Garmin Vivofit vs. Fitbit Charge HR
Options
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions