Garmin Vivofit vs. Fitbit Charge HR

2»

Replies

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    mommarnurse wrote: »
    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.

    As with any of these things it's a useful tool in some circumstances for some people. If it motivates people to do more background level activity, then that's a benefit to them. It's also probably more appropriate than other tools for low intensity stuff. The number of people who get told on here that a Polar FT4 is the answer to work out calories burned whilst going for a walk is high. HR shouldn't be high enough when walking, so in that case a step counter is probably more useful than anything else.

    Personally I don't find that it tells me much I don't know already, but it can add a prompt to account for that. As an example when I work in London I'll hit 10k steps easily, yet when I'm in other offices I'll be on 2-3k steps. If those aren't run days, as yesterday when I did 4k steps, then that's a big hit on the calorie intake. That was a 250 calorie dent for me, so just over 10% of my net intake.

    As with all of these tools, it's about using them where they're useful and meaningful, and not using them when they're not.
  • sheermomentum
    sheermomentum Posts: 827 Member
    edited November 2015
    mommarnurse wrote: »
    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.

    I hope this is true. It certainly seems to be true of people who post on these boards. Its not true of my BF, who just HAD to have a Charge HR to "motivate" him to exercise, but still doesn't (tho he wears it 24/7, uses the calorie count, and logs food into the fitbit app). But the purist in me says that I just don't need to spend money to buy a tiny computer to tell me that I sit on my butt most of the day. I already know that. What changes that is changing it. And I already have free calculators for my energy expenditure without exercise, and its not like my activity level changes much on most days (especially in winter), so when you remove the draw of the marketing, social experience of sharing my love of my Fitbit, and the sense of sharing in the popularity, the Fitbit for me would be nothing but an unnecessary toy that, at best, would give me metrics that I already have and cost me money that I could use for other things. A weight bench and flashy new exercise clothes come quickly to mind, in my case. But I am still totally into their online software, and keeping a good eye on that company's progress as it extends its domination of the fitness world.

    P.S. If I do ever get one for myself, I will probably buy it used on ebay or craigslist at a decent discount. There's a fair number of them out there.
  • blackcoffeeandcherrypie
    blackcoffeeandcherrypie Posts: 486 Member
    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.

    On the Fitbit, you set both a walking stride and a running stride length. Since I did this, my distance is very accurate, whether I walk or run or both.

  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Just an FYI, for the Garmins, you can buy a foot pod that attaches to your shoe. That makes the accuracy spot on if you do a treadmill workout.
  • successgal1
    successgal1 Posts: 996 Member
    edited November 2015
    I am certain that for people who have already achieved a certain level of fitness, you know, where you don't have to worry too much about your heart exploding, then a fitbit or heart rate monitor of any kind might seem unnecessary. Certainly it wasn't for me way back when in 1994, when I was a size 6 doing 2 step aerobic workouts a day, with added weight. But, much older, and out of shape am I now. I really DON'T want to surpass a heart rate of 165 for an extended period of time. And that's easy for me to do when I hit sand with my bike on a dirt road, which is a mile long. (push it girl, you can DO IT!!!!) Or if I jumped on that step box and did the same workout now, at 184 lbs, I can do it, I have the leg muscles, but it could seriously put me in a heart rate zone I don't want to be in. Slower and steadier is better. When I'm more fit I will probably still use it to even reach 165. Its a VERY useful tool for me to monitor myself.

    Today I woke up to a resting heart rate of 69, which quickly modified to 73 but stayed stable. Much better then just 2 weeks ago when I was waking up to 89-96. Also, I like the sleep function. Still can't manage to stay asleep for more than 6-7 hours with lots of restlessness, but I think I need a new bed.
  • mommarnurse
    mommarnurse Posts: 515 Member
    successgal1 wrote: »
    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.

    How high is too high for you? And do you have a perceived feeling of being too intense at this number ? Just wondering.
  • successgal1
    successgal1 Posts: 996 Member
    Yes, at 165 I feel too high. Heart pounding, gasping for breath, I just feel its too much for the point of burning calories. When 165 feels like 155 breathing heavily but still able to talk, then I'll know its time to step it up. I'm trying to get up to 60 minutes at average of 155. Doing too much too fast has derailed my weight loss efforts in the past. I'm up to 40 minutes of cycling at 147 - 159. After 40 minutes my legs are numb. Yes I know, leg use and breathing are all telling me the same thing, but heart rate has a certain seriousness to it that helps me pay attention.
  • mommarnurse
    mommarnurse Posts: 515 Member
    I ended up choosing the Garmin Forerunner GPS watch with the chest strap for HR. Well , it's a xmas gift from my husband but it will be here to day before the thanksgiving 5k so I might as well break it in then! Thanks guys!
  • mommarnurse
    mommarnurse Posts: 515 Member
    successgal1 wrote: »
    Yes, at 165 I feel too high. Heart pounding, gasping for breath, I just feel its too much for the point of burning calories. When 165 feels like 155 breathing heavily but still able to talk, then I'll know its time to step it up. I'm trying to get up to 60 minutes at average of 155. Doing too much too fast has derailed my weight loss efforts in the past. I'm up to 40 minutes of cycling at 147 - 159. After 40 minutes my legs are numb. Yes I know, leg use and breathing are all telling me the same thing, but heart rate has a certain seriousness to it that helps me pay attention.

    I have no idea what my hr is at that max. When I'm running it seems like my breathing is never an issue. I can go up hills and yes I feel it but the thing that happens to.me is I feel generally tired after a while not from lack of breath or my legs feeling tired.

Categories