Efficient Combo of HRM, Speed/Pace & Distance, Activity Tracker?

AnnPT77

I understand my needs quite well, but could use some advice on the best option(s) among the current technology. I'd prefer to buy the minimum number of different devices/apps that will meet my needs.

Needs:

• Pace & metric distance tracking mostly for rowing, but occasionally for canoeing or kayaking (currently use old Garmin Forerunner, which is getting flaky).
• Speed & statute distance tracking for biking. (Current use the Garmin).
• Accurate heart rate monitor for heart rate zone training purposes (not just aerobic zone, but zones above as well). My training objectives have to do with rowing, but I will use the HRM for rowing, rowing machine, spin class, biking, and probably a few other random activities. It needs to track time in each (personalized) zone, for current workout at minimum, plus max HR for the workout. It would be nice if it estimated total calorie burn. Formerly used Polar, but it was old & has died.
• Activity tracking for mostly steps-based stuff, ideally calorie-oriented, but it would be nice if it tracked more general movement, too (e.g., yard work). Sleep quality would be fun, but not essential. I use nothing for this now, and - because I eat back a good share of exercise calories - I need some better way to estimate calorie burn when I (occasionally) spend multiple hours strolling/walking and doing random energetic stuff (example: Spent all day as launch dock coordinator at a rowing regatta, walking up and down the bank, walking to other areas of the regatta, working on set-up/takedown).

Clearly, I could buy a new Garmin, a new Polar, and a new Fitbit or one of its competitors. This seems inefficient.

I'm interested in whether anyone has found a device, or a combination of devices, that handle (well) more than one of these applications. Buying two things would be better than buying 3; buying one would be optimal. And I'm not looking for rowing-specific advice: That would be too much to ask, plus I know about Boatcoach, Strokecoach, etc.).

TIA.

MeanderingMammal

Garmin Forerunner 920XT has GPS, cycling mode and step tracker along with HR either through chest strap or third party optical like the Scoche Rhythm.

Lower price point would be the VivoActive.

AnnPT77

Thanks, I'll check out the 920XT & friends. I was hoping someone could help me cut down the time needed for complicated multi-product research. Thanks for taking the time!

SuggaD

920XT. Great investment!

tcaley4

I use Map My Ride on my IPhone to keep track of distance and time when I'm riding my bike. That part is available with the free version. To use an HRM you will have to use the paid version (29.95) a year. You might check that out and see if it will do what you want.

AnnPT77

I should have clarified: The rowing distance needs to be GPS-based rather than map-based: There are multiple lines up and down the river, with distances different enough that it matters. And I set up for 500 meter splits on the rows with auto-pausing, so I can't calculate speed with just a total distance and total time. Running settings on my current Forerunner (with some available settings tweaks) work fine, and it doesn't even fuss that I'm running in 15+ feet of water. (Elevation plots look really dumb, though. ) Also, I have an Android phone. (Please, no religious wars!).

ruthbardell

I use a Garmin 225 to track rowing. The GPS is pretty good, it has a wrist based heart rate monitor built in (made by Mio - have a Google. They claim it to be 99% EKG accurate and I have no reason not to believe this), it counts your steps, it does sleep monitoring (I am not convinced this is very accurate), displays your TDEE for the day and is waterproof. I used on an erg session for the first time the other day. I got a perculiar GPS map, but the calorie burn and heart rate worked well. I love it, and the maps and graphs that it produces on the website after downloading activities are really good. Just wish it was a bit smaller, but I guess you can't have everything

peteparfitt

For me I think the Polar M400 does just about everything you want, provided you're happy with wearing a heart rate strap (Polar's H7 works well). And a lot less expensive than the 920. DC Rainmaker is a really good resource for this sort of stuff.

I do a lot of erg training with the HRM, and so far has got my 2k time down from 8:20 to 7:09, not fast I know but I'm a 49 year old fat bloke, and its taken me about 6 months so far.

peteparfitt

Also the Polar will do Rowing sessions without GPS for indoor workouts. What you may struggle with is having an indoor and outdoor Rowing profile

AnnPT77

ruthbardell wrote: »

I use a Garmin 225 to track rowing. The GPS is pretty good, it has a wrist based heart rate monitor built in (made by Mio - have a Google.

So, the distance part still works for you for rowing (on water?) even on your wrist? With the Garmin Forerunner, I've always attached it to the boat (double's riggers have a cross bar, on other boats without that I just fasten it to the shoe laces/straps). I've worried that the drive/recovery arm movement would distort the boat pace recording. What have you found?

AnnPT77

Thanks for all the useful replies, folks - it's a big help! I welcome all the on-point input I can get to narrow my choices amongst the sea of devices out there now.

AnnPT77

peteparfitt wrote: »

For me I think the Polar M400 does just about everything you want, provided you're happy with wearing a heart rate strap (Polar's H7 works well). And a lot less expensive than the 920. DC Rainmaker is a really good resource for this sort of stuff.

I do a lot of erg training with the HRM, and so far has got my 2k time down from 8:20 to 7:09, not fast I know but I'm a 49 year old fat bloke, and its taken me about 6 months so far.

Good to know - I'll check it out. (You're beating me on the erg: 7:09 sounds great to me! My PR is 8:40.0 (in an actual race, at that) . . . but I'm a 59 year old fat woman . . . well, not *quite* so fat as when I did the 8:40 ).

I would need indoor & outdoor profiles, but there's usually only a very small chronological overlap between the two: I'm on the water when I can be, and on the erg when I have to be (because the river gets crunchy here in winter). Maybe that would make it easier. I'll look into it. Thanks!

gdyment

I have a 920XT but more for running/biking. It's not really an activity monitory beyond a step counter. You could also look at the Fenix 3 or even get a Fenix 2 on a STEAL of a deal. They still list for 400+ but because of the new models they sell for 200 or less used.

If you're a serious rower the activity tracking isn't really needed IMO.

You want to compare devices, google DCRainmaker. He's the kingpin of this stuff.

kcjchang

Other than risk of damage or loss and convenient, you have a very capable computer for all of the activities listed. For cycling, walking, & running (I don't run and hate it) I use IpBike (~$10) app. Most other sports can be track using Endomondo (including cycling, walking, & running). Not sure what apps are out there for sleep monitoring. You can use Bluetooth HRM with both apps and both can track distance with GPS. Step count is also depending on what the phone offers (bs in my book). If your phone has an Ant+ radio, IpBike is a Garmin kille, although battery life and potentially portability depending on the phone might be a issue. I use the Sony Xperia Active, rugged and compact, as my dedicated cycling computer. Any ride over four hours I carry a usb battery to extend the range. IpBike doesn't care which protocol and can have both running as long as your device has separated radio instead of using the Bluetooth as a bridge for Ant+ (e.g. HTC One M7). Good luck.

MeanderingMammal

tcaley4 wrote: »

I use Map My Ride on my IPhone

Mobile phone GPS is significantly less accurate than a dedicated device, with a pool of error in the realms of 15-20 metres that would have a significant impact on 400 metre repeats.

I'd supprt the Fenix suggestion above as an alternative to the 920XT.

Polar make good HR monitoring equipment, but their GPS is less good than Garmin. It depends which is more important. Personally I prioritise location/ pace/ speed/ elevation over HR

rbakedq

Take a look at the Wahoo TICKRx. It is phone based, but one of the more feature-rich HRMs.

kcjchang

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Mobile phone GPS is significantly less accurate than a dedicated device, with a pool of error in the realms of 15-20 metres

It depends on the number of satellites the device can capture and what the post-processing method used. Mobile phone has the added advantage of able to refine the triangulate using the radio signal from the cell towers which a pure GPS consumer based device lacks. App based programs such as Endomondo, Ride with GPS, and Strava does it's own post-processing of the raw data (either on the fly or after upload).

"Error in GPS for different Differential Correction Methods (horizontal):

• Post-processing methods 0.5 - 5 meters [built-in algorithm or back at the office]
• H-Star Processing 0.2 - 0.3 meter [typically back at the office]
• Post-processed carrier phase differential (field survey) 0.01 - 0.3 meter [device and availability of benchmarks dependent, typically back at the office]

"

http://www.spatial-ed.com/gps/gps-basics/135-differential-correction-methods.html

Vertical (elevation) triangulated results are far worst and post-processing will depend on base DTM. It's the nature of the technology. I highly doubt that you can get to a field survey grade device without dropping a few grand and comes in a small enough package to carry around effectively. 920XT, cell phone, or any other consumer devices are no where near that. For example, the accuracy of the Trimble Geo7X, Code differential GNSS positioning, is 0.25 m + 1 ppm RMS and cost about $3k. It's dimensions (WxHxD) are 99 mm (3.9 in) x 234 mm (9.2 in) x 56 mm (2.2 in) and weight in at 5.5 pounds. My guess, to lazy to do the research, is the accuracy of consumer based GPS are at best in the realm of 0.2 - 0.5 meter with post-processing (Garmin, cell phone, or what have you).

Then again if you are doing 400 meters repeat why would you need GPS in the first place. A timer and a HRM (hence a 920XT and no arguments there) would be much better. For cycling, I use the old standby of the wheel diameter for speed and distance; the GPS is for mapping and not getting lost.

ruthbardell

So, the distance part still works for you for rowing (on water?) even on your wrist?

Seems to. I guess it is designed to compensate for arm movement whilst running. I guess its just like a very exaggerated arm swing!

AnnPT77

ruthbardell wrote: »

So, the distance part still works for you for rowing (on water?) even on your wrist?

Seems to. I guess it is designed to compensate for arm movement whilst running. I guess its just like a very exaggerated arm swing!

Heh. The mental picture of the several-foot (?) arm swing! ('Course, it may not be as much as it feels like, since - if doing it right - we're prying the boat past the (relatively) non-moving oar . . . in theory ).

MeanderingMammal

kcjchang wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Mobile phone GPS is significantly less accurate than a dedicated device, with a pool of error in the realms of 15-20 metres

It depends on the number of satellites the device can capture and what the post-processing method used.

So in the context of what was asked, post processing isn't relevant. At lest that's what I'd infer from the phasing.

Mobiles can generally receive on six channels whereas a decent quality dedicated device can take in 12. On a theoretical globe 12 SVs could be visible at any point in time, in practice due to terrain and buildings it's generally limited to 9.

Mobile phone has the added advantage of able to refine the triangulate using the radio signal from the cell towers which a pure GPS consumer based device lacks. App based programs such as Endomondo, Ride with GPS, and Strava does it's own post-processing of the raw data (either on the fly or after upload).

The reason that mobile devices corroborate their GPS data is to compensate for fewer channels and generally a lower quality antenna. Most phones share the antenna, and share the processing power with other things as well. Every app that consumes position data is competing for that data.

Then again if you are doing 400 meters repeat why would you need GPS in the first place. A timer and a HRM (hence a 920XT and no arguments there) would be much better. For cycling, I use the old standby of the wheel diameter for speed and distance; the GPS is for mapping and not getting lost.

The originator is talking about rowing, and reading back it's 500s but that's not material.

Could use a buoyed channel, but if there's a lot of contention on that then using a GPS is the next best option. Identifying transits assumes that one can get enough transits in the right places to be useful.

The other aspect is, mobile phones aren't waterproof, although clearly aftermarket cases can make them waterproof.

AnnPT77

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

kcjchang wrote: »

Then again if you are doing 400 meters repeat why would you need GPS in the first place. A timer and a HRM (hence a 920XT and no arguments there) would be much better. For cycling, I use the old standby of the wheel diameter for speed and distance; the GPS is for mapping and not getting lost.

The originator is talking about rowing, and reading back it's 500s but that's not material.
(Snipped)

The other aspect is, mobile phones aren't waterproof, although clearly aftermarket cases can make them waterproof.

It's a wide, meandering river with moving (sometimes large) obstacles to row your 26 or 30 foot boat around, not a running track. We only get a straight, open lane during races.

In practices, you row a few thousand meters upstream, on the best course you can get at the time, recording 500s all the way. Then you spin and row back, still recording for later review

A dry bag for a phone can work, but the touch-screen-friendly ones IME are not the most durable, and things get knocked around in a boat. Also, your hands are busy (oars), so apps need to be "set & forget" as the rowing ones are. But I don't love a separate app for every activity, even rhough the rowing apps have useful sport-specific data, like strokes per minute.

I'm enjoying the technical discussion - learning lots. (Resumes spectator seat)