I want one really badly, but the hubs will probably not let me get one...I just got my Flex last Christmas (got a One the Christmas before that) so I think I have to wait for a bit. I can't justify spending money on another one while this one still works perfectly

I want to get the Charge HR when it comes out early next year. The Surge is larger and looks more like a watch. It's a $100 more than the Charge HR which also has a watch, caller ID and does the same things. I have the Force now and love it. I've had no problems with it. A few people had skin irritations with it, but I haven't and I've had it since the Force first came out almost 2 years ago. The Charge HR would add the Heart Rate Monitor.

I was on the market for a running watch and ended up buying a polar M400 a few days ago, so when Fitbit finally announced the Surge this week, at first I was full of doubt and regret...

But on second thought: what i love about my Fitbit One is it's tiny size and stealth, I don't want to wear a huge watch for daily activity tracking or sleeping and don't see the Surge as an alternative to the One. As a side note, it looks like all the new devices are wrist-bands, hope the smaller sized trackers won't be discontinued at some point...

So then there's the gps and heart rate monitor, which sound great. But are they any better than a dedicated entry-level running watch like the M400 or the Forerunner 220?
GPS will probably be the same precision but not so sure about the optical HRM compared to a good chest strap (which i can deal with for an hour every few days, i actually forget i'm wearing it until i hit the shower)...

That said, can't wait for the reviews, and also see how it compares to the microsoft band which also looks like a really cool device.

I have NOT seen any of the normal HRM comments of EKG accurate - and other wrist models like this are NOT. They are for getting an idea of what your HR does through the day, sort of getting your circadian rhythm down type usefulness - but it's NOT useful for getting better calorie count because it's not accurate enough.

Besides - the formula for calories based on HR is not more accurate than the formula's Fitbit uses for walking and running calories already.
If you have your stride length correct anyway.

There are only a couple models of HRM that are wrist only classified as EKG - and you should see the imprint on the skin from the required tightness to obtain that.

heybales wrote: »

Knew I'd seen it in other places. Read how it's getting the HR. Tell me that isn't going to automatically work well across many people. What if you like need to lose weight and have extra fat on your wrist?

http://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/Heart-rate-FAQs?c=Topics:Accuracy&p=charge_hr&fs=Search&l=en_US&pn=1

No studies yet on the accuracy across a range of people that I could find.

It seems to say it is close to as accurate as a chest strap. That's fine for me because I haven't used either of my Polar chest straps (bluetooth or fitness watch) in quite some time because they seem to have "died". I have not felt it important enough to read on troubleshooting online. So, if my Fitbit tracked HR, I would be very happy. I want the smaller one and GPS is irrelevant with Runkeeper and similar programs out there. I always carry my phone anyway.

I haven't been on MFP for a month or so--wow things have changed! I am curious about the Charge HR. Fitbit actually sent me a Charge and I am wearing both my Charge and One right now to compare and write a review. This is my first time wearing a wrist worn fitbit, I've always been skeptical. I do prefer my One still, but I heard they are working on a way for people to associate two devices to a single account. If that happens I may be tempted to get a Charge HR, but I think I prefer my Bluetooth chest strap. I am pleasantly surprised that my One and Charge are giving similar calorie burn estimates so far. My One has more steps and the charge 40 more calories for the entire day so far (12am - 4 pm).

My friend has the Polar Heart Rate Monitor & I was really impressed with it.. I like that it has the chest strap. I am not sure about the Charge HR regarding it being on the wrist & accuracy. I do plan on getting a Polar for Christmas since it syncs up with the new treadmills/ellipticals, etc at the gym. I think I will wait to hear what people say in 2015 after using the Charge HR.

heybales wrote: »

mamaboys3 wrote: »

I've always been a Polar fan for exercise but really like the idea of all day continuous monitoring to get a more accurate idea of calorie burn (in theory anyway).

Actually, in theory you can NOT use HR for all day calorie estimation.

The ONLY relationship between HR and calorie burn is during aerobic exercise, steady-state same HR for 2-4 min. That is the only time the heart must beat faster to provide enough oxygen needed to burn the fuel being used for the exercise.

Below that aerobic exercise range, and above it anaerobic, there is no such relationship between what the HR is doing and the calorie burn.

Even been sitting there during a scary movie and HR jumps up. Or stressed at work same effect. Or finished 3 coffees. Your calorie burn didn't just go up some big amount, but if trying to base it on an increase of 20-30 bpm increase in HR, you'll get an inflated calorie burn.

I was just wondering about that -- thanks for the info. For example, I have mild asthma and every now and then take some albuterol prior to exercising. My HR increases from the medication, but I never really understood if the calorie burn increases as well. My Polar HR monitor says it does because it thinks I'm working harder when I know I'm not. I appreciate the info -- and one more reason to consider NOT buying the Charge HR!

I agree it is unlikely the surge calorie burn would be correct (if heart rate based) for non aerobic activity. Maybe if they are also using movement, I don't know enough about the surge or charge HR to guess. I have fitbit friends who also use a wrist hrm (I think Mio and some use Basis), they like it for walking when they don't feel like wearing their chest strap and claim the heart rate readings are pretty similar to the chest strap. I have a Schoshe armband monitor strap that uses the same technology and it usually gives similar or matching readings to my Polar chest strap. So I don't see any reason to second guess the device based on it being worn on the wrist (though I haven't tried it). I think it could be a good alternative for people who find chest straps uncomfortable or impractical.

But I wouldn't trust a heart rate based calorie burn for non-exercise. It is possible you might burn a little more at rest from your meds. But a fitness heart rate monitor won't be programmed to accommodate this--they work on the assumption you are exercising.

Of course, I am not privy to the details of the Charge HR, I just cannot see how they could use heart rate to estimate non exercise calorie burn (and from their description it sounds like they intend the HR data to be applied during exercise). I could be handy for people who need to monitor their heart rate for other reasons--though I doubt I would trust it as a medical device. But maybe for people who use biofeedback for stress management (I know people sometimes take their pulse for this purpose). I do think it is better thought out than the withings pulse as the pulse only does a spot check of heart rate.

The flex doesn't count any arm movement?