fit bit vs. polar, help!

Options
2»

Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    i think the Polars are better for those who do more strength training. I have a bodymedia band right now and the exercise burn during my weight sessions seems very low for the amount of effort i'm putting in. I'm planning to get a Polar as well. :)

    No HRM is valid for strength training for calorie burn estimates.

    The relationship between calorie burn and HR is only valid for aerobic steady-state exercise, meaning same HR for 2-4 minutes.

    Strength training is both anaerobic and non-steady-state - double incorrect usage. You'll get inflated calorie burns based on that high anaerobic HR increasing the average.
    As is intervals like HIIT if done correctly, wrong tool.

    For strength training, the MFP database is actually most correct, it may seem small compared to cardio, but that is exactly the case.

    You don't burn as many calories during the workout with strength training compared to decent level of cardio. But you do burn more after the workout for longer compared to cardio.
    The daily benefit usually outweights the workout difference.
    Especially since strength training will help retain muscle mass, cardio won't, during a deficit.

    If the BodyMedia sensors are working well for you, you should see elevated burn for hours after the workout on lifting, because your temp should be higher.
  • jaimrlx
    jaimrlx Posts: 426 Member
    Options
    I have the Polar FT4 and LOVE it. It's my new favorite toy. The way I see it the fitbit is meant for tracking your everyday movement, and the HRM is great for tracking any intense workouts that you do. I am looking to get a fitbit soon here to add to what I already have going.

    This. I use both a FB and an HRM for the same purposes. Fitbit give me a minimum goal to achieve daily; so many steps per day. Not terribly intensive for the most part, but it is a minimum. My Timex HRM gives me a more accurate reading of calories burned during strenuous activity, for which I find FitBit and the estimates on MFP lacking.

    So, you are using a Fitbit for your daily activity and the HRM for your workouts? Do you just take the Fitbit off during exercise? This sounds like what I'd like to achieve but I haven't quite figured how they'd work together.

    If you sync FitBit and MFP, as soon as your log a workout in MFP, say with the calorie burn the HRM told you, you give a time and duration of the workout.
    Those stats then overwrite what FitBit estimated as calorie burn for that time and duration on their site.
    Then another sync later will update MFP with how much more to eat based on your activity being more than planned.

    That is really good to know, thanks! Sounds like it takes a few extra syncs to get everything correct but it might be beneficial for what I'm trying to achieve. The other problem I have is that I'm in the gym at 1am, which is at the end of my day. I work from 3:30pm - 12:00am and then go to the gym after work... I wonder if that would screw up the Fibit or not.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    i think the Polars are better for those who do more strength training. I have a bodymedia band right now and the exercise burn during my weight sessions seems very low for the amount of effort i'm putting in. I'm planning to get a Polar as well. :)
    NOOOOOO, HRM's, including polar, will not give you an accurate burn from strength training. the calculation used to get to cals burned assumes a certain exertion level based on % of max HR to estimate oxygen uptake (V02Max cals). You HR is elevated for different physiological reasons during strength training and a HRM will grossly over estimate cals burned during anything other than steady state cardio, the more anaerobic the activity the less accurate.

    Even MFP's estimate of strength training cals in the cardio section would be a better estimate than a HRM.
  • scubasuenc
    scubasuenc Posts: 626 Member
    Options
    I started with the FitBit One and then recently purchased a Polar FT4. I wear the FitBit all the time, and I find I walk and take the stairs more to meet my FitBit goals. For tracking workouts I like the HRM as it provides a more accurate calorie burn. I found out that MFP's calorie estimates for certain activities were much higher than the HRM was reading. Fortunately I wasn't eating all of my exercise calories....

    I have compared the FitBit and HRM calorie burns for a walk (not a controlled treadmill test, but on around my hilly neighborhood) and the calorie burn from the FitBit was within 10% of the calories of the HRM on a 40 minute walk. I think it is probably more accurate than taking the standard MFP calories for walking/running types of activities.

    The advantage of the HRM is that it can help me capture calories burned for activities like swimming, where the FitBit just sits in the locker.

    Each has its purpose and I find I get useful information from both. The FitBit helps get me moving more just during my regular day, outside scheduled workouts. The HRM gives me more accurate information when I do a workout. You need to determine what you are looking for.

    I log the workouts in MFP with the HRM calories, start time and duration. That then syncs to FitBit and updates the calories burned for the FitBit. FitBit will then automatically sync back to MFP with an update if there are any extra exercise calories because my activity level is higher than expected. The sync between FitBit and MFP is automatic. I walk in the house and the FitBit syncs wirelessly. Once the accounts are linked the calories fly between the apps automagically. :smile:
  • SJCon
    SJCon Posts: 224
    Options
    Maybe the perfect solution is about to come out.

    Garmin Vivofit, water resistant to 50 metes, one year battery life, always on display which can show time, learns your activity and notches the goals up a tad each day to keep you pushing, will pair to a HR chest strap that DOES NOT have to be Bluetooth and will connect and update to a Phone app. Does all the Loop promised but better since the HR effort is combined with your activity unlike with the Loop. Shipping in 5-8 weeks. Downside cost $129.

    Also Google Nabu by Razor. Lot of new products on shoes a CE.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Excellent - thank you.

    http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/01/vivofit-activity-monitors.html
  • jaimrlx
    jaimrlx Posts: 426 Member
    Options
    Maybe the perfect solution is about to come out.

    Garmin Vivofit, water resistant to 50 metes, one year battery life, always on display which can show time, learns your activity and notches the goals up a tad each day to keep you pushing, will pair to a HR chest strap that DOES NOT have to be Bluetooth and will connect and update to a Phone app. Does all the Loop promised but better since the HR effort is combined with your activity unlike with the Loop. Shipping in 5-8 weeks. Downside cost $129.

    Also Google Nabu by Razor. Lot of new products on shoes a CE.

    The Nabu will be a lot different than the normal fitness activity recording, according to their CES announcement. I still want it, it looks pretty neat.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    If the BodyMedia sensors are working well for you, you should see elevated burn for hours after the workout on lifting, because your temp should be higher.

    I believe it's a pretty insignificant effect, and occurs after cardio, too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/health/nutrition/21best.html?_r=0
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    If the BodyMedia sensors are working well for you, you should see elevated burn for hours after the workout on lifting, because your temp should be higher.

    I believe it's a pretty insignificant effect, and occurs after cardio, too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/health/nutrition/21best.html?_r=0

    More recent studies, and older too that the NYTimes article didn't comment on. And vigorous in the study is very vigorous indeed. Touching the anaerobic line the whole time.

    Here is newer NYTimes article, with more detail in the Chicago article.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/health/nutrition/19best.html?_r=0

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-01/health/sc-health-0201-fitness-burn-20120201_1_post-exercise-exercise-scientists-metabolism

    vigorous 45-minute cycling exercise. On the exercise day, they were given extra food to keep their energy levels in balance.

    Based on previous work, the researchers expected metabolism to be elevated for an hour or two after the workout. To their surprise, "every single subject had an extended increase in their metabolism after their vigorous cycling, an average 14.2 hours,
    body's oxygen consumption rate stayed elevated for at least 36 hours after an intense, whole-body resistance workout. The study used several multijoint exercises — power cleans, squats, bench press — that were so intense that some subjects became nauseated. Other resistance-training studies have used more sustainable workouts that resulted in less but still significant excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, he said.
    "In terms of body adaptations, excess post-exercise oxygen consumption is all about recovery and growth," said Schuenke. "The more strenuous — and the more novel — the exercise, the more (muscle) microtears (that) need repair."

Categories