Fitbit vs Polar

Do you want a pedometer, or a heart rate monitor? They're two different pieces of equipment. They don't do the same thing.

(I personally have both. The Polar is my HRM during my workouts. My Fitbit is for general daily energy output and counting steps.)

I have both. My polar exaggerates my calorie burn (IMO), but it's good to gage how hard I'm working. My fitbit is great, giving me a ballpark figure for my calories burned throughout the day, depending on how active I'm being. Two different things, but if I had to pick one? Fitbit.

They don't do the same thing. I have a fitbit and a wahoo blue hr. Having both a fitbit and a HRM would be very beneficial for you. If it is a question of what to get now get the fitbit first.

Honestly?

You don't "need" either for weight loss. Calorie estimation is just that - no way for a $100 device to accurately divine your actual calorie burn.

That said, as has been stated, they are for totally different purposes. Figure out which company you want to waste your money with.

Honestly?

You don't "need" either for weight loss. Calorie estimation is just that - no way for a $100 device to accurately divine your actual calorie burn.

That said, as has been stated, they are for totally different purposes. Figure out which company you want to waste your money with.

A bit cynical, are we?

I have both. If I had to give one up it would be the FitBit, because my exercise can range from swimming to mowing the lawn to long bike rides. I did a 31-mile bike ride yesterday with the FitBit Zip in my sock so it would pick up the motion and it said I went something like 6 miles. Ummm, I don't think so! The Polar FT7 said I burned over 1,400 calories. I like that number better.

I also wanted to mention that I've been working harder now that I know what my heart rate is when I exercise and that's helped a lot. I did a sprint triathlon in June and did the 9-mile bike ride 6.5 minutes faster than 2 years ago. Same course, same conditions, slightly older body, same bike. I call that priceless.

Heart Rate does not equal calorie burn.

<snip>
They are fun - nothing more. I've spent the money on them, too. I'm saying they are pretty much worthless for anything other than telling you a heart rate for XXX number of minutes. Not necessary and definitely not accurate.

If you mean there's no neat algorithm that provides an accurate calorie burn based on heart rate, age, weight, etc., I understand that. In my case, I'm stuck with some sort of electronic monitoring to verify workouts in my company's Wellness Program if I want to save close to $2K per year on health insurance premiums and accumulate points towards free shiny electronic toys and other gifts. Their attutude is "if it's not measured and uploaded, it didn't happen". FitBit and Polar devices are featured prominently on their Web site.

I'm an actuary and live with estimation and uncertainty every day. I will still maintain that these devices can give you a good idea of whether you're working harder or easier than yesterday, and the FitBit does a decent job of measuring steps walked. Both can be good incentives and, in my case, I will definitely ascribe my massive improvement in my bicycle time in the tri to the use of a HRM. OTOH, I did not head immediately for Dunkin' Donuts after getting calorie the readout from my 31-mile ride Saturday.

Yikes, sorry you had such a bad experience but many millions of other people have had great ones. For me, I tried the weight loss thing without an HRM and if you are someone who is really serious about your physical activity meaning you are doing more than walking around your block for 30-45 minutes a day than an HRM can be very helpful to you even needed to break through stalling/plateaus for some. For example I work out pretty often and hard I sometimes burn in excess of 1,000 calories however MFP estimations and gym machines low ball me significantly and without a more accurate reading I was doing two things that either slowed my progress or stopped it all together: 1) I was not working in my target heart rate zone and 2) I wasn’t eating enough calories. Those two things cause me to not burn as much fat and slow my metabolism by putting it in “starvation mode”. There were days I was negative calories based on what I was burning which was completely detrimental to my goal.

So long story short it all depends on what your goal is, if you are just starting out, or if you are more concerned with just becoming healthier and making smaller changes to your lifestyle that wil equal a healthier you over time then the FITbit is probably more than sufficient. If you are making more immediate drastic changes or are becoming really active (running, weight training, cycling, trx, yoga, ect most day s of the week possibly multiple times a day) then a HRM is better suited for you if you are trying to decide on one or the other. IMHO.

Honestly?

You don't "need" either for weight loss. Calorie estimation is just that - no way for a $100 device to accurately divine your actual calorie burn.

That said, as has been stated, they are for totally different purposes. Figure out which company you want to waste your money with.

A bit cynical, are we?

I have both. If I had to give one up it would be the FitBit, because my exercise can range from swimming to mowing the lawn to long bike rides. I did a 31-mile bike ride yesterday with the FitBit Zip in my sock so it would pick up the motion and it said I went something like 6 miles. Ummm, I don't think so! The Polar FT7 said I burned over 1,400 calories. I like that number better.

I also wanted to mention that I've been working harder now that I know what my heart rate is when I exercise and that's helped a lot. I did a sprint triathlon in June and did the 9-mile bike ride 6.5 minutes faster than 2 years ago. Same course, same conditions, slightly older body, same bike. I call that priceless.

Cynical about devices that cost a lot of money and don't give accurate data? Yes.

Heart Rate does not equal calorie burn.

You yourself have two devices and don't trust one at all. The one you do trust - um - do a little more research.

They are fun - nothing more. I've spent the money on them, too. I'm saying they are pretty much worthless for anything other than telling you a heart rate for XXX number of minutes. Not necessary and definitely not accurate.

Oh, another thing about HRM, it totally does serve a real purpose...working in your target zone is ideal for helping you burn more weight, I didn't really believe this until a running expert informed me that I was working WAY to high out of my zone and that while that was ok to do sometimes to get my cardiovascular health up that it was not helping me if my goal was weight/fat loss. So I took his advice for the next month, lowered my heart rate almost 25 points and my weight loss was consistently 2-2.5 week lbs that month. I didn't change anything else (besides try to make add another 100-150 calories to my diet) I lost almost 12 pounds that month and I was in my 3rd month of my weight loss journey...I am 5 foot 1! I'm just saying....it works for me.

Please use the search feature. This exact question has been asked a million times already. They are two completely different tools for two completely different purposes. The Fitbit is essentially a pedometer. It has no means of tracking your vitals and it bases your calorie burn by measuring sudden jarring movements as steps taken and converting it using a mathematical equation based on your height, weight, age, and gender. It cannot be used for any form of exercise that is not based on steps taken. A Heart Rate Monitor, on the other hand, tracks your vitals during higher intensity exercise and uses that to track calories burned.

The Fitbit can be worn all day and be used to give you a somewhat decent estimate of your TDEE.

The heart rate monitor is for wearing during exercise only.

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

What did you get at the end if you don't mind me asking