Garmin Vivofit vs. Fitbit Charge HR
mommarnurse
Posts: 515 Member
Can anyone give me their reviews on these/which may be better? I need to be able to find out my HR during cardio (a lot of running and other cardio) workouts and a big plus would be tracking distance on a run (eliminates need for a separate app). I don't really care about tracking my steps.
0
Replies
-
I can't speak to the HR version, but I have a Fitbit Charge. It does NOT track mileage accurately. I recently walked a marathon. My training walks were often off anywhere from 1 to 3 miles. It was off by more than 5 for the marathon.
I know they say you can "fix" that by calibrating it using a treadmill but I walk and run. My strides are very different. My strides are also very different when using the treadmill vs outside for workouts. Not worth the hassle to me.
I like the device for other reasons, but if accuracy in mileage is what you need, a GPS watch might be better. 'Course, then you're looking at battery life...0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »Can anyone give me their reviews on these/which may be better? I need to be able to find out my HR during cardio (a lot of running and other cardio) workouts and a big plus would be tracking distance on a run (eliminates need for a separate app). I don't really care about tracking my steps.
Vivofit is a step counter, not a GPS tracker.
VivoActive may be what you're after. It depends if you've drunk the FitBit Kool-aid around 24/7 optical HR tracking or not.
The reviews I've seen say that the VivoActive is a pretty solid device, although for the money you can get a Forerunner 310XT.0 -
^^ second the opinion that if an accurate heart rate and distance is what you're after, go with a monitor that uses a chest strap and gps, such as the Vivoactive, one of the Forerunner series, or one of the Polar devices. BUT if you are a treadmill runner, also be aware that GPS can't be used to track distance on a treadmill; you need an additional foot-worn stride sensor for one of those devices. If syncing with MFP is of high importance, then definitely look at the Garmin products (Vivoactive/Forerunner).0
-
I would also like to say that the many of the garmin products are waterproof and not just water resistant. That's why i jumped on the Garmin band wagon
I will say that it doesn't track my running accurately all the time, but my vivosmart does not have gps, but it does have a chest strap. I use runkeeper to track my runs. even though it's off, it usually tracks my calorie burn the same as runkeeper.
but all of the above is good advice0 -
VivoActive here...love it.0
-
I cycle and am using the endomondo app for GPS, mileage and speed, the fitbit charge hr for heart rate. I just start the endomondo app and set the activity mode on the fitbit at the same time. I use the calorie count on the fitbit.0
-
I use my FitBit Charge HR when I work out - I start the session and let it track my heart rate for the duration - turn the session off and then sync it - it gives me an approximate count of calories burned based on HR.
If it helps, I was in the doctor's office last week wearing my FitBit Charge HR and after they took my blood pressure I found that the Fitbit was within 2 bpm of the HR the nurse recorded... of course your mileage may vary...
0 -
fitbit surge would be your best bet0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Can anyone give me their reviews on these/which may be better? I need to be able to find out my HR during cardio (a lot of running and other cardio) workouts and a big plus would be tracking distance on a run (eliminates need for a separate app). I don't really care about tracking my steps.
Vivofit is a step counter, not a GPS tracker.
VivoActive may be what you're after. It depends if you've drunk the FitBit Kool-aid around 24/7 optical HR tracking or not.
The reviews I've seen say that the VivoActive is a pretty solid device, although for the money you can get a Forerunner 310XT.
Lol @ FitBit Kool-Aid. No, I guess I don't see the point in tracking my HR all day. Just need to know it during cardio. I'm going to investigate this Forerunner and the Vivoactive. I'm not sure if I'd be irritated by a chest strap or not, though.0 -
I have the Fitbit Charge HR. I don't use it for distance but it does record it. I haven't tested it's accuracy but there are plenty of GPS apps that work with it/myfitnesspal that would help it be accurate. I don't have to wear a chest strap and I don't have to log in two different places for food/exercise because the apps sync data back and forth. I couldn't tell you if it's better then then others but I love it.0
-
jeromeloresco05 wrote: »fitbit surge would be your best bet
I looked this up and you are right! $250 is expensive but hopefully worth it. thanks!0 -
I want to be able to record tracks of my activities (hiking, mountain biking), along with my heart rate. A step counter would be nice too.
I tried the Fitbit Charge HR and returned it because I realized the GPS was important to me.
Now I've got the Garmin Vivo Active and I don't want to wear a HRM on my chest (I didn't realize it wasn't in the wrist) and more annoying- I can't read the screen. I can't figure out if it's just dim and tiny or what, but I'm over 50 and I'm not lugging my reading glasses with me to use the damn thing. Really not finding what I want hunting for something that does all three without a chest strap. Any ideas?0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Can anyone give me their reviews on these/which may be better? I need to be able to find out my HR during cardio (a lot of running and other cardio) workouts and a big plus would be tracking distance on a run (eliminates need for a separate app). I don't really care about tracking my steps.
Vivofit is a step counter, not a GPS tracker.
VivoActive may be what you're after. It depends if you've drunk the FitBit Kool-aid around 24/7 optical HR tracking or not.
The reviews I've seen say that the VivoActive is a pretty solid device, although for the money you can get a Forerunner 310XT.
Lol @ FitBit Kool-Aid. No, I guess I don't see the point in tracking my HR all day. Just need to know it during cardio. I'm going to investigate this Forerunner and the Vivoactive. I'm not sure if I'd be irritated by a chest strap or not, though.
Personally I find that after running about 10 miles the chest strap can irritate a little, but I mitigate that by using some vaseline underneath it.
In terms of the balance between optical and electrical measurement, the latter is far more consistent during exercise as it's much less affected by movement of the sensor. Optical HR can be comparable to electrical on a momentary basis, but most work I've seen show less consistency during a session, particularly one where there is a lot of arm movement. That's a result of light affecting the measurement. To mitigate that Garmin have put a rubber shroud under the Forerunner 225, which has got good reviews.
Most reviews of the Surge I've seen identify a mediocre GPS implementation and a mediocre HRM implementation, with a good step counting implementation and a well respected social platform. I'm not seeing value for money there, as it has a similar price point to far better devices.
I'm curious about why you need to know your HR during training, it has a place but it's a reasonably uncommon approach to training effect nowadays.0 -
jenthibert wrote: »I can't speak to the HR version, but I have a Fitbit Charge. It does NOT track mileage accurately. I recently walked a marathon. My training walks were often off anywhere from 1 to 3 miles. It was off by more than 5 for the marathon.
I know they say you can "fix" that by calibrating it using a treadmill but I walk and run. My strides are very different. My strides are also very different when using the treadmill vs outside for workouts. Not worth the hassle to me.
I like the device for other reasons, but if accuracy in mileage is what you need, a GPS watch might be better. 'Course, then you're looking at battery life...
I've found that if you just press the button on the Charge HR to record a Workout, the mileage is out.
But if you use the Fitbit phone app (with GPS) to Track Exercise, the mileage is correct. I've tested it against measured 5 km and 10 km courses, plus it plots a map correctly.0 -
I got the Garmin Forerunner 15 with Heart-Rate Strip as a set on sale. I have absolutely no complaints...a big plus for me was also the possibility to wear it while swimming.0
-
I love my Garmin. I tested swimming with it and sure enough- still working like a charm. I only wear HR when I want to attempt accurate calories burned. I use Run app for gps.0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Can anyone give me their reviews on these/which may be better? I need to be able to find out my HR during cardio (a lot of running and other cardio) workouts and a big plus would be tracking distance on a run (eliminates need for a separate app). I don't really care about tracking my steps.
Vivofit is a step counter, not a GPS tracker.
VivoActive may be what you're after. It depends if you've drunk the FitBit Kool-aid around 24/7 optical HR tracking or not.
The reviews I've seen say that the VivoActive is a pretty solid device, although for the money you can get a Forerunner 310XT.
Lol @ FitBit Kool-Aid. No, I guess I don't see the point in tracking my HR all day. Just need to know it during cardio. I'm going to investigate this Forerunner and the Vivoactive. I'm not sure if I'd be irritated by a chest strap or not, though.
Personally I find that after running about 10 miles the chest strap can irritate a little, but I mitigate that by using some vaseline underneath it.
In terms of the balance between optical and electrical measurement, the latter is far more consistent during exercise as it's much less affected by movement of the sensor. Optical HR can be comparable to electrical on a momentary basis, but most work I've seen show less consistency during a session, particularly one where there is a lot of arm movement. That's a result of light affecting the measurement. To mitigate that Garmin have put a rubber shroud under the Forerunner 225, which has got good reviews.
Most reviews of the Surge I've seen identify a mediocre GPS implementation and a mediocre HRM implementation, with a good step counting implementation and a well respected social platform. I'm not seeing value for money there, as it has a similar price point to far better devices.
I'm curious about why you need to know your HR during training, it has a place but it's a reasonably uncommon approach to training effect nowadays.
More accurate calorie burn calculations, mostly. If I had to choose between accurate GPS and accurate HR I'd choose the GPS. Maybe one with an accurate GPS and a chest strap is how I should go.0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Can anyone give me their reviews on these/which may be better? I need to be able to find out my HR during cardio (a lot of running and other cardio) workouts and a big plus would be tracking distance on a run (eliminates need for a separate app). I don't really care about tracking my steps.
Vivofit is a step counter, not a GPS tracker.
VivoActive may be what you're after. It depends if you've drunk the FitBit Kool-aid around 24/7 optical HR tracking or not.
The reviews I've seen say that the VivoActive is a pretty solid device, although for the money you can get a Forerunner 310XT.
Lol @ FitBit Kool-Aid. No, I guess I don't see the point in tracking my HR all day. Just need to know it during cardio. I'm going to investigate this Forerunner and the Vivoactive. I'm not sure if I'd be irritated by a chest strap or not, though.
I track my heart rate all day as I know its a bit high. Exercise and losing weight should bring it back to what was my norm when I was younger and thinner. I'm finding it useful for gauging my stress and anxiety. My heart rate seems to be at a level of burning fat all day. I realize its probably not burning fat, its just too high. Seeing the rate keeps me on track with eating and exercise.0 -
Love my vivofit0
-
mommarnurse wrote: »More accurate calorie burn calculations, mostly. If I had to choose between accurate GPS and accurate HR I'd choose the GPS. Maybe one with an accurate GPS and a chest strap is how I should go.
HR as a reliable indicator of calorie expenditure is a triumph of marketing over reality to be honest. In a narrow set of circumstances HR can be a reliable indicator; steady state, aerobic range essentially.
I wrote a bit of an essay on it in another thread a few days ago, I think somewhere in the forum of woo (GD&WL), but broadly:- Cycling - power meter > GPS+HR > GPS > HR
- Running - GPS+HR> GPS > HR
- Circuit training/ classes - Body mass/time/ perceived effort
- Resistance training - Time/ perceived effort
Lots of people will chime in saying they use HR for stuff like resistance training and they've been losing weight. Once you dig into their claims you discover that they either don't eat their exercise cals back or use some kind of spurious and arbitrary method of reducing the cals by standing on one leg, facing downwind then dividing the measured cals by the colour of their hair and then eating back less than half of what they end up with. You'd be quicker and easier rolling two D10.
That said it is useful to be able to see how HR responds to training stimuli, so I'm not dismissing the use of it as a training tool. IT's just not a panacea with respect to calorie guestimation.0 -
But if you use the Fitbit phone app (with GPS) to Track Exercise, the mileage is correct. I've tested it against measured 5 km and 10 km courses, plus it plots a map correctly.
The phone app and my phone don't play nice for some reason. I use Runkeeper instead. I use an arm pouch to hold my phone so it's not as convenient to look at my mileage as it would be if the mileage on the wrist device worked better.
It's ok for now but I think I'll replace it with a GPS watch when it dies. All depends on what you want to track and for me it's mileage over steps.0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Can anyone give me their reviews on these/which may be better? I need to be able to find out my HR during cardio (a lot of running and other cardio) workouts and a big plus would be tracking distance on a run (eliminates need for a separate app). I don't really care about tracking my steps.
Vivofit is a step counter, not a GPS tracker.
VivoActive may be what you're after. It depends if you've drunk the FitBit Kool-aid around 24/7 optical HR tracking or not.
The reviews I've seen say that the VivoActive is a pretty solid device, although for the money you can get a Forerunner 310XT.
Lol @ FitBit Kool-Aid. No, I guess I don't see the point in tracking my HR all day. Just need to know it during cardio. I'm going to investigate this Forerunner and the Vivoactive. I'm not sure if I'd be irritated by a chest strap or not, though.
I was very apprehensive about the chest strap, but it turned out to be unnoticable. Waaay more comfortable than a sports bra, and since its worn (basically) in the same place as the band of one, you really don't feel it. Probably different for those who don't wear one....0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »More accurate calorie burn calculations, mostly. If I had to choose between accurate GPS and accurate HR I'd choose the GPS. Maybe one with an accurate GPS and a chest strap is how I should go.
HR as a reliable indicator of calorie expenditure is a triumph of marketing over reality to be honest. In a narrow set of circumstances HR can be a reliable indicator; steady state, aerobic range essentially.
I wrote a bit of an essay on it in another thread a few days ago, I think somewhere in the forum of woo (GD&WL), but broadly:- Cycling - power meter > GPS+HR > GPS > HR
- Running - GPS+HR> GPS > HR
- Circuit training/ classes - Body mass/time/ perceived effort
- Resistance training - Time/ perceived effort
Lots of people will chime in saying they use HR for stuff like resistance training and they've been losing weight. Once you dig into their claims you discover that they either don't eat their exercise cals back or use some kind of spurious and arbitrary method of reducing the cals by standing on one leg, facing downwind then dividing the measured cals by the colour of their hair and then eating back less than half of what they end up with. You'd be quicker and easier rolling two D10.
That said it is useful to be able to see how HR responds to training stimuli, so I'm not dismissing the use of it as a training tool. IT's just not a panacea with respect to calorie guestimation.
I've noticed that you're not a huge fan of heart-rate based calorie calculations
. But, I don't think its entirely fair to call it a "triumph of marketing." There is research and data behind the calculations, and it MAY be more accurate, in fact, than traditional time-and-distance calculations, although, as you point out, not in all circumstances. Its becoming kind of hobby of mine to learn about the science (and the woo) behind these insanely popular little devices, so I'd be grateful if you were to share any research that you know of about their algorithms. These are a few things that I've been able to find:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15966347
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16331144
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12868043
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12762827
This one is a white paper from FirstBeat, which is the company that developed the tech behind Garmin and other products, so I don't know how you'd feel about it: https://8349cdc4-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/dcrainmakerblog/file-uploads/Firstbeat_technology.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cpr0Mz3qv4Jw7yEwNgaKMbxdICPYxXRPp8YQTFBdGT3dfpuHI9mAZtWoB-OoJolVTw_N3PVLiE_gnR6Ovi80xFfTj211ZrQQ_tnLFObOFaAFDHHspSzaIGxPPIVrAHe3ur60TlgQXIBIKfKD_KyVnUOjF0udVZwvwDWCL4iJzBM1Tut4mFurjeleDNjh_fZI6T9gaYf1rJpMw_QqrrsrzVcXYJ4CNR-gx_HfRdXGFet8tMq5S4br3wxBjk2QHzSJamnzx_S&attredirects=0
This is a much more accessible, but perhaps less "trustworthy", article:
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading
I do think there are 4 main things to keep in mind when it comes to trusting these devices, though:
1. all estimates are estimates, regardless of the method by which they are derived. your mileage may vary for a number of reasons.
2. estimates using heart rate are, at heart (pun intended), estimates using mathematical formulae that estimate oxygen usage. that fact drives alot of the points you've already made about WHEN HR-based calculations are at their most accurate.
3. Since heart rate is one of the main inputs to the equation, an accurate one is necessary to get the most accurate output. At this point in time, chest bands are still more accurate overall than wrist or arm-based measurements, although alot of investment and research is going into trying to change that. Mio, for instance, has some technology that they claim is more accurate for a greater number of people. Tightening the wrist band is probably the best thing a user can do at this point to try to get a more accurate number.
4. This is a science in its infancy, and I would agree that the marketing may be running ahead of the research. Its hard to judge (for me) since so much of the research is proprietary. But this is just another flag saying "enjoy it, use it responsibly, but don't set your heart rate monitor wrist watch by it."
Sorry, one more thing I wanted to add: Even devices with heart rate monitors built in don't always use them to estimate overall calorie burn. They can switch from calculating method to calculating method based on what the device thinks you are doing. This is obviously most clear when you set the device with a particular activity (i.e, "tell" it that you are walking, running, etc.). I would say that people should check out how your device or desired device works on this point.0 -
sheermomentum wrote: »I've noticed that you're not a huge fan of heart-rate based calorie calculations. But, I don't think its entirely fair to call it a "triumph of marketing."
Heart rate based data can be useful in training, and it's useful to be able to use it where it's appropriate and meaningful.
Being a Chartered Engineer with Masters in control engineering and MBA I tend to treat googly eyed marketeers with a higher degree of derision than they perhaps expect. But it's what they deserve. Third up against the wall come the time of the glorious revolution.This one is a white paper from FirstBeat, which is the company that developed the tech behind Garmin and other products, so I don't know how you'd feel about it:
fwiw the Firstbeat algorithms are pretty good, but the publications do go a bit further in their claims than I think the results warrant. Applicability of their samples to the general population is frequently a bit tenuous.3. Since heart rate is one of the main inputs to the equation, an accurate one is necessary to get the most accurate output. At this point in time, chest bands are still more accurate overall than wrist or arm-based measurements, although alot of investment and research is going into trying to change that. Mio, for instance, has some technology that they claim is more accurate for a greater number of people. Tightening the wrist band is probably the best thing a user can do at this point to try to get a more accurate number.
The Mio tech is pretty good, although there are more things that interfere with it than ECG based. I do appreciate that some people struggle with the chest strap, I know mine starts to chafe at about 10 miles of running, by 15 miles it's getting a bit painful. If I'm cycling I barely notice it. The Schoche Rhythm is pretty good, but expensive, as an alternative.
The challenge with the optical is the light susceptibility, and the Garmin implementation in the FR225 seems to work well; rubber skirt behind the watch. The whole issue about skin tone etc being a bit hit and miss is a frustration.Sorry, one more thing I wanted to add: Even devices with heart rate monitors built in don't always use them to estimate overall calorie burn. They can switch from calculating method to calculating method based on what the device thinks you are doing. This is obviously most clear when you set the device with a particular activity (i.e, "tell" it that you are walking, running, etc.). I would say that people should check out how your device or desired device works on this point.
When most people on here are talking about entry level devices like the FT4, H7 and Fitbit Charge HR etc the multiple input aspect isn't in the game. People ascribe near miffic qualities to entry level devices.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Being a Chartered Engineer with Masters in control engineering and MBA I tend to treat googly eyed marketeers with a higher degree of derision than they perhaps expect. But it's what they deserve. Third up against the wall come the time of the glorious revolution.
As a software engineer and manager with merely 1 MS, myself, I totally understand that marketeers are the enemy and must be stopped. But, seriously, if you do have research in hand on the topic, of any sort, perhaps a separate post or something would be nice if you have the time, some day. I'm quite fascinated by this stuff. And the Fitbit kool-aid is extremely potent. They also have very nifty software and are not afraid to invest significantly in upgrading and extending it. (Although right now I describe it as "tracking for people who don't want to know how it works." Like an Apple computer.) They're opening up their community to non-fitbit users, too, which is, IMO, freakin' genius. I don't own one yet, but, but, but...the emotional pull is getting stronger. I'm surrounded by the damn things.0 -
The snag is most of the published research is quite narrow in the treatment, so much of what I say here is based on understanding the instrumentation science, then going back to first principles about what the instrumentation is measuring, and how that measurement is being used to extrapolate something else.
0 -
successgal1 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Can anyone give me their reviews on these/which may be better? I need to be able to find out my HR during cardio (a lot of running and other cardio) workouts and a big plus would be tracking distance on a run (eliminates need for a separate app). I don't really care about tracking my steps.
Vivofit is a step counter, not a GPS tracker.
VivoActive may be what you're after. It depends if you've drunk the FitBit Kool-aid around 24/7 optical HR tracking or not.
The reviews I've seen say that the VivoActive is a pretty solid device, although for the money you can get a Forerunner 310XT.
Lol @ FitBit Kool-Aid. No, I guess I don't see the point in tracking my HR all day. Just need to know it during cardio. I'm going to investigate this Forerunner and the Vivoactive. I'm not sure if I'd be irritated by a chest strap or not, though.
I track my heart rate all day as I know its a bit high. Exercise and losing weight should bring it back to what was my norm when I was younger and thinner. I'm finding it useful for gauging my stress and anxiety. My heart rate seems to be at a level of burning fat all day. I realize its probably not burning fat, its just too high. Seeing the rate keeps me on track with eating and exercise.
Have you seen your Dr. About the elevated RHR?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »More accurate calorie burn calculations, mostly. If I had to choose between accurate GPS and accurate HR I'd choose the GPS. Maybe one with an accurate GPS and a chest strap is how I should go.
HR as a reliable indicator of calorie expenditure is a triumph of marketing over reality to be honest. In a narrow set of circumstances HR can be a reliable indicator; steady state, aerobic range essentially.
I wrote a bit of an essay on it in another thread a few days ago, I think somewhere in the forum of woo (GD&WL), but broadly:- Cycling - power meter > GPS+HR > GPS > HR
- Running - GPS+HR> GPS > HR
- Circuit training/ classes - Body mass/time/ perceived effort
- Resistance training - Time/ perceived effort
Lots of people will chime in saying they use HR for stuff like resistance training and they've been losing weight. Once you dig into their claims you discover that they either don't eat their exercise cals back or use some kind of spurious and arbitrary method of reducing the cals by standing on one leg, facing downwind then dividing the measured cals by the colour of their hair and then eating back less than half of what they end up with. You'd be quicker and easier rolling two D10.
That said it is useful to be able to see how HR responds to training stimuli, so I'm not dismissing the use of it as a training tool. IT's just not a panacea with respect to calorie guestimation.
I literally only care/find HR monitoring useful during specific times of cardio such as running, kickboxing, etc. In those cases I believe it is the truest way to measure calorie burn when you take into account time, of course. I don't personally understand the point of step counting as to me walking around doing day to day business is your baseline and shouldn't be used to add calories. I'm an ER nurse who works 50 hours per week and I'm probably walking half of my shift so that's 6 hours of fast-paced walking per day that I'm at work. I'm sure I'd meet whatever "step quota" I need. Although I've never needed this technology to lose 86 lbs (4-9 to go), I want something for my personal fitness goals going into maintenance here soon.0 -
sheermomentum wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Being a Chartered Engineer with Masters in control engineering and MBA I tend to treat googly eyed marketeers with a higher degree of derision than they perhaps expect. But it's what they deserve. Third up against the wall come the time of the glorious revolution.
As a software engineer and manager with merely 1 MS, myself, I totally understand that marketeers are the enemy and must be stopped. But, seriously, if you do have research in hand on the topic, of any sort, perhaps a separate post or something would be nice if you have the time, some day. I'm quite fascinated by this stuff. And the Fitbit kool-aid is extremely potent. They also have very nifty software and are not afraid to invest significantly in upgrading and extending it. (Although right now I describe it as "tracking for people who don't want to know how it works." Like an Apple computer.) They're opening up their community to non-fitbit users, too, which is, IMO, freakin' genius. I don't own one yet, but, but, but...the emotional pull is getting stronger. I'm surrounded by the damn things.
At least with these marketeers there are people now motivated to move.0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »successgal1 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Can anyone give me their reviews on these/which may be better? I need to be able to find out my HR during cardio (a lot of running and other cardio) workouts and a big plus would be tracking distance on a run (eliminates need for a separate app). I don't really care about tracking my steps.
Vivofit is a step counter, not a GPS tracker.
VivoActive may be what you're after. It depends if you've drunk the FitBit Kool-aid around 24/7 optical HR tracking or not.
The reviews I've seen say that the VivoActive is a pretty solid device, although for the money you can get a Forerunner 310XT.
Lol @ FitBit Kool-Aid. No, I guess I don't see the point in tracking my HR all day. Just need to know it during cardio. I'm going to investigate this Forerunner and the Vivoactive. I'm not sure if I'd be irritated by a chest strap or not, though.
I track my heart rate all day as I know its a bit high. Exercise and losing weight should bring it back to what was my norm when I was younger and thinner. I'm finding it useful for gauging my stress and anxiety. My heart rate seems to be at a level of burning fat all day. I realize its probably not burning fat, its just too high. Seeing the rate keeps me on track with eating and exercise.
Have you seen your Dr. About the elevated RHR?
Yes, and thank you for caring. It was she who recommended healthy eating, losing weight and exercise. (Nothing else wrong with me)
I'm 2 weeks into calorie counting and exercise and already my rhr is lower.
As for the discussion, if I'm fresh out of a hot shower or working on my 5th batch of Christmas cookies with a hot kitchen and my heart rate is 105 I'm not assuming I'm in fat burning mode. I'm just hot. When I go for a bike ride or any other actual planned workout, then I let the fitbit charge hr know. Push the button till it vibrates, begin workout. Push till it vibrates again to stop. That's the only heart rate and calorie burn I count. I don't eat back all of my exercise calories unless my body tells me to. I don't use a fancy calculation, I may add a beer, or a serving of pasta, something I usually have to avoid on 1200 calories. If I eat back all workout calories on a regular basis I don't lose weight. Been there tried that. My other reason for monitoring heartrate is to keep me from overdoing it. I can get enthusiastic while biking, or doing step aerobics or what not. Monitoring lets me know when to back it up a notch.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions