Fitbit blaze or other watch reviews? Owner opinions too...
Options
Replies
-
The Samsung Gear Fit 2 does everything you want on your list, including having its own GPS. What really kicked it over for me is it has its own 4GB memory, you can put about 500 songs on it and you don't need your phone nearby to listen to your own music. It also has a Spotify app built in, so no phone needed for that either.
So, with its own GPS and ability to house music, I went with that.
Only negative is that it won't synch with MFP... Neither will its associated S-health phone app. I think there are some work arounds, but I haven't figured that out. I don't really need it to, though, so that wasn't a fatal flaw in my needs list.1 -
Thanks a lot everyone! Really given me something to work with.
I'm considering the recommendations and checking reviews from YouTube by DCrainmaker.. once I've decided I'll give you all a shout before the purchase
0 -
gemwolf110 wrote: »TalQureshi wrote: »Hi pattib1029,
Oops I thought the blaze had gps but they call it 'connected gps' which is a posh way of saying... "You have to use your phone".
Gemwolf110 which Garmin would you recommend that meets my needs?
Thanks again guys
If you want GPS I'd look into the Garmin Forerunner 35 or the Garmin vivoactive smartwatch. FitBit and Garmin vivosmart HR are compatible with MFP I assume the forerunner 35 and vivoactive are too. I just got the FitBit Charge HR 2 and so far so good.
Do these work well for an indoor cardio workout or circuit training?0 -
TalQureshi wrote: »Hi pattib1029,
Oops I thought the blaze had gps but they call it 'connected gps' which is a posh way of saying... "You have to use your phone".
Gemwolf110 which Garmin would you recommend that meets my needs?
Thanks again guys
I have the Garmin Vivoactive HR and it's great. It has GPS and an active HRM 24/7. The HRM works great for running, working out and cross fit, there's a slight delay. However this watch has an option to wear a chest strap, most don't with an active HRM.
I had the Blaze and took it back after a week. HRM isn't that accurate and the watch isn't waterproof.
Frank0 -
shredcamps wrote: »if you enter the three words fitbit faulty and strap into google you get
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=fitbit faulty strap
pages and pages of details.
I guess it was too much for you to tell me your personal experience?2 -
in total i had 5 fitbit devices ALL 5 had some form of fault with the straps. bubbling, peeling etc.2
-
successgal1 wrote: »shredcamps wrote: »if you enter the three words fitbit faulty and strap into google you get
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=fitbit faulty strap
pages and pages of details.
I guess it was too much for you to tell me your personal experience?
Okay so I'm officially 'put off' fit bit....
But that's a good thing and was the point of this post.
Now I think I've narrowed it down guys, to the following three:
Polar m600 vs Vivoactive HR vs forerunner 235
Please tell me what you think, as I'm really unsure which one to go for...
What's really important for me is that it accurately works out calorie burn and HR for indoor style workouts like insanity, p90x or boxing.
I've also checked the review dude on YouTube you recommended and he rate each of these pretty well.
0 -
TalQureshi wrote: »
Polar m600 vs Vivoactive HR vs forerunner 235
Personally I'd go for the 235. In general Garmin GPS is better than Polar and Garmin has more interoperability. Polar HR monitoring is slightly better than Garmin. Of the two it's more important to have good GPS and interoperability than HR, as HR is of much less importance. In practice whilst Polar does do HR slightly better, for most people the difference is meaningless anyway.
Of the two Garmins, they're in different ranges, the VivoActive HR is low end multi-application, the 235 is a mid range device largely aimed at runners. As a marathoner I'd go for the 235 from that selection.What's really important for me is that it accurately works out calorie burn and HR for indoor style workouts like insanity, p90x or boxing.
Calorie expenditure is best estimated in different ways for different activities, your problem is those that HR is most useful for, are also those that other methods are reliable for as well. For something like running, GPS is probably as meaningful as anything else, and tat's where HR is most meaningful. Similarly cycling, rowing etc. For walking HR is meaningless.
Similarly for something like Insanity etc HR is a meaningless metric to measure, so it really doesn't matter what device you use, if you're interested in calorie expenditure.
The advantage that the 235 has is that you don't need to wear a chest strap, which is probably most relevant for boxing, I'd be surprised if you're allowed to wear one in the ring. That said, in that situation I'd be going for a Schoche Rhythm and leaving the head end on the edge of the ring.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »TalQureshi wrote: »
Polar m600 vs Vivoactive HR vs forerunner 235
Personally I'd go for the 235. In general Garmin GPS is better than Polar and Garmin has more interoperability. Polar HR monitoring is slightly better than Garmin. Of the two it's more important to have good GPS and interoperability than HR, as HR is of much less importance. In practice whilst Polar does do HR slightly better, for most people the difference is meaningless anyway.
Of the two Garmins, they're in different ranges, the VivoActive HR is low end multi-application, the 235 is a mid range device largely aimed at runners. As a marathoner I'd go for the 235 from that selection.What's really important for me is that it accurately works out calorie burn and HR for indoor style workouts like insanity, p90x or boxing.
Calorie expenditure is best estimated in different ways for different activities, your problem is those that HR is most useful for, are also those that other methods are reliable for as well. For something like running, GPS is probably as meaningful as anything else, and tat's where HR is most meaningful. Similarly cycling, rowing etc. For walking HR is meaningless.
Similarly for something like Insanity etc HR is a meaningless metric to measure, so it really doesn't matter what device you use, if you're interested in calorie expenditure.
The advantage that the 235 has is that you don't need to wear a chest strap, which is probably most relevant for boxing, I'd be surprised if you're allowed to wear one in the ring. That said, in that situation I'd be going for a Schoche Rhythm and leaving the head end on the edge of the ring.
Thanks for such detailed advice.
In terms of when you mentioned each is fine, if it's too work out calories burned, doesn't a good HR monitor improve the accuracy? Or can any activity tracker do that well?
My worry is that the Moto 360 sport currently underestimates my calorie burn and I know this because I compared it for the same workout with a chest strap polar HR monitor.
The 360 sort currently uses the Moto app to start a workout and it only lets me choose running as the workout type. It's the same for apps like strava... I'm thinking that's why it under values my calories burned, as it thinks I should be running in a forward motion as opposed to the various motions forced by insanity workouts.
Can the issue be cured by a better android app?
0 -
TalQureshi wrote: »... doesn't a good HR monitor improve the accuracy? Or can any activity tracker do that well?
No. Using HR as a proxy for calorie expenditure assumes that there is a relationship between HR and calorie expenditure. That's true when one is discussing steady state exercise in the aerobic range, but not where you're talking about non steady state or non-aerobic range. Both of those will cause the relationship to break down and overestimate.
Other factors contribute to a loss of accuracy as well, hydration levels, other stimuli etc.
So essentially if I'm going for a 10km steady state run I'd accept an HR based calorie estimation as not particularly inaccurate. If I did much more than 10km I'd assume that the calorie estimate was probably over, and if I'd done sprint intervals in that session then the same thing, it's probably too high.My worry is that the Moto 360 sport currently underestimates my calorie burn and I know this because I compared it for the same workout with a chest strap polar HR monitor.
You'remaking the assumption that the HR based estimate is better than your Moto. If you're using a Polar HR based estimate for something like Insanity I'd assume it's at least 50% over.
Roll two 10 sided dice and see how it compares to that as well... That's about as meaningful as using an HR strap.
1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »TalQureshi wrote: »... doesn't a good HR monitor improve the accuracy? Or can any activity tracker do that well?
No. Using HR as a proxy for calorie expenditure assumes that there is a relationship between HR and calorie expenditure. That's true when one is discussing steady state exercise in the aerobic range, but not where you're talking about non steady state or non-aerobic range. Both of those will cause the relationship to break down and overestimate.
Other factors contribute to a loss of accuracy as well, hydration levels, other stimuli etc.
So essentially if I'm going for a 10km steady state run I'd accept an HR based calorie estimation as not particularly inaccurate. If I did much more than 10km I'd assume that the calorie estimate was probably over, and if I'd done sprint intervals in that session then the same thing, it's probably too high.My worry is that the Moto 360 sport currently underestimates my calorie burn and I know this because I compared it for the same workout with a chest strap polar HR monitor.
You'remaking the assumption that the HR based estimate is better than your Moto. If you're using a Polar HR based estimate for something like Insanity I'd assume it's at least 50% over.
Roll two 10 sided dice and see how it compares to that as well... That's about as meaningful as using an HR strap.
Thanks for that info.
So considering my workouts and that I have the Moto 360 do you think there's any need in switching to another device? If so any recommendations?0 -
I think unless you're into serious training then a HR monitor is a waste of time and money.0
-
I'm looking too and I want to get something that I can use for quite a while.
My criteria; scratch the sleep pattern and heart rate. I want it to count steps and stairs accurately. Waterproof would be nice but not required. It should be attached to a social app like MapMyRun. And it should function as a watch too.1 -
TalQureshi wrote: »So considering my workouts and that I have the Moto 360 do you think there's any need in switching to another device? If so any recommendations?
I'm not particularly familiar with the Moto360, but given that you've talked about running I'd veer towards the VivoActive or FR235. The Moto360 doesn't have GPS, which is a basic function as far as I'm concerned.
For Inanity and the like, just log them by time.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think unless you're into serious training then a HR monitor is a waste of time and money.
Hi Christine,
I do train daily, workout, box and swim. Just not sure what device to go with.
Need something that accurately updates fitness apps add mfp.
Currently the Moto 360 is really erratic with its synching and limitations in choosing work outs.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »TalQureshi wrote: »So considering my workouts and that I have the Moto 360 do you think there's any need in switching to another device? If so any recommendations?
I'm not particularly familiar with the Moto360, but given that you've talked about running I'd veer towards the VivoActive or FR235. The Moto360 doesn't have GPS, which is a basic function as far as I'm concerned.
For Inanity and the like, just log them by time.MeanderingMammal wrote: »TalQureshi wrote: »So considering my workouts and that I have the Moto 360 do you think there's any need in switching to another device? If so any recommendations?
I'm not particularly familiar with the Moto360, but given that you've talked about running I'd veer towards the VivoActive or FR235. The Moto360 doesn't have GPS, which is a basic function as far as I'm concerned.
For Inanity and the like, just log them by time.
Ok so Garmin seems to be the one to consider.
Btw I have the sport version of Moto 360 so it has GPS... The battery lasts about 3/4 of a day though... On an active day0 -
https://www.wareable.com/fitness-trackers/the-best-fitness-tracker
It looks like unless I spend a lot more, I can get all I want except for the watch. I'm leaning towards Misfit Shine.0 -
TalQureshi wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »TalQureshi wrote: »
Polar m600 vs Vivoactive HR vs forerunner 235
Personally I'd go for the 235. In general Garmin GPS is better than Polar and Garmin has more interoperability. Polar HR monitoring is slightly better than Garmin. Of the two it's more important to have good GPS and interoperability than HR, as HR is of much less importance. In practice whilst Polar does do HR slightly better, for most people the difference is meaningless anyway.
Of the two Garmins, they're in different ranges, the VivoActive HR is low end multi-application, the 235 is a mid range device largely aimed at runners. As a marathoner I'd go for the 235 from that selection.What's really important for me is that it accurately works out calorie burn and HR for indoor style workouts like insanity, p90x or boxing.
Calorie expenditure is best estimated in different ways for different activities, your problem is those that HR is most useful for, are also those that other methods are reliable for as well. For something like running, GPS is probably as meaningful as anything else, and tat's where HR is most meaningful. Similarly cycling, rowing etc. For walking HR is meaningless.
Similarly for something like Insanity etc HR is a meaningless metric to measure, so it really doesn't matter what device you use, if you're interested in calorie expenditure.
The advantage that the 235 has is that you don't need to wear a chest strap, which is probably most relevant for boxing, I'd be surprised if you're allowed to wear one in the ring. That said, in that situation I'd be going for a Schoche Rhythm and leaving the head end on the edge of the ring.
Thanks for such detailed advice.
In terms of when you mentioned each is fine, if it's too work out calories burned, doesn't a good HR monitor improve the accuracy? Or can any activity tracker do that well?
My worry is that the Moto 360 sport currently underestimates my calorie burn and I know this because I compared it for the same workout with a chest strap polar HR monitor.
The 360 sort currently uses the Moto app to start a workout and it only lets me choose running as the workout type. It's the same for apps like strava... I'm thinking that's why it under values my calories burned, as it thinks I should be running in a forward motion as opposed to the various motions forced by insanity workouts.
Can the issue be cured by a better android app?
Here's an excellent read which explains what HRMs are/aren't good for, and why: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-214720 -
TalQureshi wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I think unless you're into serious training then a HR monitor is a waste of time and money.
Hi Christine,
I do train daily, workout, box and swim. Just not sure what device to go with.
I think the point that Christine is making, and I rather agree with, is that for most people, most of the time HR is a relatively meaningless metric.
There are three pieces of HR data that are useful, Resting Heart Rate, Lactate Threshold and VO2Max. Of the three, the first is most meaningful to most people. As your fitness improves your RHR should reduce. And when you notice RHR increasing for a few days that's an indicator of something wrong; overtraining, overtired, illness. The latter two are useful to understand to frame training quality, but testing them can be difficult.
Training to HR can be useful for runners, cyclists, rowers etc as part of their training plan. It's not the only way to train, but it's one of the approaches. In that sense the vast majority of people who aren't training for specific performance improvement are collecting HR data for little more than the value of collecting the data.
If you're going to correlate it with other data and derive conclusions from it that then inform your training, then it's useful. A cyclist may collect GPS trace, pedal cadence, power output, HR and gear selection, then use all of that to inform their subsequent training.
As a runner it's possible to collect data around pace length, vertical oscillation, GPS trace, pace cadence, HR and use that to reach conclusions about what sort of session to do.
1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »TalQureshi wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I think unless you're into serious training then a HR monitor is a waste of time and money.
Hi Christine,
I do train daily, workout, box and swim. Just not sure what device to go with.
I think the point that Christine is making, and I rather agree with, is that for most people, most of the time HR is a relatively meaningless metric.
There are three pieces of HR data that are useful, Resting Heart Rate, Lactate Threshold and VO2Max. Of the three, the first is most meaningful to most people. As your fitness improves your RHR should reduce. And when you notice RHR increasing for a few days that's an indicator of something wrong; overtraining, overtired, illness. The latter two are useful to understand to frame training quality, but testing them can be difficult.
Training to HR can be useful for runners, cyclists, rowers etc as part of their training plan. It's not the only way to train, but it's one of the approaches. In that sense the vast majority of people who aren't training for specific performance improvement are collecting HR data for little more than the value of collecting the data.
If you're going to correlate it with other data and derive conclusions from it that then inform your training, then it's useful. A cyclist may collect GPS trace, pedal cadence, power output, HR and gear selection, then use all of that to inform their subsequent training.
As a runner it's possible to collect data around pace length, vertical oscillation, GPS trace, pace cadence, HR and use that to reach conclusions about what sort of session to do.
Hi again,
Thanks for the advice. In terms of running the data would be really useful to beat previous times, route times and monitor heart health/zones.
Really for running I just need it to tell me:
Times
Pace
Average HR
Times in each HR zone
Calories burned
My own records too e.g personal bests
Mapped runs
For workouts:
HR and average
Times in each zone
Accurate calorie burned
Optional:
Swimming lengths/times
Sleep
I'm thinking of buying the fore runner 235 after all the advice and YouTube reviews.
What do you think MeanderingMammal?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions