Heart rate monitor wrist placement?

Christine_72

I have the Fitbit Charge2 which i wear like a regular watch, around 1 finger space above my wrist bone. I have read that when doing intentional exercise that you should place it 2 finger width above the wrist bone. I never really payed attention to this instruction, but decided to try it this morning...

Well, my average beats per minute went from max 120ish pm, up to 190ish, and i spent a lot of time in peak and cardio mode, I'm usually in one or the other for 5 minutes (if that) during my walks lol Due to this i burnt quite a few more calories.
Now i know the zones don't mean anything for myself, an average joe exerciser, but i got a quite a few more exercise calories than usual, which i am concerned about as I think my fitbit overestimates slightly as it is.

My questions are, do you switch your tracker position when you start exercising? Why did i get a lot more calories awarded for the exact same intensity as usual by just moving my fitbit up slightly on my wrist?

capaul42

I don't move my Fitbit when exercising, but I also wear it so the tracker is on the inside of my wrist as I always found watches to be more comfortable that way.

GemstoneofHeart

I know this isn’t quite what you asked but have you ever considered a chest HRM instead? I think the wrist ones are okay for wearing around daily for steps and the like, but if you want a more accurate count for actual exercise, a chest HRM is better. I have a Polar H7 and I LOVE it. Nothing is perfect however I find it to be much more accurate than the wrist ones. Again, you only wear it when doing an actual exercise, not around all day, but it’s something I no longer can live without!

heybales

I would confirm that reading.
Like next workout when in the new position, get it up to 120, and take pulse at neck or wrist and confirm 30 beats in 15 sec.

If not actually that high, so the reading is incorrect, no need to test higher.

If it is that high, try to get up to 160, and confirm the 40 beats/15 sec.

If accurate, then it's likely getting up that high - you have a Honda heart, revs higher than avg.
Probably benefit from changing the HRmax stat on personal settings.

That would help the inflated calorie burn.

Because right now if it thinks say an avgHR of 180 is 100% of HRmax it calculates at 180 - that's massive calorie burn.

But if better HRmax figure is say 210, then it's not that high in comparison.

Christine_72

Thanks guys. I shall do some tinkering.

sarahthes

The wrist trackers are considered to be fairy accurate at measuring heart rate when positioned correctly.

HOWEVER, they are really bad at extrapolating that into caloric burn. Eat (all) the extra calories with caution!

SummerSkier

GemstoneofHeart wrote: »

I know this isn’t quite what you asked but have you ever considered a chest HRM instead? I think the wrist ones are okay for wearing around daily for steps and the like, but if you want a more accurate count for actual exercise, a chest HRM is better. I have a Polar H7 and I LOVE it. Nothing is perfect however I find it to be much more accurate than the wrist ones. Again, you only wear it when doing an actual exercise, not around all day, but it’s something I no longer can live without!

I actually did both the FitbitHR and a Polar on my runs for a few months (until the chest strap kept falling down...) and I found them to be fairly spot on with the same avg reading or within just a few points. I don't move my fitbit for running but I do tighten it up a notch on my wrist when I am more active. It was an experiment of sorts as I had thought the wrist might be less accurate than the chest strap. For me it was the same.

scorpio516

HR has nothing to do with calorie burn running

Christine_72

I tested it out again this morning, same walk, same wrist placement,( 2finger width, instead of one) and i got my usual range heartbeat. Twas maybe a glitch...

@scorpio516 yeah i know HR doesn't correlate to calorie burn, was just curious on the huge discrepancy by simply moving my fitbit up an inch.