Done with FitBit--alternatives?
Replies
-
I have a wrist tracker because I'm not going to take my phone with me everywhere I go. Call me old-fashioned or whatnot, but I actually do things without my phone. Heck, often I don't have pockets, especially when I'm at work.
I'm looking at new ones ATM, I might upgrade to a newer Fitbit, but I'm shopping around first.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WeAreTheMassacre wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »
I have charge 2. After reading all of this I really think I should return it while I can
FitBit has a great app and community compared to all the others, but yeah people do go through a lot of devices. But guess what? Doesn't matter; theyre dirt cheap on sale and customer service is one of the best out there. I've had 2 replacements in 6 years, longgg after my warranty and they replaced it no questions asked. Heck, me and my friends even told them we had a Fitbit Blaze that stopped working after a month and they replaced it without a receipt or without making us ship ours to them. By the way, we never actually owned a FitBit Blaze; we were just poor, selfish jerks looking for free stuff, and it worked. YOLO!
We're talking about $150 devices that replicate the functionality of free apps.
Except that you don't have to carry around a honking huge phone 24/7 when you have a slim wristband instead. (also the $150 ones have the semi-useless HRM. Most without are less than $100)
Don't forget they also don't use data... or rely on G3/G4....
unlike the free apps
But the apps don't have gaudy bands, and display in a screen that isn't terrible. We were talking about what it must cost to build one given the price of the components, versus the cost they sell for.
HUH??? what are you talking about... There's nothing gaudy about the band on my Vivoactive and nothing terrible about the screen.
I'm talking about whether Fitbits are a good value or not. I don't know why it's such a hard idea to grasp.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WeAreTheMassacre wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »
I have charge 2. After reading all of this I really think I should return it while I can
FitBit has a great app and community compared to all the others, but yeah people do go through a lot of devices. But guess what? Doesn't matter; theyre dirt cheap on sale and customer service is one of the best out there. I've had 2 replacements in 6 years, longgg after my warranty and they replaced it no questions asked. Heck, me and my friends even told them we had a Fitbit Blaze that stopped working after a month and they replaced it without a receipt or without making us ship ours to them. By the way, we never actually owned a FitBit Blaze; we were just poor, selfish jerks looking for free stuff, and it worked. YOLO!
We're talking about $150 devices that replicate the functionality of free apps.
Except that you don't have to carry around a honking huge phone 24/7 when you have a slim wristband instead. (also the $150 ones have the semi-useless HRM. Most without are less than $100)
Don't forget they also don't use data... or rely on G3/G4....
unlike the free apps
But the apps don't have gaudy bands, and display in a screen that isn't terrible. We were talking about what it must cost to build one given the price of the components, versus the cost they sell for.
HUH??? what are you talking about... There's nothing gaudy about the band on my Vivoactive and nothing terrible about the screen.
I'm talking about whether Fitbits are a good value or not. I don't know why it's such a hard idea to grasp.
Sure the apps are cheap, but the phone I can run them on cost me over $1,000. Where does that come into it?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WeAreTheMassacre wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »
I have charge 2. After reading all of this I really think I should return it while I can
FitBit has a great app and community compared to all the others, but yeah people do go through a lot of devices. But guess what? Doesn't matter; theyre dirt cheap on sale and customer service is one of the best out there. I've had 2 replacements in 6 years, longgg after my warranty and they replaced it no questions asked. Heck, me and my friends even told them we had a Fitbit Blaze that stopped working after a month and they replaced it without a receipt or without making us ship ours to them. By the way, we never actually owned a FitBit Blaze; we were just poor, selfish jerks looking for free stuff, and it worked. YOLO!
We're talking about $150 devices that replicate the functionality of free apps.
Except that you don't have to carry around a honking huge phone 24/7 when you have a slim wristband instead. (also the $150 ones have the semi-useless HRM. Most without are less than $100)
Don't forget they also don't use data... or rely on G3/G4....
unlike the free apps
But the apps don't have gaudy bands, and display in a screen that isn't terrible. We were talking about what it must cost to build one given the price of the components, versus the cost they sell for.
HUH??? what are you talking about... There's nothing gaudy about the band on my Vivoactive and nothing terrible about the screen.
I'm talking about whether Fitbits are a good value or not. I don't know why it's such a hard idea to grasp.
Except the discussion is whether or not garmin is suitable or superior to fitbit as an alternative.0 -
Garmin Vivoactive HR. Downloadable apps and watch faces from the store for free, good battery life, water resistant (you can swim in it), can get notifications on it, syncs with MFP, good app for phone, good community, very customizable.1
-
MontyMuttland wrote: »I was using Garmin devices but fell out of love with them because of poor step tracking accuracy.
Walking is my main activity, but most of it I do at a sustained walking speed of 4-4.5mph.
At speeds above 3.5mph the Garmin devices I've used begin dropping steps, getting worse as you go faster.
Typically at 4.2mph only 55% of steps get recorded. That means over the course of an activity you "lose" almost half of your steps and the resulting data collected is garbage.
This affects both the Garmin Forerunner 35 and VivoactiveHR and may affect their other models too.
Therefore if you do a lot of walking at a faster pace I'd recommend steering well clear of Garmin products.
Garmin are aware of the issue but in the several months that I was dealing with them they failed to come up with a fix despite more than one software update.
I'm now using the Samsung Gearfit2. It's got all the functionality the OP is looking for and does a good job of tracking steps accurately. You can even store music on it and playback to Bluetooth headphones (no need to bring your phone when you head out for exercise).
Garmin user for years, totally not my experience. I used to run at a good clip (9 minute mile). Now I walk a lot.0 -
vivosmart hr+ has built in gps and isnt too bulky0
-
Sorry, I still love my FitBit Charge 2. Welps.0
-
FITBIT charge 2 all the way here. tried them all and sticking to it!0
-
I decided to go with the Garmin Vivoactive HR. It has multi sport mode, which I appreciate. I'm on day 3, so still playing around with it. So far I prefer the FitBit app, but I'm sure I'll get used to this one. I guess it's still learning, bc if I wear both the Fitbit and garmin, my HR is 10-15 bpm higher with garmin (manual timing is closer to Fitbit). So we shall see. Now I got the analog clock face I don't find it as hideous, though it is huge for a smaller woman (really do wish they had s/m/l bands instead of just regular/large. The tail comes up to the opposite side of the face).0
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WeAreTheMassacre wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »
I have charge 2. After reading all of this I really think I should return it while I can
FitBit has a great app and community compared to all the others, but yeah people do go through a lot of devices. But guess what? Doesn't matter; theyre dirt cheap on sale and customer service is one of the best out there. I've had 2 replacements in 6 years, longgg after my warranty and they replaced it no questions asked. Heck, me and my friends even told them we had a Fitbit Blaze that stopped working after a month and they replaced it without a receipt or without making us ship ours to them. By the way, we never actually owned a FitBit Blaze; we were just poor, selfish jerks looking for free stuff, and it worked. YOLO!
We're talking about $150 devices that replicate the functionality of free apps.
Except that you don't have to carry around a honking huge phone 24/7 when you have a slim wristband instead. (also the $150 ones have the semi-useless HRM. Most without are less than $100)
Don't forget they also don't use data... or rely on G3/G4....
unlike the free apps
But the apps don't have gaudy bands, and display in a screen that isn't terrible. We were talking about what it must cost to build one given the price of the components, versus the cost they sell for.
HUH??? what are you talking about... There's nothing gaudy about the band on my Vivoactive and nothing terrible about the screen.
I'm talking about whether Fitbits are a good value or not. I don't know why it's such a hard idea to grasp.
Sure the apps are cheap, but the phone I can run them on cost me over $1,000. Where does that come into it?
The point I'm trying to make is that it probably costs $10 to build a Fitbit. If you can get all of the functionality out of a $30 phone that also has a screen etc, then it can't cost very much to put the same things into a bracelet.
I'm not saying everybody should use an app. I'm not saying you should have a cheap phone. I'm saying I don't feel like a Fitbit is a great value at $150 in light of them being so inexpensive to make.0 -
I got Garmin vovosmar hr plus yesterday to replace my Fitbit charge 2 and I hate it. I hate the design, the screen, I hate that when I pushed my stroller for an hour it gave me 3 lazy move bars....while I was working out my phone was glitching and starting to play music probably because I hit the music button on the watch while jumping I don't know ( don't think so). The only positive is that it's waterproof but I can leave without it.
Also, I can't find biking feature anyewhere on the watch or the app. The app is super dark and complicated lol
I am gonna stick with my Fitbit since it works just fine.0 -
I got Garmin vovosmar hr plus yesterday to replace my Fitbit charge 2 and I hate it. I hate the design, the screen, I hate that when I pushed my stroller for an hour it gave me 3 lazy move bars....while I was working out my phone was glitching and starting to play music probably because I hit the music button on the watch while jumping I don't know ( don't think so). The only positive is that it's waterproof but I can leave without it.
Also, I can't find biking feature anyewhere on the watch or the app. The app is super dark and complicated lol
I am gonna stick with my Fitbit since it works just fine.
girl, take it back and get your money back.1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »I got Garmin vovosmar hr plus yesterday to replace my Fitbit charge 2 and I hate it. I hate the design, the screen, I hate that when I pushed my stroller for an hour it gave me 3 lazy move bars....while I was working out my phone was glitching and starting to play music probably because I hit the music button on the watch while jumping I don't know ( don't think so). The only positive is that it's waterproof but I can leave without it.
Also, I can't find biking feature anyewhere on the watch or the app. The app is super dark and complicated lol
I am gonna stick with my Fitbit since it works just fine.
girl, take it back and get your money back.
Lol, that's the plan;)))0 -
SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »1mumrevolution wrote: »Hmmm. I'm on my second Fitbit within a year. The strap sepArated from the unit. Completely ripped away. It was replaced no problem but wonder how long it'll last before it breaks again. I love the functions on the Fitbit but when this one dies, I'm going for new Polar running watch.
Same happened to me. First it stopped swiping. Then half of the band broke off and THEN the remainder of the band popped off. OF COURSE it was no longer under warranty
I'd still contact Fitbit. I'm in Europe and while their product might be a bit iffy, their customer service was fantastic.
1 -
gradchica27 wrote: »Anyone have another tracker they love? I would like HR, gps would be nice, and must sync well with MFP of course. My main activities are lifting, walking/general cardio, occasionally biking. I'd prefer something under $200-250. Reading online reviews is just making me nuts. Thanks!
I realize that this thread has focused on a number of modestly priced activity trackers, but given your stated requirements and interest in multisport capabilities, you might consider a Garmin multisport watch, such as the 920xt. Current online pricing for the 920 including chest strap HRM runs around $200-$250. The 920 tracks indoor and outdoor swim, bike, run training, as well as other activities you define, such as using an elliptical machine. Of course there is an activity tracker to count steps. The Garmin syncs well with MFP and other apps, such as Training Peaks. I recognize this device may be a bit more than you "need", but with prices dropping, this device has gone from a $499 price point to $200 as newer models have been introduced.
It may also be a bit too big and clunky looking for your taste, but I now wear my 920 every day to work as well as for training.
0 -
gradchica27 wrote: »I decided to go with the Garmin Vivoactive HR. It has multi sport mode, which I appreciate. I'm on day 3, so still playing around with it. So far I prefer the FitBit app, but I'm sure I'll get used to this one. I guess it's still learning, bc if I wear both the Fitbit and garmin, my HR is 10-15 bpm higher with garmin (manual timing is closer to Fitbit). So we shall see. Now I got the analog clock face I don't find it as hideous, though it is huge for a smaller woman (really do wish they had s/m/l bands instead of just regular/large. The tail comes up to the opposite side of the face).
I have one of these straps on my earlier non HRM Vivoactive and I love it. My skin hates the bands that come with them and now I wouldn't use anything else. Obviously this is UK Amazon but you'll no doubt find them elsewhere.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01M4FLRFZ/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1FR50TYHS3HVS&coliid=I1CN9UQ5QLET1L&psc=10 -
MontyMuttland wrote: »I was using Garmin devices but fell out of love with them because of poor step tracking accuracy.
Walking is my main activity, but most of it I do at a sustained walking speed of 4-4.5mph.
At speeds above 3.5mph the Garmin devices I've used begin dropping steps, getting worse as you go faster.
Typically at 4.2mph only 55% of steps get recorded. That means over the course of an activity you "lose" almost half of your steps and the resulting data collected is garbage.
This affects both the Garmin Forerunner 35 and VivoactiveHR and may affect their other models too.
Therefore if you do a lot of walking at a faster pace I'd recommend steering well clear of Garmin products.
Garmin are aware of the issue but in the several months that I was dealing with them they failed to come up with a fix despite more than one software update.
I'm now using the Samsung Gearfit2. It's got all the functionality the OP is looking for and does a good job of tracking steps accurately. You can even store music on it and playback to Bluetooth headphones (no need to bring your phone when you head out for exercise).
Garmin user for years, totally not my experience. I used to run at a good clip (9 minute mile). Now I walk a lot.
Please feel free to test it out as I've described it, it's 100% repeatable on the Forerunner 35 and VivoactiveHR.
Walk for 1 mile at a sustained walking pace around 3mph, checking total step count before and after so you can calculate how many steps the device records for the activity.
Then walk the same mile back again at a sustained walking pace above 4mph, again checking total step count before and after so you can calculate how many steps the device recorded for the activity.
Compare the two step counts.
For the VivoactiveHR you can actually monitor the step count as you're walking as well.
Try manually counting 100 steps and compare it to what the screen says (first at 3mph, then at 4mph).
0 -
I'm pretty lucky with fitness gadgets I guess. I have 4 fitbits and they're all still working years later. If my current one (Alta) dies on me I can just switch back to Charge HR (replaced it because I wanted something smaller and did not use the heart rate feature anyway). I've been using the Alta for over a year and it's still going strong. The only complaint with fitbit is their annoying proprietary chargers. They're finicky and after a while the connectors start acting up.0
-
The Garmin vivoactive hr is the only one that's really hit all my requirements. I wish it was a little more flush to the wrist though. I'm happy with my fitbit flex 2, but when/if it dies I'm switching to Garmin.0
-
MontyMuttland wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »I was using Garmin devices but fell out of love with them because of poor step tracking accuracy.
Walking is my main activity, but most of it I do at a sustained walking speed of 4-4.5mph.
At speeds above 3.5mph the Garmin devices I've used begin dropping steps, getting worse as you go faster.
Typically at 4.2mph only 55% of steps get recorded. That means over the course of an activity you "lose" almost half of your steps and the resulting data collected is garbage.
This affects both the Garmin Forerunner 35 and VivoactiveHR and may affect their other models too.
Therefore if you do a lot of walking at a faster pace I'd recommend steering well clear of Garmin products.
Garmin are aware of the issue but in the several months that I was dealing with them they failed to come up with a fix despite more than one software update.
I'm now using the Samsung Gearfit2. It's got all the functionality the OP is looking for and does a good job of tracking steps accurately. You can even store music on it and playback to Bluetooth headphones (no need to bring your phone when you head out for exercise).
Garmin user for years, totally not my experience. I used to run at a good clip (9 minute mile). Now I walk a lot.
Please feel free to test it out as I've described it, it's 100% repeatable on the Forerunner 35 and VivoactiveHR.
Walk for 1 mile at a sustained walking pace around 3mph, checking total step count before and after so you can calculate how many steps the device records for the activity.
Then walk the same mile back again at a sustained walking pace above 4mph, again checking total step count before and after so you can calculate how many steps the device recorded for the activity.
Compare the two step counts.
For the VivoactiveHR you can actually monitor the step count as you're walking as well.
Try manually counting 100 steps and compare it to what the screen says (first at 3mph, then at 4mph).
I get between 1800 and 2200 steps per mile at 3 and at 4.5 mph. consistently over the last year. That's with a Garmin Vivoactive.... I can't speak the the HR, but the HR hasn't even been out for a full year.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »MontyMuttland wrote: »I was using Garmin devices but fell out of love with them because of poor step tracking accuracy.
Walking is my main activity, but most of it I do at a sustained walking speed of 4-4.5mph.
At speeds above 3.5mph the Garmin devices I've used begin dropping steps, getting worse as you go faster.
Typically at 4.2mph only 55% of steps get recorded. That means over the course of an activity you "lose" almost half of your steps and the resulting data collected is garbage.
This affects both the Garmin Forerunner 35 and VivoactiveHR and may affect their other models too.
Therefore if you do a lot of walking at a faster pace I'd recommend steering well clear of Garmin products.
Garmin are aware of the issue but in the several months that I was dealing with them they failed to come up with a fix despite more than one software update.
I'm now using the Samsung Gearfit2. It's got all the functionality the OP is looking for and does a good job of tracking steps accurately. You can even store music on it and playback to Bluetooth headphones (no need to bring your phone when you head out for exercise).
Garmin user for years, totally not my experience. I used to run at a good clip (9 minute mile). Now I walk a lot.
Please feel free to test it out as I've described it, it's 100% repeatable on the Forerunner 35 and VivoactiveHR.
Walk for 1 mile at a sustained walking pace around 3mph, checking total step count before and after so you can calculate how many steps the device records for the activity.
Then walk the same mile back again at a sustained walking pace above 4mph, again checking total step count before and after so you can calculate how many steps the device recorded for the activity.
Compare the two step counts.
For the VivoactiveHR you can actually monitor the step count as you're walking as well.
Try manually counting 100 steps and compare it to what the screen says (first at 3mph, then at 4mph).
I get between 1800 and 2200 steps per mile at 3 and at 4.5 mph. consistently over the last year. That's with a Garmin Vivoactive.... I can't speak the the HR, but the HR hasn't even been out for a full year.
I have months of test data stored on Garmin Connect. I'm also doing 1800+ steps per mile, accurately recorded at 3mph.
However, once my pace exceeds 4mph it drops to around 1000+ steps recorded per mile.
When I became aware of the issue at the start of this year whilst using a Forerunner 35, I contacted Garmin about it and after collecting some test data from me they replaced the device believing it to be faulty.
The second Forerunner was exactly the same.
I then upgraded to the VivoavtiveHR and discovered it was just as bad.
Garmin have had access to all my data on Garmin Connect and I've done many test walks specifically for them to analyse the results.
It's hard to argue with a graph showing that I apparently do less steps per minute when walking at 4.5mph than I do when walking at 3mph, despite the obvious fact that in order to walk faster I have to put one foot in front of the other quicker.
Of course it's not impossible that I've had three faulty devices and that others perform better, but if that's the case it doesn't say a lot about the quality of the Garmin products.
Either way, I got fed up with the rubbish data I was getting from my walks so I ditched Garmin and got a Samsung GearFit2 instead.
So far its' performance is spot on. It's got all the functionality of the VivoactiveHR too, but less bulky and far better looking.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions