Fitbit Charge vs. Polar HRM - Honest Feedback Requested

Options
CatchMom11
CatchMom11 Posts: 462 Member
edited October 2015 in Health and Weight Loss
I seriously need some advice from people who have a Fitbit. I am a Polar HRM user and while I love it when working out, I don't love that I have to carry my phone (phablet - Note 4) everywhere in order to track my movement. So I find myself at a crossroads: I either need to replace and upgrade my hrm or make the move to Fitbit. I really just have one reservation holding me back and that is - When I first got my hrm (2-3 years ago), the general rule of thumb was that if the hrm didn't have a chest strap, it didn't track HR as accurately. Is this still the case? How accurately does the Fitbit Charge track HR - especially when running? I've read a couple of reviews stating that it's not as accurate during high endurance performances such as running. What say you runners who have the Charge?

I'm desperate for info as my hrm tried telling me yesterday that my HR during my morning walk was 231. (gasp!) Clearly I need to make a purchase one way or another this weekend.

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    My personal experience: I run about 30 miles a week and I've had a Charge HR since July and it seems to be accurate compared to my (limited) experience with a chest strap monitor. I've been very satisfied with it.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    MandaB9780 wrote: »
    I seriously need some advice from people who have a Fitbit. I am a Polar HRM user and while I love it when working out, I don't love that I have to carry my phone (phablet - Note 4) everywhere in order to track my movement. So I find myself at a crossroads: I either need to replace and upgrade my hrm or make the move to Fitbit. I really just have one reservation holding me back and that is - When I first got my hrm (2-3 years ago), the general rule of thumb was that if the hrm didn't have a chest strap, it didn't track HR as accurately. Is this still the case? How accurately does the Fitbit Charge track HR - especially when running? I've read a couple of reviews stating that it's not as accurate during high endurance performances such as running. What say you runners who have the Charge?

    I'm desperate for info as my hrm tried telling me yesterday that my HR during my morning walk was 231. (gasp!) Clearly I need to make a purchase one way or another this weekend.

    You've got the polar

    Get a basic clip on fitbit for the rest ...it's fine for running and any step based activity
  • sheermomentum
    sheermomentum Posts: 827 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    I think that is not so much that the wrist-based monitors CAN'T be accurate, as that they allow much more potential for variability in their readings...which, in the end, kind of amounts to the same thing. IF you have the strap on your wrist at just the right tension, and IF your movements don't interfere with a reading (which they can, especially if you are moving vigorously), and IF your skin tone is just the right shade (of pale), (and so on), then the monitors without a chest strap may be accurate enough. But no, they are not typically AS accurate.

    So the question is what is more important to you, personally, given your own needs and goals: higher accuracy or greater convenience?

    http://www.cnet.com/news/how-accurate-are-wristband-heart-rate-monitors/
    http://www.livescience.com/44170-fitness-tracker-heart-rate-monitors.html
  • CatchMom11
    CatchMom11 Posts: 462 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    MandaB9780 wrote: »
    I seriously need some advice from people who have a Fitbit. I am a Polar HRM user and while I love it when working out, I don't love that I have to carry my phone (phablet - Note 4) everywhere in order to track my movement. So I find myself at a crossroads: I either need to replace and upgrade my hrm or make the move to Fitbit. I really just have one reservation holding me back and that is - When I first got my hrm (2-3 years ago), the general rule of thumb was that if the hrm didn't have a chest strap, it didn't track HR as accurately. Is this still the case? How accurately does the Fitbit Charge track HR - especially when running? I've read a couple of reviews stating that it's not as accurate during high endurance performances such as running. What say you runners who have the Charge?

    I'm desperate for info as my hrm tried telling me yesterday that my HR during my morning walk was 231. (gasp!) Clearly I need to make a purchase one way or another this weekend.

    You've got the polar

    Get a basic clip on fitbit for the rest ...it's fine for running and any step based activity

    My Polar is malfunctioning thanks to my daughter who accidentally tossed it across a room. So I need to purchase something new regardless. If I stick with the Polar, I will be upgrading. So I thought I'd explore whether it was better to stick with Polar AND get a Fitbit clip, or just use the Fitbit Charge.
  • CatchMom11
    CatchMom11 Posts: 462 Member
    Options
    sheermomentum wrote: »
    I think that is not so much that the wrist-based monitors CAN'T be accurate, as that they allow much more potential for variability in their readings...which, in the end, kind of amounts to the same thing. IF you have the strap on your wrist at just the right tension, and IF your movements don't interfere with a reading (which they can, especially if you are moving vigorously), and IF your skin tone is just the right shade (of pale), (and so on), then the monitors without a chest strap may be accurate enough. But no, they are not typically AS accurate.

    So the question is what is more important to you, personally, given your own needs and goals: higher accuracy or greater convenience?

    http://www.cnet.com/news/how-accurate-are-wristband-heart-rate-monitors/
    http://www.livescience.com/44170-fitness-tracker-heart-rate-monitors.html

    Accuracy means the world to me.
  • DaddieCat
    DaddieCat Posts: 3,646 Member
    Options
    I use the Polar H7 when I'm doing steady state cardio. I use a fitbit surge for everything else. I find it to be an effective combination.
  • NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner
    NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner Posts: 1,018 Member
    Options
    I've got a Fitbit Surge. When I ran it alongside my polar HRM it was only a small amount of difference on a run. So I just use my Surge now.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    I have a Fitbit surge. Heart rate seems accurate to me. I haven't tested it while exercising, cause I'm exercising at the time.

    But finger to my wrist or neck matches up.

    Fitbit said 44-45, finger to my neck I counted 45.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    I upgraded my wearable tech from a body media armband and a polar hrm to a Garmin Vivoactive. Best of both worlds. I went to this link to get an idea for what's out there and what would work best for me:
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404445,00.asp

    I bought mine in June, there's probably another set of credible reviews available now.
  • CatchMom11
    CatchMom11 Posts: 462 Member
    Options
    Thank you all for your suggestions! I ended up making the Fitbit jump and I'm happy with it. I think they're a little overzealous when it comes to how long the batter lasts - definitely NOT 5 days, but it's not horrible so not a huge deal. Thanks again!

Categories