Best wrist fitness/heart rate tracker?

abijones75
abijones75 Posts: 116 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
My fitbit HR just died after 6 weeks of use, not good! It now has no display and only syncs to the app sporadically so I'm sending it back. So now I'm wondering do I get another or is there a better one out there? I do think heart rate tracking is important, I can't see how the ones that don't do that can calculate cals burned...and yes i know they're not that accurate in that respect but it's still helpful for motivational purposes. I would like to hear from anyone who has got a tracker and what their opinion of it is. I quite like the look of the Jawbone Up3 but it has a few bad reviews, the Garmin Vivosmart HR looks quite promising too.

Replies

  • YeaYeaPueblo
    YeaYeaPueblo Posts: 68 Member
    I just got the Garmin forerunner 235. It's an awesome watch! Although it is mostly a running watch, it still has activity tracking capabilities via the wrist based heart rate monitor. The Garmin vivoactive would be my top pick if I didn't need the running metrics as much. They're both a bit pricey though, so the vivo smart seems to be in a better price point.
  • UG77
    UG77 Posts: 206 Member
    I have the microsoft band 2. I really like it so far.
  • tcatcarson
    tcatcarson Posts: 227 Member
    I tried to read every review I could find on this kind of thing, and all I came up with was that the wrist ones are still generally inaccurate, or at best I found conflicting opinions about certain brands and makes.

    I had a word with myself and realised I didn't need my heart to be constantly tracked. I don't really think anyone does in a non-medical situation.

    I got the Forerunner 230 and spent the difference on a "proper" chest strap HRM which I use when running. I LOVE the watch as it looks good on my wrist all the time, receives notifications from my phone and is GPS ready for my runs.

    My tuppence.
  • Raynne413
    Raynne413 Posts: 1,527 Member
    I have the Vivosmart HR and really like it. The HR can be really iffy during high intensity work, but it's great for general walking and stuff like that.

    I'm actually waiting on this: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/coreywilliams/fitpal-the-most-complete-24-7-heart-rate-wearable
  • coreyreichle
    coreyreichle Posts: 1,039 Member
    YeaYeaPueblo wrote: »
    I just got the Garmin forerunner 235. It's an awesome watch! Although it is mostly a running watch, it still has activity tracking capabilities via the wrist based heart rate monitor. The Garmin vivoactive would be my top pick if I didn't need the running metrics as much. They're both a bit pricey though, so the vivo smart seems to be in a better price point.

    Interested: What metrics are on the FR235 that aren't on the Vivoactive?
  • Chrishartman1979
    Chrishartman1979 Posts: 9 Member
    I use a Polar Ft7. It has the heartrate strap and if you buy the Flowlink it will upload to their fitness site to keep track of your monthly goals. Of course, this is something that I would only use during a workout. But I feel like the band around the chest is fairly accurate. It keeps track of HR, Calories Burned, etc. Pretty basic and easy to use if you are going to go that route
  • abijones75
    abijones75 Posts: 116 Member
    Raynne413 wrote: »
    I have the Vivosmart HR and really like it. The HR can be really iffy during high intensity work, but it's great for general walking and stuff like that.

    I'm actually waiting on this: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/coreywilliams/fitpal-the-most-complete-24-7-heart-rate-wearable
    That does look good!!
  • Nonibug
    Nonibug Posts: 1,214 Member
    I just purchased that Garmin Viviosmart HR and am already returning it! The HR function is horrible! It's very erratic and will show your heart rate as 72 for example, after a very intense workout. It also doesn't work well with my iPhone 6 as far as receiving calls and texts. The steps function is horrible as well. I had 196 steps (what it displayed which was also inaccurate), and I walked from my living room back to the baby's nursery and it jumped to 298...DEFINITELY not 100 steps away! One last thing is I also think that the app got more difficult to navigate. This is just my opinion of course, and I am still looking for a good HRM that does the simple things with accuracy! Waterproof for water aerobics would be a plus...
  • SueSueDio
    SueSueDio Posts: 4,796 Member
    edited February 2016
    UG77 wrote: »
    I have the microsoft band 2. I really like it so far.


    Woohoo, another Band user! :smile: They are quite pricey - although currently on a nice discount (and I have no idea how they compare to the other things people are mentioning) - but I was lucky that my husband bought one for me when he got his own. We have Windows phones so everything syncs nicely, and it's so much more than just a 'fitness tracker'. I don't currently use the Run, Cycle or Golf functions (and probably won't ever use two of those!), but might add the Guided Workouts feature at some point.

    I haven't worn a watch for years, but really like this thing! The only problem I have is with the sizing, the small is a little too tight most of the time but the medium is a little too wide to be comfortable. I exchanged it once already, but may have to go back to the small and hope my wrist thins out with weight loss!

    https://www.microsoft.com/Microsoft-Band/en-us


    (ETA: It doesn't only work with Windows phones, but also with iPhones and Android.)
  • whmscll
    whmscll Posts: 2,254 Member
    Mio Fuse is the best wrist heart rate tracker. However, it's best when used to track workouts, rather than all-day heart and activity tracking.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    abijones75 wrote: »
    I do think heart rate tracking is important

    HR data has some value for those who train for spors performance objectives, but for most people it has limited value.

    With respect to calorie expenditure in most day to day circumstances it has no value whatsoever.
    I can't see how the ones that don't do that can calculate cals burned

    Because calorie expenditure on a day to day basis is about how much distance you move your body through. HR isn't high enough in most circumstances to be a meaninful indicator. If your HR is rising into the aerobic range when you're walking, then you need to significantly improve your fitness.
    ...and yes i know they're not that accurate in that respect

    umm...
    the Garmin Vivosmart HR looks quite promising too.

    Personally I have a number of Garmin devices for different purposes, I like them. For wrist activity trackers they're on the more expensive side.
  • abijones75
    abijones75 Posts: 116 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    abijones75 wrote: »
    I do think heart rate tracking is important

    HR data has some value for those who train for spors performance objectives, but for most people it has limited value.

    With respect to calorie expenditure in most day to day circumstances it has no value whatsoever.
    I can't see how the ones that don't do that can calculate cals burned

    Because calorie expenditure on a day to day basis is about how much distance you move your body through. HR isn't high enough in most circumstances to be a meaninful indicator. If your HR is rising into the aerobic range when you're walking, then you need to significantly improve your fitness.
    ...and yes i know they're not that accurate in that respect

    umm...
    the Garmin Vivosmart HR looks quite promising too.

    Personally I have a number of Garmin devices for different purposes, I like them. For wrist activity trackers they're on the more expensive side.

    Well without tracking heart rate how does it know when you are working out? How can it differentiate between walking the dog and pounding on a treadmill? I don't just want a step counter I want an activity tracker. When my fitbit hr was working it would automatically know when I was working out and not just whisking eggs or something with my tracker hand, I want a device that does the same things but better and without breaking down after 2 months.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited February 2016
    coreyreichle wrote: »
    YeaYeaPueblo wrote: »
    I just got the Garmin forerunner 235. It's an awesome watch! Although it is mostly a running watch, it still has activity tracking capabilities via the wrist based heart rate monitor. The Garmin vivoactive would be my top pick if I didn't need the running metrics as much. They're both a bit pricey though, so the vivo smart seems to be in a better price point.

    Interested: What metrics are on the FR235 that aren't on the Vivoactive?

    The Front Runners are running platforms and many have wrist HR monitors. They are better for serious runners who want to keep track of speed, pace, average speed, splits and laps etc. The Vivoactive will connect to a HR strap and also does walks and treadmill stats. Vivoactive is also more of a smart watch and will interact with your phone.

    I got the Vivoactive because I don't need all the running stats since I'm just a recreational runner.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    abijones75 wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    abijones75 wrote: »
    I do think heart rate tracking is important

    HR data has some value for those who train for spors performance objectives, but for most people it has limited value.

    With respect to calorie expenditure in most day to day circumstances it has no value whatsoever.
    I can't see how the ones that don't do that can calculate cals burned

    Because calorie expenditure on a day to day basis is about how much distance you move your body through. HR isn't high enough in most circumstances to be a meaninful indicator. If your HR is rising into the aerobic range when you're walking, then you need to significantly improve your fitness.
    ...and yes i know they're not that accurate in that respect

    umm...
    the Garmin Vivosmart HR looks quite promising too.

    Personally I have a number of Garmin devices for different purposes, I like them. For wrist activity trackers they're on the more expensive side.

    Well without tracking heart rate how does it know when you are working out? How can it differentiate between walking the dog and pounding on a treadmill? I don't just want a step counter I want an activity tracker. When my fitbit hr was working it would automatically know when I was working out and not just whisking eggs or something with my tracker hand, I want a device that does the same things but better and without breaking down after 2 months.

    High end activity trackers use accelerometers that can gauge your speed with some accuracy. However, manually logging is still going to be the best way. HR during aerobic exercise can be fairly accurate for estimating calories burned but are very inaccurate for exercises such as weight lifting, especially overhead work.
  • Raynne413
    Raynne413 Posts: 1,527 Member
    SueSueDio wrote: »
    UG77 wrote: »
    I have the microsoft band 2. I really like it so far.


    Woohoo, another Band user! :smile: They are quite pricey - although currently on a nice discount (and I have no idea how they compare to the other things people are mentioning) - but I was lucky that my husband bought one for me when he got his own. We have Windows phones so everything syncs nicely, and it's so much more than just a 'fitness tracker'. I don't currently use the Run, Cycle or Golf functions (and probably won't ever use two of those!), but might add the Guided Workouts feature at some point.

    I haven't worn a watch for years, but really like this thing! The only problem I have is with the sizing, the small is a little too tight most of the time but the medium is a little too wide to be comfortable. I exchanged it once already, but may have to go back to the small and hope my wrist thins out with weight loss!

    https://www.microsoft.com/Microsoft-Band/en-us


    (ETA: It doesn't only work with Windows phones, but also with iPhones and Android.)

    I loved my MS band, but I just hated having to charge it every day (I rarely remembered :( ), and I didn't like that it wasn't waterproof. Or at least be able to wear it in the shower.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    abijones75 wrote: »
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    abijones75 wrote: »
    I do think heart rate tracking is important

    HR data has some value for those who train for spors performance objectives, but for most people it has limited value.

    With respect to calorie expenditure in most day to day circumstances it has no value whatsoever.
    I can't see how the ones that don't do that can calculate cals burned

    Because calorie expenditure on a day to day basis is about how much distance you move your body through. HR isn't high enough in most circumstances to be a meaninful indicator. If your HR is rising into the aerobic range when you're walking, then you need to significantly improve your fitness.
    ...and yes i know they're not that accurate in that respect

    umm...
    the Garmin Vivosmart HR looks quite promising too.

    Personally I have a number of Garmin devices for different purposes, I like them. For wrist activity trackers they're on the more expensive side.

    Well without tracking heart rate how does it know when you are working out? How can it differentiate between walking the dog and pounding on a treadmill? I don't just want a step counter I want an activity tracker. When my fitbit hr was working it would automatically know when I was working out and not just whisking eggs or something with my tracker hand, I want a device that does the same things but better and without breaking down after 2 months.

    It is very likely that it is NOT using the 24 hour HR info for calories burned. It's likely using basal rate tables and adjusting for number of steps and the data recorded during an activity. So, you wear the watch all day and take 5,000 steps. It uses that info to set your calories burned for the day. On that same day, you start an activity with your GPS to go for a run (at least with a running watch, you start an activity) for an hour. It calculates the calories burned for that 1 hour based on your HR, pace, and time and adds that to your daily burn.

    I bought the Garmin 235 and liked it, but it had a LOT of bugs, especially with the HRM. Given how expensive it is, I got the TomTom Spark instead. The HRM is quite good but the step tracker overestimates steps. I wear a FitBit zip for that which is more accurate (in my experience) than a wrist based tracker so I didn't care about the activity tracking part.

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited February 2016
    abijones75 wrote: »
    Well without tracking heart rate how does it know when you are working out? How can it differentiate between walking the dog and pounding on a treadmill?

    So raised HR doesn't automatically mean one is training either. The nature of the session will influence how HR responds. Of course you're then back into the debate of whether HR is useful, even when one is training. It really depends how one is using the data, and for someone doing HR related training I'd anticipate a more sophisticated device that can associate HR with what was going on at the time.

    As an example my HR on a stationary bike is of limited value, but when I can associate it with cadence and speed then it becomes useful. Similarly HR when I'm running is only of real use when I can associate it with a GPS track.

    The only valuable information I can see from a 24/7 HR record is Resting Heart Rate.


Categories