Fitness Trackers

BoomTheP

So I’ve Apple everything and am debating between 3 series watch or a Fitbit Alta I’ve read a good bit and everyone seems to favour Fitbit. Any feedback on 3 series watch from a cardio weights tracking capability does it monitor HR and sleep? Thanks in advance

MelanieCN77

The AW for sure can monitor sleep and of course has a HRM. You will likely have to charge it at least a little every day if you want to wear it overnight, or unless you are ok with leaving the house in the morning with 50% battery.

For weights, you can use "other" workout but might have better results with a third party app specifically for strength as the calorie burns are a crapshoot. For cardio I find it accurate in terms of eating back the cals it tells me I burned, as I lost 40lbs using the data.

People probably like Fitbit better as it tells them they burned more calories, and because it's trendy to not like Apple. Also if you don't have an iPhone the AW is hobbled.

If you're coming from a Fitbit background, the AW is very different. It doesn't really care about steps and its goals are built on proprietary math.

heybales

If it's the updated software and you can select Weight Lifting already in the list of workouts, it's more correctly using non-HR-based and non-step-based calorie burn, basically the more accurate database burn rate.

I haven't kept track of which models were updated though to support that better method.

MelanieCN77

heybales wrote: »

If it's the updated software and you can select Weight Lifting already in the list of workouts, it's more correctly using non-HR-based and non-step-based calorie burn, basically the more accurate database burn rate.

I haven't kept track of which models were updated though to support that better method.

Can you point me to where you found that info? About the weights workout using different metrics? I don't see weight lifting, only workout names I've used before as "other" and named them, and everything is up to date. I believed the workout app got a cosmetic makeover only, notwithstanding the add workout feature.

heybales

Normally it was just a mere text label - the workout still used HR-based calorie burn.

And totally inflated for anaerobic effort like that with HR up and down.

I had someone test.

They did their lifting of exactly the same workout 2 times, the avgHR ended up being the same.
One time they selected Weight Training.
One time they selected Running.

Vastly difference.

And the weight training was right around the MET's database entry of 3.5 x their Mifflin BMR.

MelanieCN77

Running was one of the ones we know has it's own metrics, a true test would have put "weight lifting" against "HIIT" or "skating" or "yoga" or whatever, as I still believe they are all just labels for Other and use the same data, or even just plain "other" would have been the useful.

heybales

All the others used HR-based calorie burn just like lifting used to. And indeed the activity name is just text label.

They don't use distance in the formula for Running though (unless you manually created a Workout Record), but rather just HR. So still a valid test.

If a non-HR model or HR is disabled, then it's pace based.

From the screen shot I saw, running, and the others, still show up as Activity Records - which are merely showing whatever stats Fitbit device came up with for steps, distance, calorie burn, HR, during that block of time.

The lifting was a workout record though, a replacement of stats, not merely viewing them.

I'd have to find the thread for which model, but it was a newer one, which also attempted to pick the correct name for the activity based on initial movements.

I know there were some between models which allowed picking workout type names, but last I heard had not been improved to auto-pick them.

MelanieCN77

Sorry, you tested the Fitbit or the Apple Watch?

BoomTheP

As I have all Apple products I’ve asked “Santa Clause” for a new AP 3 series so hopefully come Christmas time I will be the proud owner of it......!!!!

Thanks very much for all the feedback