Fitbit Charge HR or Polar FT7

rainandwood93

Hello! It's my birthday this upcoming week and I've received a few cash gifts. I'm looking to buy either a fitbit charge HR or a Polar FT7. I've had the FT7 so I have used it before and think it works well for what it does. I am fine paying for either!

Fitbit charge HR is appealing to me because I can wear it comfortably all day, and because I've always had some sleep issues so that info could be good as well.

I guess my issue is, is there a massive difference in calorie accuracy between the fitbit charge HR and the Polar FT7 or another around the chest hrm? Or a difference in hr accuracy that could hurt my chances of doing good heart rate based training if I decide to in the future?

Signed up for a Tough Mudder in October, so I'll be looking to go from here (week 4 of re-doing c25k) to Half Marathon training by then, alongside some strength training, if that makes any difference.

Thank you!

professionalHobbyist

Have you ever looked at the Garmin products ?

I searched and asked friends... All that till they were ready to kill me I'm sure

And I got a Vivo Smart.

There is a better model now

It lets you read text messages and see who is calling you

It even tracks steps and tells you when you should consider getting new running shoes!

But I also have a Polar old HRM from when I first started that is still going strong.

I admit I like being able to screen calls and read texts with the Garmin.

Maybe it depends on how geeked out you are?

Ha!

golfergirl92

I had a Polar FT4 for over two years. I decided to upgrade to something different when the battery finally died on me. I researched the FT7 but I was tired of the chest strap. Also, I walk a lot at work so I needed something to track steps as well. Decided to get the Charge HR about two weeks ago and it's been awesome! It's a little bit funky on trying to track calories for things that aren't really step-related like lifting but it's been almost spot on with the FT4 for my other workouts. I love being able to see how well I slept cause I generally toss and turn and I get a better idea of how long I actually do sleep. The battery life for me has been about three days, but there is a USB charger so I can put it on there at night and be ready to go in the morning. The app is very useful as well and syncs with MFP. Be sure to join the FitBit group on here and read thru the posts as it talks about making sure you only track on MFP and how the two go hand in hand. Lots of good info.

ETA: It also screens calls by vibrating and showing Caller ID on the screen. And it has an alarm feature so it vibrates to wake you up. Been able to wake up without waking up my boyfriend with my normal phone alarm.

editorgrrl

rainandwood93 wrote: »

Fitbit Charge HR is appealing to me because I can wear it comfortably all day, and because I've always had some sleep issues so that info could be good as well.

I guess my issue is, is there a massive difference in calorie accuracy between the fitbit charge HR and the Polar FT7 or another around the chest hrm? Or a difference in hr accuracy that could hurt my chances of doing good heart rate based training if I decide to in the future?

I lost the weight & have maintained for almost a year with Fitbit + MFP. That's accurate in my book. I upgraded from the Fitbit Flex to the Charge HR. It's like a watch (with a buckle), and I only take it off to charge or shower.

If you're unsure, buy it at a store near you, keep the receipt, and return it if you don't like it.

As an added benefit, Fitbit challenges are great motivation—and fun. You can learn more (and find Fitbit friends) in the Fitbit Users group: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/1290-fitbit-users

retirehappy

rainandwood93 wrote: »

Hello! It's my birthday this upcoming week and I've received a few cash gifts. I'm looking to buy either a fitbit charge HR or a Polar FT7. I've had the FT7 so I have used it before and think it works well for what it does. I am fine paying for either!

Fitbit charge HR is appealing to me because I can wear it comfortably all day, and because I've always had some sleep issues so that info could be good as well.

I guess my issue is, is there a massive difference in calorie accuracy between the fitbit charge HR and the Polar FT7 or another around the chest hrm? Or a difference in hr accuracy that could hurt my chances of doing good heart rate based training if I decide to in the future?

Signed up for a Tough Mudder in October, so I'll be looking to go from here (week 4 of re-doing c25k) to Half Marathon training by then, alongside some strength training, if that makes any difference.

Thank you!

I have used both. The calories etc are almost the same. The issue with the Charge HR which I have is, it is best with step based activities, not so much with biking & lifting. Also it is not water proof can't swim, shower, or wash dishes wearing it etc. If that will work for you, I'd say go for it.


OR the Surge now supports biking if that is your thing, it is also better for HIIT sessions which I don't do. And I don't need more GPS devices either you can use the Charge HR with your phone for GPS functionality.

rainandwood93

Hmmm thanks for the info guys! I'm leaning very slightly towards the Charge HR if only for the fact that I know myself, and as a college student I'm often running to squeeze in a workout, so fitting myself with that HRM band might not happen as often as it does.

I'm a little confused as to why the Charge HR wouldn't work with biking, since it's HR based? I'm honestly not super interested in pedometer specific info (I know I get in about 10,000 a day anyways, I don't have a car), but mostly interested in seeing calories burned during workouts and tracking my sleep. I do bike a little (but not bike workouts) on campus. I'm planning on starting lifting when I'm back in the states near a gym with barbells, but I've always heard that HRM monitoring doesn't work for that anyways!

Surge is a wee bit expensive for me and I always run with music anyways so GPS functionality doesn't matter too much!

Indecision abounds!

editorgrrl

rainandwood93 wrote: »

I'm a little confused as to why the Charge HR wouldn't work with biking, since it's HR based?

Surge is a wee bit expensive for me and I always run with music anyways so GPS functionality doesn't matter too much!

Indecision abounds!

Fitbit Surge tracks biking way better than Charge HR: https://blog.fitbit.com/bike-tracking-now-available-on-fitbit-surge/

But if you're only a casual cyclist (not to mention a college student!), I wouldn't spend the extra hundred bucks.

rainandwood93

Good advice! When I'm home I actually like to cycle quite a bit (10miles a day) but I'm not home enough to justify the price! Not to mention the surge looks a little ... bulky? Like perhaps something I wouldn't actually want to be wearing every day.
Thank you for the advice!

editorgrrl

TBH, I lost the weight & maintained for eight months with the Fitbit Flex, which is $100. I upgraded to the Charge HR because it has a real buckle (like a watch)—and because it comes in purple.

The Zip is only $60.

tiggerlove

They also have the new A300 which you can swim with and it does the sleep tracker and also let's you know when ur sitting to long and I like the fact that I can change the band for a diffrent color. Also there are many sports you can use it for.

brianpperkins

For the Surge to track HR, it must be on the wrist. The wrist is an inconvenient place for a device while cycling if you want to read it.

If accuracy matters, read these reviews.

http://www.cnet.com/news/how-accurate-are-wristband-heart-rate-monitors/

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/01/fitbit-surge-depth-review.html

rainandwood93

Thanks guys! I think I'm going to go for the Charge HR. I don't need 100% calorie accuracy since I don't eat back my cals, just a ballpark or relative workout to workout differences. If I start doing any serious HRM based training I may spring for the Polar FT4! For someone with sleep issues, some sleep data might also be useful.

Thanks for the help!

editorgrrl

rainandwood93 wrote: »

Thanks guys! I think I'm going to go for the Charge HR. I don't need 100% calorie accuracy since I don't eat back my cals, just a ballpark or relative workout to workout differences.

Using Fitbit + MFP requires an entirely different mindset than logging exercise in MFP.

Your Fitbit burn is TDEE (aka your maintenance calories). Your MFP calorie goal is activity level minus deficit. Fitbit calorie adjustments are the difference between your Fitbit burn & your MFP activity level.

If (and only if) you enable negative calorie adjustments in your diary settings, then eating your adjustments means you're eating TDEE minus deficit.

You can learn more in the Fitbit Users group: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/1290-fitbit-users

ScubaSteve1962

rainandwood93 wrote: »

Hello! It's my birthday this upcoming week and I've received a few cash gifts. I'm looking to buy either a fitbit charge HR or a Polar FT7. I've had the FT7 so I have used it before and think it works well for what it does. I am fine paying for either!

Fitbit charge HR is appealing to me because I can wear it comfortably all day, and because I've always had some sleep issues so that info could be good as well.

I guess my issue is, is there a massive difference in calorie accuracy between the fitbit charge HR and the Polar FT7 or another around the chest hrm? Or a difference in hr accuracy that could hurt my chances of doing good heart rate based training if I decide to in the future?

Signed up for a Tough Mudder in October, so I'll be looking to go from here (week 4 of re-doing c25k) to Half Marathon training by then, alongside some strength training, if that makes any difference.

Thank you!

If you like the polar products, there's the loop, A300, and M400 that will give you all day tracking, and with optional H7 sensor, give you a the heart rate based training you're looking for. Also includes sleep monitoring.

brianpperkins

rainandwood93 wrote: »

Thanks guys! I think I'm going to go for the Charge HR. I don't need 100% calorie accuracy since I don't eat back my cals, just a ballpark or relative workout to workout differences. If I start doing any serious HRM based training I may spring for the Polar FT4! For someone with sleep issues, some sleep data might also be useful.

Thanks for the help!

It isn't just calorie accuracy ... the Charge is inaccurate reading HR during exercise. Everything you questioned in your OP ("I guess my issue is, is there a massive difference in calorie accuracy between the fitbit charge HR and the Polar FT7 or another around the chest hrm? Or a difference in hr accuracy that could hurt my chances of doing good heart rate based training if I decide to in the future?") puts the Charge as a lesser option.

rainandwood93

Thanks for the concern.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I don't eat back my exercise calories, so I was more looking for a ballpark of relative intensity between workouts. I was more concerned about accuracy issues such as it stops counting, or it is extremely variable between runs which it doesn't seem to be based on reviews I've read.

I've had some health issues come up (anemia, maybe a sleep disorder and some vitamin deficiencies, still a little unsolved as I'm out of the country at the moment) that mean on my bad days sometimes I can't tell if I'm going harder than usual on the same workout or if my body just is just making me feel bad. Since Charge HR seems okayish for that and provides the sleep info, it seems like the better choice to me at the moment.

I'm a data junkie and I also wasn't planning on changing my calories based on any info that syncs, considering there can be inaccuracies and I'm doing pretty well (down more than 30 pounds...) as I am. I promise I know how TDEE works.

As I also mentioned in a previous post, I'm not currently looking to do HRM based workouts and if I do in the future I'll reevaluate whether I should get a Polar.

Leslierussell4134

I've been using the Polar products for years and recently purchased the Polar M400 fitness watch and the H7 HR monitor. I love these products and have had great results. Not sure if your interested in the fitness watch, but the M400 also has GPS and would be great for biking speeds, calories and routes.
I take medication that lowers my heart rate significantly for my age of 28, so knowing my heart rate is critical for weight loss. I don't burn as many calories as others my age because my heart isn't working as hard.
The H7 batteries are replaceable and inexpensive. I bought the watch and monitor in a combo pack from Amazon for $150, much less than compatible products from Garmin.
Check it out before you buy. Good luck.

brianpperkins

You stated criteria in your first post, then ignored them. But, it's your money. I will say you are the first admitted data junkie I've seen that chooses the less accurate option at comparable prices.

rainandwood93

Right, but I'm not going to go around wearing the chest strap every day for the rest of my life. The FT7 you mentioned would be a workout only measure. As long as I have something that is more ore less consistent, as the reviews I was pointed to on this board seem to show, (regardless of being perfectly accurate) I get what I need alongside a much bigger variety of data, and a 24 hour sample size. If I need 100% accuracy in the future I'll reconsider. Sorry to have disappointed you with my final decision!

@leslie M400 looks like a nice option for the future maybe, but it's a little bit out of my price range! I'm lucky that my heart rate doesn't have to be measured for 100% accuracy, but Polar seems like a good option if thats what you need!

kikix5

I know that this thread is old, but I was wondering the same thing, I have a polar ft7 and the fitbit HR which I just got.. I just ran and used my elliptical and then did a few weights.. In 1:09 FT7 reads 591 calories and the fit bit only registered 433 calories. just sitting here my fitbit has HR 90 and the ft7 is 94.. but that is a big difference in calories

editorgrrl

kikix5 wrote: »

I have a polar ft7 and the fitbit HR which I just got. I just ran and used my elliptical and then did a few weights. In 1:09 FT7 reads 591 calories and the fit bit only registered 433 calories.

The only way to gauge the accuracy of any device is to trust it for several weeks, then reevaluate your progress.

You can learn more in the Fitbit Users group: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/1290-fitbit-users

ScubaSteve1962

kikix5 wrote: »

I know that this thread is old, but I was wondering the same thing, I have a polar ft7 and the fitbit HR which I just got.. I just ran and used my elliptical and then did a few weights.. In 1:09 FT7 reads 591 calories and the fit bit only registered 433 calories. just sitting here my fitbit has HR 90 and the ft7 is 94.. but that is a big difference in calories

If possible, look at your HR chart and see if there were some missed or erroneous heart rates. Arm based HR monitors are known for missing beats when doing cardio.

MeanderingMammal

kikix5 wrote: »

In 1:09 FT7 reads 591 calories and the fit bit only registered 433 calories.

Given what you've described there is no way to tell which is more accurate, they could both be equally wrong.

just sitting here my fitbit has HR 90 and the ft7 is 94.. but that is a big difference in calories

That's a negligible difference, what I would say is that if you're stationary and resting 90bpm is quite high, suggesting that both of th readings you've identified earlier in your post are likely to be quite excessive.

MeanderingMammal

editorgrrl wrote: »

kikix5 wrote: »

I have a polar ft7 and the fitbit HR which I just got. I just ran and used my elliptical and then did a few weights. In 1:09 FT7 reads 591 calories and the fit bit only registered 433 calories.

The only way to gauge the accuracy of any device is to trust it for several weeks, then reevaluate your progress.

That assumes consistent inaccuracy. In the situation described inaccuracy is unlikely to be consistent.

kikix5

That's a negligible difference, what I would say is that if you're stationary and resting 90bpm is quite high, suggesting that both of th readings you've identified earlier in your post are likely to be quite excessive.
[/quote]

I had just got done working out. so it was still high and coming down. I was just meaning I was not moving around that would give the arm monitor a different reading. also sometimes my hr is higher as I have no thyroid and I am on meds that sometimes makes my HR faster