FitBit or HRM?

Options
2»

Replies

  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    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?"
  • sympha01
    sympha01 Posts: 942 Member
    Options
    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.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    Eileen_S 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.
  • FitPhillygirl
    FitPhillygirl Posts: 7,124 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Eileen_S 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.
  • Cacheola
    Cacheola Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    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 opinion
  • samantha1242
    samantha1242 Posts: 816 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    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!
  • simplydelish2
    simplydelish2 Posts: 726 Member
    Options
    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!

    20757594.png
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Eileen_S wrote: »
    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 :)

  • taekwondogirl
    taekwondogirl Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    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.
  • glassgallm
    glassgallm Posts: 276 Member
    Options
    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.
  • killerqueen21
    killerqueen21 Posts: 157 Member
    Options
    simplydelish2 wrote: »
    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!

    20757594.png

    Really. The trash? You could have at least sold it for some money or something lol
  • Kevalicious99
    Kevalicious99 Posts: 1,131 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    No it doesn't - it counts heartbeats. Calories are a unit of energy and cannot be counted in heartbeats.

    I hate to say it .. but your HRM cannot truly count your calories burned at all .. it does not have the technology. The ONLY thing it can do it count your heart rate.

    There is some aura about these devices and it is mostly hype .. however people are successful with them .. as they are not sitting on the couch watching tv and eating pizza.

    So .. as long as you understand that the calorie burn is just some math calculation by some programmer (I happen to be one of those programmer types).

    Can they be accurate .. maybe, but most often they are not and tend to over estimate. The reason for that .. is cause if you work out and it says you burnt 100 cal .. you may be discouraged. But if it says 500 .. you would probably be happier.

    So take these devices with caution .. as they are estimates at best. The only thing they can do is measure your heart rate. And unless you have medical grade devices .. you are better off with the chest strap models .. the only exception to this are the Mio Products which are very good in this area. The FItbit products and their HR monitoring is well .. suspect at best. You just have to go to the Fitbit forums to see all the problems people are having.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    Eileen_S wrote: »
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    Eileen_S 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.

    She also asked about a fitbit ... a very different device with a different purpose. Until the OP gives a lot more information, all we get here is the "I have xxxxxxx" discussion.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    glassgallm wrote: »
    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.

    15 bpm is an over 10% discrepancy between the two devices.
  • ivygirl1937
    ivygirl1937 Posts: 899 Member
    Options
    glassgallm wrote: »
    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.

    Agree with this; I got a Fitbit Charge HR back in the beginning of December and I LOVE it! It's pretty dang accurate too. I love it so much and talk about it and use it so much that now my husband wants one too.
  • AmandaLipphardt
    AmandaLipphardt Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    I had a HRM (Motorola Motoactv) and it was a complete waste of money. It came with a blue tooth sync to a monitoring strap that went around my ribs and when I used it in a gym setting and it would sync with the machines around me it instead of to me. It worked maybe one out of ten times. Most times it stayed at a heart rate of 72, whether I was walking or running. I read the manual, took it to my trainer to figure out, ect. but never got it to work right. The screen became damaged after just a year. They said that it was water damage, which invalidated the warranty, but I can't see how that would happen when I kept the computer wrist display in a seperate (from the sweaty band), air tight container outside of workouts. The whole thing really put me off HRMs. I'm just estimating it with MFP and that works just fine for me.

Categories