I hate to ask another, but...Garmin Vivoactive

CindyFooWho
CindyFooWho Posts: 179 Member
edited December 3 in Fitness and Exercise
If I were to buy a Garmin Vivoactive WITHOUT a HRM, what would I be missing (other than, obviously, knowing my heart rate)? Would I just miss out on getting a more accurate calorie calculation? Because I'm not trying to lose weight anymore and have been treating calorie burns as very rough estimates anyway. Is there any other benefit to a HRM? I really just want a GPS with speed, elevation gain, etc.

Replies

  • mrp56839
    mrp56839 Posts: 159 Member
    I have the vivoactive without the hrm and now I wish I would have spent the extra $60. I think this one overestimated the burn, underestimates the steps and I feel like calories are way off in both directions some days. That being said, I really like the garmin products.

    At least with the hrm, I can use my hr to validate the burn. I've asked garmin about their calcs because they're just way off from every online tool I've tried and they give me some line about proprietary information. It's math. Either you're with the crowd or you justify why your math is better than everyone elses.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    CindyFooWho wrote: »
    Is there any other benefit to a HRM?

    What kind of exercise are you doing? Knowing your HR can help you pace yourself, or it can just be a number.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    mrp56839 wrote: »
    At least with the hrm, I can use my hr to validate the burn. I've asked garmin about their calcs because they're just way off from every online tool I've tried and they give me some line about proprietary information. It's math. Either you're with the crowd or you justify why your math is better than everyone elses.

    This is how the energy expenditure (aka calories) from HR works in Garmin and Suunto products.

    https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_energy_expenditure_estimation.pdf
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    CindyFooWho wrote: »
    ... Is there any other benefit to a HRM?

    I have a VivoSmart HR.

    There are two benefits, I can transmit HR on ANT+ to my Forerunner or Edge GPS devices without bothering with the chest strap. While it's a little less accurate it means I'm not leaving my sternum a bleeding mess by the end of a long run.

    The other benefit is being able to determine my Resting Heart Rate, which helps me appreciate how my performance is improving.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    mrp56839 wrote: »
    It's math. Either you're with the crowd or you justify why your math is better than everyone elses.

    HR is merely a proxy for calorie expenditure, and there are a number of ways that input can be used as the basis for an approximation. Whilst it is indeed maths, there are a number of different routes to an answer.

  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    MeanderingMammal wrote: »
    CindyFooWho wrote: »
    ... Is there any other benefit to a HRM?

    I have a VivoSmart HR.

    There are two benefits, I can transmit HR on ANT+ to my Forerunner or Edge GPS devices without bothering with the chest strap. While it's a little less accurate it means I'm not leaving my sternum a bleeding mess by the end of a long run.

    The other benefit is being able to determine my Resting Heart Rate, which helps me appreciate how my performance is improving.
    But the optical in garmin 's high end watches is pretty accurate compared to the chest strap. Some might say it's more accurate if they are struggling with the strap at the beginning of a workout ;)

    OP - pretty much just the hrm. The vivoactive hr is a generation newer, but that isn't too much of a deal. Iirc the hr has better golf functions...
    You can use any ant+ hrm with it. A garmin chest strap, another watch like the forerunner 35, or a 3rd party optical. I've got a Scosche arm band that is awesome, my garmin chest strap was only reading 33% of beats so I stole this from my wife :smiley:
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    But the optical in garmin 's high end watches is pretty accurate compared to the chest strap. Some might say it's more accurate if they are struggling with the strap at the beginning of a workout ;)

    Wouldn't disagree. Merely preempting the usual straps are more accurate than optical received wisdom from people who don't really understand how the tech works :)

    It's the whole spurious accuracy issue.

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    But the optical in garmin 's high end watches is pretty accurate compared to the chest strap.

    There seems to be a lot more variability in terms of how accurate the wHR sensor is compared to a chest strap, though. For example based on skin pigment and arm hair, and also where it's worn. I have a Fenix 3 HR, and do a weekly hill repeat workout; when I use a chest strap the HR and elevation charts both look like teeth on a serrated knife, when I use the wHR sensor the HR chart doesn't show the ups and downs I experience. (PM me if you'd like to see examples.) But it works very well for other people.
  • VegasFit
    VegasFit Posts: 1,232 Member
    I bought the non hr version, had it a couple days and returned and upgraded to the HR version. I'm still learning features but so far I even prefer the look and feel. If you don't care about HR or calories save $100 and go with the regular version. I prefer Garmin products especially from a customer service standpoint. Previous to this I was using a vivosmart that stopped working.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories