Stick to Fitbit Charge 2 HR or switch to Apple Watch?

rianneonamission

Just that really. It's got to be good for outdoor runs, the odd treadmill walk, and weights sessions in the gym. I like having the HR data from my Charge 2 as it gives me an insight to where I am from a fitness perspective.

Especially those who have used both watches, which one do you prefer and why?

Edit: The reason I am looking in to the Apple watch is because A) I can get one cheaply and, B.) I like the idea of not taking my phone with me on a run.

rianneonamission

Anyone?

cwolfman13

Depends on what you want really...the Apple watch is a fantastic smart watch with some decent fitness tracking capabilities. If it were me, I'd go with a Garmin (I've been contemplating the Vivioactive 3)...outstanding fitness trackers with decent smart watch capabilities...but that's mostly because I'm more into the fitness aspect than the smart watch aspect...so it really just depends on what you're after in that category.

Hard to compare the Charge 2 to either the Garmin or Apple watch...completely different animals.

jams123

Having owned both my thoughts are as follows:
Fitbit is more of a fitness tracker/ apple watch is more of a smart watch with fitness tracking capabilities
Fitbit tracks your heart rate all day continuously/ apple watch only does it every 10 min unless you are on exercise mode.
Fitbit app is much better and easier to navigate and understand / apple watch stats are spread between the health kit and the activity app.
Fitbit shows you the entire calories burnt during exercise/apple watch shows the net calories burnt (exercise - normal calories burned if you don't do anything) as well as the total.
Fitbit notifications not as good as apple: In the apple watch you can get all notification/ easy to read and action.
Fitbit lasts for week and can also track sleep. Apple watch needs to be charged every night (or every second night depending on use).
Fitbit doesn't have the ability to store and play music. Apple watch does
Fitbit is not waterproof (unless you get the charge 3)/ apple watch is (provided you go for version 2 and above)
In all after i changed to apple watch i would never go back to the Fitbit. Simply because i find apple much more easier to use/ more responsive and i can use it as both smart watch and fitness tracker. i also like the fact that it does show you the net calories so you don't overestimate. Since it has built in GPS and can store and play music i can use it during exercise (walk/run) without having to use my phone. This is very handy when swimming in open water and when you go for a walk/run in the beech.
But at the end of the day is down to what you want to do with it and its a personal preference

_mr_b

My dad’s had an Apple Watch up until yesterday. He’s now got a Garmin Vivoactive 3.

His reasons were: Apple Watch battery life is woeful, track one activity and it’s done, it’ll last a day if he doesn’t track anything. He’s never paid for anything using it. It’s useless at tracking steps. It’s not waterproof. He does like the screen though, the colours were nice.

He couldn’t justify the spend on a new Apple Watch, it does watch stuff well but it’s no fitness tracker and it’s certainly not a sports watch.

So, if you want a smart watch, an Apple Watch is a nice bit of tech. If you want a fitness watch with smart notifications, get something more up to the job.

rianneonamission

Thanks for the feedback! I'll have to think a bit longer then. I love my Fitbit, but I do miss the GPS capability (despite never having had it) as I loathe having to take my phone out with me when I go for a run. The reason the Apple watch is near the top of my list is because I can get a cheap deal through my health insurance, and the deal gets better the more active I am (talk about incentive). I was hoping the Charge 3 would come with built in GPS as opposed to connected GPS, but no joy. And I am reluctant to pay >£200 for the Versa or Ionic when I can get an Apple watch for potentially £29.

Appreciate the comments on the HR on the Apple, as I rather like that feature and use it to work on reducing my naturally higher than average HR.

rianneonamission

@_mr_b Yeah, the fitness functionality is something I really do look for, so I am not sure such rubbish battery life is worth it. The other thing I like (being female and a corporate office worker) is the ability to change straps which the Garmin/Polar/Nokia ranges don't offer.

Sounds like that, despite it being financially good, it likely won't suit me.

NorthCascades

It takes 30 seconds to change straps on a Garmin. I have about a dozen (cheap ones from Amazon) in every color of the rainbow. I use the yellow strap when it's dark and rainy to have some color, etc.

ritzvin

google dcrainmaker if you want very detailed reviews on a variety of sport watches (I don't know if he also has reviews on smart watches with fitness tracking and/or step/fitness trackers, but he might). What you prefer will depend on specific features that are important to you (including battery life, what auto-syncs to where, etc).

If you think you'll get more into running (and possibly wanting to pre-plan course routes/speed interval training/check more detailed running dynamics like cadence or vertical oscillation/etc), then you may want something more sports watch than either of those 2 products.

pondee629

rianneonamission wrote: »

Just that really. It's got to be good for outdoor runs, the odd treadmill walk, and weights sessions in the gym. I like having the HR data from my Charge 2 as it gives me an insight to where I am from a fitness perspective.

Especially those who have used both watches, which one do you prefer and why?

Edit: The reason I am looking in to the Apple watch is because A) I can get one cheaply and, B.) I like the idea of not taking my phone with me on a run.

I like having my phone with me on a run on the off chance of getting injured or otherwise needing to call for assistance. Garmin Forerunner to keep track, I-Phone for tunes and emergencies.