Fitbit Charge HR vs Traditional HRM

If you want accuracy, get a chest strap.

The research I read--though I haven't read in the last six months, said the chest straps were far more accurate. That's why I bought the fitness tracker I did (Garmin Vivoactive). I only care about my HR when training, so it works well for me.

_whatsherface wrote: »

Okay guys. Thank you.

I'd like to measure HR when at the gym.

Doing what at the gym? Most HRMs are only intended for uses (at least in respect to calorie estimates) when doing steady state cardio. If you're doing weights or HIIT they're not terribly useful.

For really in-depth reviews of heart rate monitors, GPS devises and all sorts of other toys check out a website belonging to DCRainmaker.

_whatsherface wrote: »

If you feel it is as accurate as your traditional HRM in terms of HR AND calorie burned.

It's not.

My girlfriend has a Polar H7 strap, and had a Fitbit Charge HR for months, but ultimately returned it as unsatisfactory.

For one thing, the chest strap measures your actual, current, instantaneous heart rate. The Fitbit (and I think all wrist-based HRMs) are a moving average. I had a Mio Fuse, it had the same thing as Beth's Fitbit HR: it takes longer to notice when your HR changes. When you start going up a hill, it lags behind and shows you not working very hard, takes a moment to catch up, whereas the chest strap is just instant. The Fitbit doesn't record your HR every second either, so she was working really hard for brief periods, and not able to find them in the recorded workout later, which was hugely disappointing and made it hard to track her progress getting more fit. Also, the Fitbit HRM just wasn't very accurate at higher HRs which means at higher exertion levels where you want it most.

For technology reasons, chest straps are more accurate than wrist sensors for HR. Chest straps can record "better" data (HRV) which is only a concern if you have software that can make use of it.