Fitness trackers and weight training?

chloeealicee

With black Friday approaching I was considering buying a fitness tracker, more specifically the fitbit charge hr.

I tend to do more strength and circuit training than running. Will the fitbit be suited to tracking this kind of excercise?

Even in the sale it's still quite pricey so I'm hesitant if I'll use it to full potential.

Thanks:D

FrankWhite27330

I dont have one but everyone says Chest HRM over all wrist band style "fitness" monitor/trackers

I want one for Christmas too..

morkiemama

HRMs are for tracking steady state cardio only. It is important to note that HRMs are not accurate for weight lifting and will not give you an accurate burn. They are also not meant for HIIT. Temperature extremes and daily burn tracking (e.g. I wear it all day to find out what I should be taking in) are also inaccurate. HRMs are for steady state aerobic exercise only!

This is a helpful blog post for understanding HRMs:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

HRMs are not 100% accurate even when they are used for their intended purpose (steady state cardio). They still have a margin of error. That being said, when HRMs are used for purposes they are not intended for they can become grossly inaccurate. It really isn't much better than pulling a number out of nowhere if the device is being used for things it was never designed to handle.

Fitbits are still useful as activity trackers in my opinion, but it is important to recognize what various devices are intended to be used for.

chloeealicee

@morkiemama that was really good answer thank you:)
i think i might hold of for now it that case

cyronius

morkiemama wrote: »

HRMs are for tracking steady state cardio only. [...]daily burn tracking (e.g. I wear it all day to find out what I should be taking in) are also inaccurate.

That's not correct as far as daily burn tracking goes. Daily burn is pretty accurate precisely because your daily activities are all steady state cardio. Sitting in a chair in the office? Steady state cardio. Very very low impact cardio, but that's not so relevant. What is relevant is that it's steady state, so you can get a reasonable estimate of the burn. Walking around the office? Steady state low impact cardio.

Of course, as you point out HIIT, temperature extremes, weights etc can't be tracked accurately, so they can throw your daily burn off depending on how much of your day they impact, but that doesn't make the daily burn itself the problem.

brianpperkins

cyronius wrote: »

morkiemama wrote: »

HRMs are for tracking steady state cardio only. [...]daily burn tracking (e.g. I wear it all day to find out what I should be taking in) are also inaccurate.

That's not correct as far as daily burn tracking goes. Daily burn is pretty accurate precisely because your daily activities are all steady state cardio. Sitting in a chair in the office? Steady state cardio. Very very low impact cardio, but that's not so relevant. What is relevant is that it's steady state, so you can get a reasonable estimate of the burn. Walking around the office? Steady state low impact cardio.

Of course, as you point out HIIT, temperature extremes, weights etc can't be tracked accurately, so they can throw your daily burn off depending on how much of your day they impact, but that doesn't make the daily burn itself the problem.

Sitting in a chair is not a steady state cardiovascular exercise. Nothing in your post reflects how a HRM estimates caloric burn.

cyronius

brianpperkins wrote: »

Sitting in a chair is not a steady state cardiovascular exercise. Nothing in your post reflects how a HRM estimates caloric burn.

Sitting in a chair is not "exercise" in the traditional sense, but it is steady state, and thus allows for a relatively accurate estimate.

Nothing in your post reflects how a HRM estimates caloric burn.

Nothing in my post went in to detail about how a HRM estimates caloric burn, so that's hardly surprising.

All I said was that being idle and walking (the things that make up the bulk of most peoples days) are steady state activities, so the HRM can track them as effectively as running and other steady state cardio exercise. Your HR when at a desk at work is slightly higher than your resting HR, and that's because you're burning slightly more energy than when at rest. Given that your HR during this time is consistent and steady state, what reason do you have to believe that a HRM couldn't make accurate predictions from it? Certainly nothing in the linked article supports your claim...

I should also note that the article in question is now 5 years old, and HR technology has come a long way. All day devices that track your weight, gender, resting HR etc and use them as part of your burn calculation are commonly available. And whilst they have to estimate maximum HR and VO2max, barring outliers, those estimates are close enough to get the job done.