Charge 2 - How to get more accurate HR while exercising
brucedelaney
Posts: 433 Member
This is so simple it's stupid, but I've tested it and it truly works. By testing, I mean I feel my pulse and watch it on the fit bit as well it's perfectly in sync.
Anyway, I just move the sensor around to the bottom of my wrist and essentially wear it backwards for the duration of the workout. That's where the veins are and where you normally take your pulse. It's working for me without flaws.
Regards,
Bruce
Anyway, I just move the sensor around to the bottom of my wrist and essentially wear it backwards for the duration of the workout. That's where the veins are and where you normally take your pulse. It's working for me without flaws.
Regards,
Bruce
4
Replies
-
I was actually thinking of trying this as well. I've read to move it higher on your arm to get a better reading but it slides down when you sweat.0
-
I've been using this new method for 2 days, I just move it around when I go for a walk or workout and the HR seems to be pretty spot on.0
-
I've always worn mine this way. Mostly because I've always worn my watch the same way and my Charge 2 replaced my watch.1
-
Those HR zones are based on the old tired 220-age formula.
For women - you actually have a better chance of being more than 10 bpm outside that figure than within - the bell curve is terrible.
So your HRmax sounds higher if not even out of breath. For good workouts have to go harder if that is the plan for it.
And the calorie burn is likely to be inflated too.
If it thinks that higher HR is in higher zone, it thinks it's a greater % of your HRmax.
And 80% of HRmax is going to calculate to bigger calorie burn than say 60% of HRmax - which you were probably closer to.
You might want to pretend log the running workouts using the distance that was done (assuming Fitbit saw that right) and the time, and just see what Fitbit would use for calorie burn.
You can click cancel or delete the Workout record.
You can do that on past workouts too - you can compare right now.
Because pace-based calorie burn is actually more accurate than HRM.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1
0 -
Those HR zones are based on the old tired 220-age formula.
For women - you actually have a better chance of being more than 10 bpm outside that figure than within - the bell curve is terrible.
So your HRmax sounds higher if not even out of breath. For good workouts have to go harder if that is the plan for it.
And the calorie burn is likely to be inflated too.
If it thinks that higher HR is in higher zone, it thinks it's a greater % of your HRmax.
And 80% of HRmax is going to calculate to bigger calorie burn than say 60% of HRmax - which you were probably closer to.
You might want to pretend log the running workouts using the distance that was done (assuming Fitbit saw that right) and the time, and just see what Fitbit would use for calorie burn.
You can click cancel or delete the Workout record.
You can do that on past workouts too - you can compare right now.
Because pace-based calorie burn is actually more accurate than HRM.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/774337/how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is/p1
I just did this my run on Sunday was 156 calories...HR was in peak most of the time
Logged run today (fake workout) was 138 calories...18 calorie variance...
not sure if that is significant...probably would be as the run was on 15min...did 1.53 miles.0 -
So short run not significant, but as you went longer, it could add up decently.
Probably not to the level to wipe out a deficit, but just keep it in mind.
You have likely kept a higher HRmax than expected by keeping fit through the years - that has been seen in studies to be indicator for not having the normal drop as you age.
Genetically may have been higher anyway.1 -
So short run not significant, but as you went longer, it could add up decently.
Probably not to the level to wipe out a deficit, but just keep it in mind.
You have likely kept a higher HRmax than expected by keeping fit through the years - that has been seen in studies to be indicator for not having the normal drop as you age.
Genetically may have been higher anyway.
for sure...I won't be running further than 3miles I expect but biking maybe.
I am not one for eating up to my limit most of the time...I eat when I am hungry and some treats when I am not if there is room...
might tighten it up tonight see if that makes a difference as I am doing the same run.
ETA: I personally am not too fussed over it tho...0 -
I need to try this. So many times I glance at the display to see -- (no heart rate) or a really low #. Like something in the 60's, when my resting rate is mid 50's, and I'm walking briskly up a big hill. That just isn't right!0
This discussion has been closed.