bought my band and HRM separately (it was cheaper than the bundle because of sales last month).
I like the fact that the step goal automatically adjusts (if setting is enabled) depending on how many steps I've been getting. If I miss a goal a few days in a row, it lowers a bit. If I make the goal, it raises it a bit. Fitbit can do this too, but it's part of their paid program.
The sleep tracking function is poor compared to Fitbit and other devices like Jawbone. Fitbit will show you total time in sleep mode, how long you were actually asleep (little to no movement) and how many times you were restless. Garmin VivoFit just tells you total time in sleep mode with a graph of how much movement there was.
The badges are not as fun as Fitbit's. Fitbit would give badges for reaching 5k steps in a day and so on. On the page where you would view all your badges, if you hovered over say the 5k one, it would tell you how many times you earned it. Garmin's badges so far are just for lifetime steps traveled.
I loved that fitbit would send out weekly summary emails. The emails told you stuff like if your step count was higher or lower than the week before and how well you were following your calorie in/out plan. Garmin doesn't do this.
I love the move bar on the VivoFit. It's a nice reminder to get up and move for awhile. One thing I have noticed is that you have to do continuous movement to get the bar to go away. Anything that has you moving and then pausing for a few seconds won't remove the bar. Usually walking for about 60 secs does the trick.
It's a little hard to read the display at night since it doesn't have a black light. The VivoFit2, which was just released, however does have a black light. Essentially the VivoFit2 is the replacement to the original VivoFit where Garmin added in some requested features. The normal price for VivoFit was $129 last year and the VivoFit2 is the same price.
Both Fitbit and VivoFit can sync with MFP. Both also have issues syncing with MFP from time to time. I think just about every app that is partnered with MFP has issue syncing every once in awhile. When this happens, I just look at my calorie burn on the device dashboard and subtract the calories needed for my deficit. It may not look pretty on MFP, but at least I know that I'm eating enough to fuel my workouts and still have enough of a deficit to lose weight.
0 -
What activities are you trying to track?
0 -
Before you make the decision to purchase one way or the other; what types of exercise and/or equipment will you be using?
I am using a Treadmill, Stepper & a Rower. I have a Fitbit One. Because this exercise must be difficult for the Fitbit to sort out; my totals are all over the place. Off by many thousands doing the same things every day. I just purchased it ~ a week ago and will probably return it. I have the return label printed...but haven't made a final decision. If there was a smart watch on the market that wasn't huge on the wrist - I would go that direction. I am waiting for Apple Watch, and just recently saw that Garmin has the Vivoactive for sale (and order fulfillment is 5-8 weeks). I havent looked up how large the Vivo is.
I do have a HRM; two in fact. I've been using the RunKeeper App, which displays my HR, and HR zone (also gives me 5 minute audio cues). As soon as I update my Blackberry for an iPhone; I hope to also run the Wahoo app to see how many calories I burn. Runkeeper doesnt calculate that for me. It was the first app I started using and I don't want to give up my consecutive history. My main purpose for the HRM was to know what zone I am in. (I never leave 80+%, except for my sissy rowing).0 -
I have had a FT7 for years and LOVE it! I was never interested in the fitbit until they came out with the Charge HR (with heart rate monitor). I should receive it tomorrow. I'm not sure how accurate it will be while working out since there is no chest strap, but I am excited to try it and will wear my ft7 to see how it compares. Other than that I do not know much about fitbit. I'll let you know next week when I get the hang of it
0 -
AmberLeeMichigan wrote: »I'd like to get an accurate calorie burn, so I'm thinking that is the way to go.
Accurate calorie approximation... hmm
It really depends what type of activities you do and what your general activity is like.
0 -
GARMIN VIVO plus there heart rate monitor.0
-
.
0 -
Different tools for different jobs.
Neither count calories!0 -
I have been using polar heart rate monitors for years. If you choose a model that allows fit testing you will get a fairly accurate calorie count0
-
Sorry dude but the Polar FT7 does count calories burnt, I have one.
Umm. How about no. It will calculate calories burnt based on estimation of effort using the data from Heart rate, duration, time, distance (if GPS enabled), cadence but it does not count. As stated previously the type of activity greatly impacts the accuracy of this calculation as well as number of data sources.
0 -
derrickyoung wrote: »
Sorry dude but the Polar FT7 does count calories burnt, I have one.
Umm. How about no. It will calculate calories burnt based on estimation of effort using the data from Heart rate, duration, time, distance (if GPS enabled), cadence but it does not count. As stated previously the type of activity greatly impacts the accuracy of this calculation as well as number of data sources.
Being a bit picky there mate ! All she meant was she need to know calories bunt during exercise approx i guess, The Polar takes your age, weight, height then based on your heart exertion rate during exercise it gives you your calories burnt approx, which so far I would say has been pretty dam accurate for me.
0 -
I'm with the others. Write down what features are important to you and what activity you do, and find the one that best fits your needs.
I have a Fitbit Flex. It does not have some of the features I want, but it is one of the very few that is immersible in water which is very important on my list since I am in the pool 6 hrs. a week for workouts (laps and an exercise class). I would love one with a HRM and was looking at the Jawbone UP3, but it does not sync to a PC, only an android phone which I don't have.
I love the Fitbit website and their customer service and would not hesitate to upgrade or replace with another Fitbit, as long as it is water resistant.0 -
No it doesn't - it counts heartbeats. Calories are a unit of energy and cannot be counted in heartbeats.
-
It makes a very rough approximation of a calorie burn which may be reasonable if used for the correct exercise, steady state cardio. Also assuming you aren't an outlier in terms of your HR when exercising.
I used the calorie counts from my FT7 successfully for the majority of my weight loss but only because I'm prepared to adjust my calorie intake based on results.
Now use a FT60 with customised settings for tested minimum & max HR and VO2 max - the calorie counts are quite different to the FT7.
When I train on a power meter that actually measures output there still a significant divergence between that and the FT60.
You really can't claim accuracy unless you can verify energy output. Don't get suckered by the advertising hype - they are a training aid that gives a very approximate burn estimate if used correctly.0 -
I have both a fit bit one and a Polar FT7 I bought after the fitbit one. I still use the fit bit one but for my gym workouts I use and track w the Polar FT7. It is only worn during workouts and not through out the day like the fitbit one is. For you money, you have to decide what you are doing for exercise and what you are trying to track. Fitbit only counts steps taken and flights of stairs if you want your sleep. Polar FT7 will give you cals burn time worked out, average and max heartrate and fitness burn minutes and fat burn minutes and the FT7 can be worn under water for swimming or water cardio classes.
Good luck!0 -
It estimates, based on inputs and assumptions. Most people pimping them as a magic bullet on here aren't using then in accordance with their design assumptions.
0 -
No it doesn't - it counts heartbeats. Calories are a unit of energy and cannot be counted in heartbeats.
-
It makes a very rough approximation of a calorie burn which may be reasonable if used for the correct exercise, steady state cardio. Also assuming you aren't an outlier in terms of your HR when exercising.
I used the calorie counts from my FT7 successfully for the majority of my weight loss but only because I'm prepared to adjust my calorie intake based on results.
Now use a FT60 with customised settings for tested minimum & max HR and VO2 max - the calorie counts are quite different to the FT7.
When I train on a power meter that actually measures output there still a significant divergence between that and the FT60.
You really can't claim accuracy unless you can verify energy output. Don't get suckered by the advertising hype - they are a training aid that gives a very approximate burn estimate if used correctly.
I currently have the FT 7 and had the FT 60 up till last month. I find that my FT 7 is more accurate in the number of calories burned and what my HR actually is. My FT 60 always said my HR was higher than it actually was during my runs. Also, it said I burned more calories than I did, ymmv. I don't think either one is more accurate than the other, though. They are both good to use as a guide, nothing more. That said, I love my Purple FT 7.0 -
For all of the ranting and raving over this model or that one ... has anyone paid attention that the OP still hasn't said what activities she wants to track or what types of data?
At least we all have a better understanding of what devices other MFP users own since that is about the only thing that ever comes from this genre of thread.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »At least we all have a better understanding of what devices other MFP users own since that is about the only thing that ever comes from this genre of thread.
I'm tempted to start recommending FR920s by default, to break up the FT4 noise... 0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »At least we all have a better understanding of what devices other MFP users own since that is about the only thing that ever comes from this genre of thread.
I'm tempted to start recommending FR920s by default, to break up the FT4 noise...
Blindly throw a few V800s into mix as well ... a TomTom Cardio or two ... Mio ... why let the low end HRMs have all the free hype.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »For all of the ranting and raving over this model or that one ... has anyone paid attention that the OP still hasn't said what activities she wants to track or what types of data?
At least we all have a better understanding of what devices other MFP users own since that is about the only thing that ever comes from this genre of thread.
In the last part of the OP, she asked; "What do you use? Are you happy with it?"0 -
It depends not only on the type of exercise you plan to do, but what your goals are.
If your goals boil down to trying to be less sedentary, then a simple activity tracker will do. The cheaper the better, unless you plan to spend a lot of time in a browser pouring over your data every day.
If your goals are to get more out of your exercise, an HRM is probably better because knowing your heart rate will help you monitor and improve your training intensity.
Neither is really great for getting an "accurate" calorie burn, though the HRM is probably less bad, especially if you just want to track your burn during exercise, especially steady-state cardio. I had a fitbit all of last year and loved it, it really helped me get a handle on how to be more active over the day. But I also learned over time that the calorie burns were absolute and total bullstuff. Since my goal this year is to increase my training intensity, I recently upgraded to a VivoSmart + an HRM, and did some cross tracking on multiple platforms for benchmarking. Here were my findings from a 90-minute walk I did at 3.25 miles per hour:
VivoSmart (HRM connected): 172
HRM alone: 228
MFP Database: 456
MapMyWalk: 597
Fitbit: 706
With the caveat that at the time I did this test, I hadn't yet calibrated the HRM with a Fitness Test or VO2 Max (though I had done everything else: height, weight, resting HR, etc.), and I know that I have a very low heart rate (my RHR is in the 40s and my working HR rarely goes above 90 when I'm walking, even briskly), so HRM-based estimates tend to be on the low side for me. But even so, those numbers are some serious BULL, and should give anyone who is anxious about trying to get an "accurate" calorie burn estimate some pause.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »For all of the ranting and raving over this model or that one ... has anyone paid attention that the OP still hasn't said what activities she wants to track or what types of data?
At least we all have a better understanding of what devices other MFP users own since that is about the only thing that ever comes from this genre of thread.
In the last part of the OP, she asked; "What do you use? Are you happy with it?"
True .. but without knowing what she intends to do what we use or are happy with may be completely irrelevant.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »For all of the ranting and raving over this model or that one ... has anyone paid attention that the OP still hasn't said what activities she wants to track or what types of data?
At least we all have a better understanding of what devices other MFP users own since that is about the only thing that ever comes from this genre of thread.
In the last part of the OP, she asked; "What do you use? Are you happy with it?"
True .. but without knowing what she intends to do what we use or are happy with may be completely irrelevant.
Well, since the OP never stated what activities she needed it for, and asked specifically about the FT 7. I think those answers above are relevant to the original question.0 -
You said accurate calorie burn, so you should be looking at something with a chest strap. FT7 is an excellent choice. I still use and love my old F6, but looks like the FT7 is its replacement. Fitbits are a motivational gimmick... in my opinion0
-
I have a Fitbit zip (got one for christmas) and am very happy with it. It clips onto the top of my pants band and I wear it from waking up to going to sleep. I enjoy seeing visual progress and am very goal oriented so the Fitbit works well for me. I am not 100% sold on the accuracy of the Fitbit with calorie burned or even steps tracked, but anything that gets me up and moving more is good in my books.
I also have a Polar FT7 HRM and I love that as well! I use this only when I am doing a workout (workout video, run, big hike, dance class, etc) to calculate my estimated calorie burn.
So, it really depends what you are looking/needing one for. If you want a daily tracker type thing, I would recommend a Fitbit (or equivalent). If you are looking to specifically track your workout calories, I would recommend the Polar FT7.
Feel free to private message me if you want more information!0 -
They are meant to do two different things. As far as the Fitbit - I HAD one. It went to the trash. Not accurate in step tracking, sleep tracking, and I hated that it counted what it estimated to be my calorie burn by just breathing. I know some people who swear by their fitbit - I just swear at it!
0 -
Well, since the OP never stated what activities she needed it for, and asked specifically about the FT 7. I think those answers above are relevant to the original question.
Depends what it's used for. It's conceivable that despite asking about an FT7 an HRM is completely inappropriate for the use case.
In which case one might as well identify what type of running shoes one uses.
Anyway, the answer is an FR920, I don't care what anyone else says.
And on that note, off out for a ten miler with my FR310XT
0 -
I've never used a tracker until I got one for Christmas. I got the FitBit Flex, and I'm loving it. Now that I've been introduced to it though, it makes me want one that can do more things. However, I like how small and unobtrusive the Flex is and a lot of other ones seem kinda bulky to me.
The badges are neat, and if you hit your goal, it does a celebratory vibration with light pattern which kinda feels like "leveling up" in real life. It's been the key to my motivation to finally actually do what I've been meaning to do for years.0 -
Just got my Fitbit Charge HR (heart rate monitor built in) yesterday. I had been using a Garmin FR60 watch (a dinosaur) with a heart rate chest strap. The chest strap was getting uncomfortable, so I decided to try something I could wear all day. Today I compared the 2 by doing an indoor cardio/body weight workout. I wore both. At the end of a 51 minute workout the Garmin credited me with 278 calories burned, the Fitbit HR with 256. My average heart rate according to Garmin was 147, the fitbit said it was 132. I don't think the 2 were all that far apart. So far, I'm happy with the fitbit hr.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions