Wearable Fitness Tech
ashleyallen87
Posts: 15 Member
Hello all,
Saturday morning I was doing a full body workout video at home (youtube) and the woman leading the class was wearing an apple watch that told her "we" had burned over 600 calories during the hour long video. I love this!
While I dont think I want to spend that kind of money (also dont have an iphone), I am very interested in purchasing some sort of wearable device that shows me how many calories I have burned during an exercise so Im not guessing anymore! I would like to stat under $200 (Canadian). Any recommendations?
So far the one that sticks out the most is the new Fitbit Charge 3, but it is at the very top end of my budget at $199 (plus taxes).
I am not at all tech savvy, but have some great people at work that could help me out if needed haha
Thanks!
Saturday morning I was doing a full body workout video at home (youtube) and the woman leading the class was wearing an apple watch that told her "we" had burned over 600 calories during the hour long video. I love this!
While I dont think I want to spend that kind of money (also dont have an iphone), I am very interested in purchasing some sort of wearable device that shows me how many calories I have burned during an exercise so Im not guessing anymore! I would like to stat under $200 (Canadian). Any recommendations?
So far the one that sticks out the most is the new Fitbit Charge 3, but it is at the very top end of my budget at $199 (plus taxes).
I am not at all tech savvy, but have some great people at work that could help me out if needed haha
Thanks!
2
Replies
-
I'm a big Garmin fan, but not sure what you can get for $200.
These things fall into 3 categories for me. Others will have different opinions.
Apple if you use iPhone products (I don't)
Fitbit if you want the social aspect to wearing a device (challenges among friends etc.)
Garmin if you a data nerd (and I think they are built better).
I have a Fenix 3HR that was a bit over $400 at Costco, so not in your range.
ETA, be careful with any of them. They can overestimate calorie burn depending on the activity. They work best with steady state cardio like running.6 -
I have had the Garmin Vivosmart HR and now have a Fitbit Charge HR. The fitbit isn't terrible and the app is very user friendly, but I definitely preferred the Garmin. They didn't make the same model anymore when I lost my old Garmin, which is why I decided to give fitbit a try. Now I have to wait at least a couple years (or I somehow come in to a huge amount of money) before going back to Garmin.
Also, I do still have a Samsung Gear S2 classic in rose gold with a white leather band. I use it more as a smart watch, as I really don't like the app and I bought it to be fancy, not to get it all scratched up while weight lifting (which is almost what happened immediately). I would suggest not getting a Samsung unless you have a Samsung phone to pair it with.
ETA: I also meant to add that you need to watch out for that high calorie burn (@Tacklewasher reminded me) . 1-it's going to be different for different bodies, and 2-my fitbit gives me waaaay too high of a calorie burn for weight lifting/calesthenics/etc, and a fairly low but probably more realistic burn for running.1 -
I have a schosche rythym (original not the waterproof one) and it was under 100 (think I spent around 60 on mine). It’s a HRM without a display so you pair to an app. I pair it to my gym’s app that has my personalized heart rate zones but I also pair to the polar bear app. Have had it a few months and I like it just fine. If I wanted to spend more I’m sure there are other good options but I wanted an accurate HRM and they’d been recommended/got good reviews.0
-
MonkeyMel21 wrote: »I have had the Garmin Vivosmart HR and now have a Fitbit Charge HR. The fitbit isn't terrible and the app is very user friendly, but I definitely preferred the Garmin. They didn't make the same model anymore when I lost my old Garmin, which is why I decided to give fitbit a try. Now I have to wait at least a couple years (or I somehow come in to a huge amount of money) before going back to Garmin.
Also, I do still have a Samsung Gear S2 classic in rose gold with a white leather band. I use it more as a smart watch, as I really don't like the app and I bought it to be fancy, not to get it all scratched up while weight lifting (which is almost what happened immediately). I would suggest not getting a Samsung unless you have a Samsung phone to pair it with.
ETA: I also meant to add that you need to watch out for that high calorie burn (@Tacklewasher reminded me) . 1-it's going to be different for different bodies, and 2-my fitbit gives me waaaay too high of a calorie burn for weight lifting/calesthenics/etc, and a fairly low but probably more realistic burn for running.
really eh...I honestly thought it would give a very accurate picture of the calorie burn since its based on heart rate, thats great to know though!0 -
ashleyallen87 wrote: »MonkeyMel21 wrote: »I have had the Garmin Vivosmart HR and now have a Fitbit Charge HR. The fitbit isn't terrible and the app is very user friendly, but I definitely preferred the Garmin. They didn't make the same model anymore when I lost my old Garmin, which is why I decided to give fitbit a try. Now I have to wait at least a couple years (or I somehow come in to a huge amount of money) before going back to Garmin.
Also, I do still have a Samsung Gear S2 classic in rose gold with a white leather band. I use it more as a smart watch, as I really don't like the app and I bought it to be fancy, not to get it all scratched up while weight lifting (which is almost what happened immediately). I would suggest not getting a Samsung unless you have a Samsung phone to pair it with.
ETA: I also meant to add that you need to watch out for that high calorie burn (@Tacklewasher reminded me) . 1-it's going to be different for different bodies, and 2-my fitbit gives me waaaay too high of a calorie burn for weight lifting/calesthenics/etc, and a fairly low but probably more realistic burn for running.
really eh...I honestly thought it would give a very accurate picture of the calorie burn since its based on heart rate, thats great to know though!
I discount my weight lifting by ~ a 3rd. Running is spot on for me.0 -
ashleyallen87 wrote: »MonkeyMel21 wrote: »I have had the Garmin Vivosmart HR and now have a Fitbit Charge HR. The fitbit isn't terrible and the app is very user friendly, but I definitely preferred the Garmin. They didn't make the same model anymore when I lost my old Garmin, which is why I decided to give fitbit a try. Now I have to wait at least a couple years (or I somehow come in to a huge amount of money) before going back to Garmin.
Also, I do still have a Samsung Gear S2 classic in rose gold with a white leather band. I use it more as a smart watch, as I really don't like the app and I bought it to be fancy, not to get it all scratched up while weight lifting (which is almost what happened immediately). I would suggest not getting a Samsung unless you have a Samsung phone to pair it with.
ETA: I also meant to add that you need to watch out for that high calorie burn (@Tacklewasher reminded me) . 1-it's going to be different for different bodies, and 2-my fitbit gives me waaaay too high of a calorie burn for weight lifting/calesthenics/etc, and a fairly low but probably more realistic burn for running.
really eh...I honestly thought it would give a very accurate picture of the calorie burn since its based on heart rate, thats great to know though!
Wrist based heart rate monitors won't be as accurate as a chest strap monitor anyway, and both are most accurate doing steady state cardio. You just have to play with the numbers in combination with your MFP calorie goal, to get the best idea of how much exercise calories you can eat back.0 -
I have used a fitbit Alta HR forever now but I don't rely on it for exercise. It's all over the place and highly inaccurate during workouts. I use a basic Polar chest strap heart rate monitor for my workouts and have been doing so for many years and I find it to be the most accurate way to measure calorie burn. I override whatever the fitbit claimed I burned during my workout period with the results of the Polar hrm. I got it at Best Buy years ago for maybe $70.1
-
I have had a Fitbit Flex and a Garmin Vivofit2. I would highly recommend the Garmin. Among other advantages it never needs charging, just replace the batteries every few years. The Fitbit stopped holding a charge after about 14 months. Also, I can swim with the Garmin.
Calorie burns calculated are somewhat inaccurate at first. If you are meticulous in your logging, it gets better and better. My Fitbit was about 100 calories over when I compared it to real life data, but this was after wearing it for about 2 months. My Garmin is about 50 calories under, but I have had it for 3 years now.2 -
my brother had the vivofit and he liked it
i have had the vivosmart and vivosmartHR and now the vivoactive. i find the data to be accurate. i have found the HR to be pretty spot on in comparison to the chest. i mostly run, walk, and hike.0 -
I used a paired chest strap HR monitor and an app for years, then recently switched to an Apple watch. With the chest strap the HR was very accurate but the apps I used would typically over estimate calories. Instead of a 600-800 calorie burn in my usual 1.5 hour workouts I'd see a 1200 or even 1500 calorie burn. Wasn't a big deal, I just adjusted it manually and kept up the hard work. With the Apple watch I've noticed it's much much more accurate for me on calorie burns. It'll give me active vs inactive calorie burns when doing cross training/circuit training which means it's only counting excess calories when I'm working hard and not at rest. The HR feature I didn't expect to be accurate but it has been within 1-2bpm of my chest strap consistently. However, the Apple watch is more on the pricey end and only works well if you have an iPhone to configure it. I'd stay away from anything fitbit, my wife and I both tried them and found them very inaccurate (personal experience only, and admittedly an old opinion since I have not used one in over 2 years). Garmin makes some really nice products from what I've seen. If you have an iPhone though, the Apple watch is a no-brainer.0
-
I've been wearing a Fitbit for 4 years now, and I love them! Currently have the Charge 2, but I've been eyeing the Charge 3 since you can wear it in water.
The two I've had have lasted pretty well - my original Flex made it over 2 years and still worked, just needed to be charged daily at the end. The only issue I've had with the Charge 2 in the past 1.5 years is the band broke (but I just bought a replacement off Amazon for $8).0 -
I have had a Fitbit Flex and a Garmin Vivofit2. I would highly recommend the Garmin. Among other advantages it never needs charging, just replace the batteries every few years. The Fitbit stopped holding a charge after about 14 months. Also, I can swim with the Garmin.
Calorie burns calculated are somewhat inaccurate at first. If you are meticulous in your logging, it gets better and better. My Fitbit was about 100 calories over when I compared it to real life data, but this was after wearing it for about 2 months. My Garmin is about 50 calories under, but I have had it for 3 years now.
Interesting, how was your experience with the swim tracking for that model of Garmin?0 -
I have a Garmin Vivoactive 3, replacing a very old Polar HRM-only (I forget which model). I like the VA3, and find it useful, but have no illusions that it "shows me how many calories I have burned during an exercise so Im not guessing anymore". I'm still guessing, just with more information and tools.
These devices measure some things, such as heart rate, distance, speed, arm motion, etc. They use those measurements, plus some algorithms (fancy word for computer programs written by mere humans) based on research studies, to estimate calorie burn. They don't measure calorie burn, in any normal sense of "measure".
Because none of the things they can truly measure fully correlate with or determine calorie burn, but are only inexact proxies for it , the estimates are only as good as the algorithms, the research, and the humans who it put it all together. In some scenarios, they can be pretty accurate. In others, they're laughably inaccurate.
This is an old article, but still a valid one, with respect to heart rate as an indicator of calorie burn. I encourage anyone who uses a HRM-based estimator to read it:
https://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-21472
I used my Polar's exercise calorie estimates for most activities, after checking them against other sources (including MFP's exercise database, specialized activity calculators that accept additional inputs (like terrain, speed, etc.), exercise machines, etc.) and thinking about which estimate was likely to be the most reliable. In some cases, these were close; in others there was a huge range. These days, I use the VA3's estimates for most cardio-type activities (for me that's rowing and spin), and the MFP database for strength training (because HR methods are way wrong for weight training, typically). For things I do rarely, I go back to the "check multiple sources and compare" idea. When in doubt, I use the "pick the lowest estimate" methodology.
I don't use the VA3 TDEE calorie estimate because I know from experience that it's very, very wrong for me (while acknowledging that this and similar good-quality devices are likely to be fairly accurate TDEE estimators for most people).4 -
I have had a Fitbit Flex and a Garmin Vivofit2. I would highly recommend the Garmin. Among other advantages it never needs charging, just replace the batteries every few years. The Fitbit stopped holding a charge after about 14 months. Also, I can swim with the Garmin.
Calorie burns calculated are somewhat inaccurate at first. If you are meticulous in your logging, it gets better and better. My Fitbit was about 100 calories over when I compared it to real life data, but this was after wearing it for about 2 months. My Garmin is about 50 calories under, but I have had it for 3 years now.
Interesting, how was your experience with the swim tracking for that model of Garmin?
I use a lap counter to track my laps (I wear it on my index finger and press a button for each lap. It is second nature to press it just before I go into my flip turn). I don't trust anything else to be accurate.1 -
I have a Skagen hybrid smart watch that has a pedometer to count my steps and add activity to MFP
I have a Wahoo Tickr (chest strap) that I use when I'm cycling to record my HR/activity levels during rides which adds the activity to MFP for me
I don't bother logging additional exercise when I do my lifting (modified 3-day 5x5 routine). The calories burned during lifting like that I reckon would be pretty negligible anyway.1 -
I got a fitbit charge 2 in July and I've been enjoying it much more than I thought I would.
I mostly use it for statistics because I'm a data nerd (you should see my weightloss spreadsheet). Using it's calculated burn and my tracking from MFP I'd say it's reasonably accurate with the burn. The biggest issue I have with it is that I can't take it onto the judo mat, so I've no idea what it would be telling me I'm burning for that. However assuming my guesstimates for judo are accurate, it's coming in as accurate to about 25-75kcal* per day (also assuming my logging is perfect, which I know sometimes I'm under logging, meaning it might be even closer to the true value)
However, I don't really use it for exercise per say. Just walking and day to day activities. I want to start running so I'll be tracking how that effects my burn, and how much it effects the accuracy of my tracking.
*Edit - just checked my numbers from 17th July to 13th Sep (I have already done the calculations for this point) it's averaged out as a 48.9kcals difference per day between theoretical loss and actual loss (as in I was consuming 48.9kcals more, or burning 48.9kcals less). Which considering I don't often log my cups of tea or coffee means that it's probably pretty close to my actual burn1 -
I have had a Fitbit Flex and a Garmin Vivofit2. I would highly recommend the Garmin. Among other advantages it never needs charging, just replace the batteries every few years. The Fitbit stopped holding a charge after about 14 months. Also, I can swim with the Garmin.
Calorie burns calculated are somewhat inaccurate at first. If you are meticulous in your logging, it gets better and better. My Fitbit was about 100 calories over when I compared it to real life data, but this was after wearing it for about 2 months. My Garmin is about 50 calories under, but I have had it for 3 years now.
Interesting, how was your experience with the swim tracking for that model of Garmin?
I use a lap counter to track my laps (I wear it on my index finger and press a button for each lap. It is second nature to press it just before I go into my flip turn). I don't trust anything else to be accurate.
Thanks! I hadn’t known about lap counters until recently from MFP. 😛0 -
I have had a Fitbit Flex and a Garmin Vivofit2. I would highly recommend the Garmin. Among other advantages it never needs charging, just replace the batteries every few years. The Fitbit stopped holding a charge after about 14 months. Also, I can swim with the Garmin.
Calorie burns calculated are somewhat inaccurate at first. If you are meticulous in your logging, it gets better and better. My Fitbit was about 100 calories over when I compared it to real life data, but this was after wearing it for about 2 months. My Garmin is about 50 calories under, but I have had it for 3 years now.
Interesting, how was your experience with the swim tracking for that model of Garmin?
I use a lap counter to track my laps (I wear it on my index finger and press a button for each lap. It is second nature to press it just before I go into my flip turn). I don't trust anything else to be accurate.
Sorry to sidetrack the thread a bit but I looked these up and wow they are so expensive! Like a second fitness tracker! Why! 😱0 -
I have had a Fitbit Flex and a Garmin Vivofit2. I would highly recommend the Garmin. Among other advantages it never needs charging, just replace the batteries every few years. The Fitbit stopped holding a charge after about 14 months. Also, I can swim with the Garmin.
Calorie burns calculated are somewhat inaccurate at first. If you are meticulous in your logging, it gets better and better. My Fitbit was about 100 calories over when I compared it to real life data, but this was after wearing it for about 2 months. My Garmin is about 50 calories under, but I have had it for 3 years now.
Interesting, how was your experience with the swim tracking for that model of Garmin?
I use a lap counter to track my laps (I wear it on my index finger and press a button for each lap. It is second nature to press it just before I go into my flip turn). I don't trust anything else to be accurate.
Sorry to sidetrack the thread a bit but I looked these up and wow they are so expensive! Like a second fitness tracker! Why! 😱
Mine was $25 3 years ago. I did not get one with a timer because I have that feature on my Vivofit. I see that they are $30 now. Here is the seller I bought mine from https://ebay.com/itm/SPORTCOUNT-LapCounter-Model-Waterproof-Ring-Lap-Counter-Tally-Swim-Run/121315987474?epid=1300590094&hash=item1c3eff1012:g:GZoAAMXQVT9SxiEs:sc:USPSFirstClass!53029!US!-1
1 -
ashleyallen87 wrote: »Hello all,
Saturday morning I was doing a full body workout video at home (youtube) and the woman leading the class was wearing an apple watch that told her "we" had burned over 600 calories during the hour long video. I love this!
While I dont think I want to spend that kind of money (also dont have an iphone), I am very interested in purchasing some sort of wearable device that shows me how many calories I have burned during an exercise so Im not guessing anymore! I would like to stat under $200 (Canadian). Any recommendations?
So far the one that sticks out the most is the new Fitbit Charge 3, but it is at the very top end of my budget at $199 (plus taxes).
I am not at all tech savvy, but have some great people at work that could help me out if needed haha
Thanks!
Is it really worth $200 to have a machine guess for you? It's still just a guess.6 -
I have had a Fitbit Flex and a Garmin Vivofit2. I would highly recommend the Garmin. Among other advantages it never needs charging, just replace the batteries every few years. The Fitbit stopped holding a charge after about 14 months. Also, I can swim with the Garmin.
Calorie burns calculated are somewhat inaccurate at first. If you are meticulous in your logging, it gets better and better. My Fitbit was about 100 calories over when I compared it to real life data, but this was after wearing it for about 2 months. My Garmin is about 50 calories under, but I have had it for 3 years now.
Interesting, how was your experience with the swim tracking for that model of Garmin?
I use a lap counter to track my laps (I wear it on my index finger and press a button for each lap. It is second nature to press it just before I go into my flip turn). I don't trust anything else to be accurate.
Sorry to sidetrack the thread a bit but I looked these up and wow they are so expensive! Like a second fitness tracker! Why! 😱
Mine was $25 3 years ago. I did not get one with a timer because I have that feature on my Vivofit. I see that they are $30 now. Here is the seller I bought mine from https://ebay.com/itm/SPORTCOUNT-LapCounter-Model-Waterproof-Ring-Lap-Counter-Tally-Swim-Run/121315987474?epid=1300590094&hash=item1c3eff1012:g:GZoAAMXQVT9SxiEs:sc:USPSFirstClass!53029!US!-1
Also, my Vivofit2 and lap counter combined totaled just over $100, which was within my budget. I wanted to stay under $150 since I splurged and bought a waterproof ipod shuffle to listen to while swimming. At the time it cost $100 by itself.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »ashleyallen87 wrote: »Hello all,
Saturday morning I was doing a full body workout video at home (youtube) and the woman leading the class was wearing an apple watch that told her "we" had burned over 600 calories during the hour long video. I love this!
While I dont think I want to spend that kind of money (also dont have an iphone), I am very interested in purchasing some sort of wearable device that shows me how many calories I have burned during an exercise so Im not guessing anymore! I would like to stat under $200 (Canadian). Any recommendations?
So far the one that sticks out the most is the new Fitbit Charge 3, but it is at the very top end of my budget at $199 (plus taxes).
I am not at all tech savvy, but have some great people at work that could help me out if needed haha
Thanks!
Is it really worth $200 to have a machine guess for you? It's still just a guess.
Actually, after the first month or so, as long as you are logging calorie intake and purposeful exercises correctly the fitness trackers can be pretty accurate. The first one I had was within 100 calories of my actual burn (as calculated from real time data). The trick for accuracy is to be meticulous in your logging. 100 calories out of 2400 is within an acceptable margin of error. My logging could easily have been off by that much since a person can never be 100% accurate due to food being an agricultural product and even the most accurate database calculates average calories for a particular food item.3 -
I have had a Fitbit Flex and a Garmin Vivofit2. I would highly recommend the Garmin. Among other advantages it never needs charging, just replace the batteries every few years. The Fitbit stopped holding a charge after about 14 months. Also, I can swim with the Garmin.
Calorie burns calculated are somewhat inaccurate at first. If you are meticulous in your logging, it gets better and better. My Fitbit was about 100 calories over when I compared it to real life data, but this was after wearing it for about 2 months. My Garmin is about 50 calories under, but I have had it for 3 years now.
Interesting, how was your experience with the swim tracking for that model of Garmin?
I use a lap counter to track my laps (I wear it on my index finger and press a button for each lap. It is second nature to press it just before I go into my flip turn). I don't trust anything else to be accurate.
Sorry to sidetrack the thread a bit but I looked these up and wow they are so expensive! Like a second fitness tracker! Why! 😱
Mine was $25 3 years ago. I did not get one with a timer because I have that feature on my Vivofit. I see that they are $30 now. Here is the seller I bought mine from https://ebay.com/itm/SPORTCOUNT-LapCounter-Model-Waterproof-Ring-Lap-Counter-Tally-Swim-Run/121315987474?epid=1300590094&hash=item1c3eff1012:g:GZoAAMXQVT9SxiEs:sc:USPSFirstClass!53029!US!-1
Also, my Vivofit2 and lap counter combined totaled just over $100, which was within my budget. I wanted to stay under $150 since I splurged and bought a waterproof ipod shuffle to listen to while swimming. At the time it cost $100 by itself.
Awesome!!! Thank you! The ones I looked up were over $100 which seemed ridiculous to me. I’ll be reconsidering these lower Garmins if I can make a lap counter work for me. Thank you!!!0 -
I use a Garmin fenix 5x. It's very expensive, but very advanced.
I have also used many other devices like fitbit, samsung, apple watch, polar, suunto, etc...
Any device with 24/7 heart rate monitoring is going to be more accurate, but you should use them to record every workout for them to be more accurate.
Another reason many people find them less accurate is that they do not know what their true max heart rate is, so the device will use the standard 220 - age formula to calculate heart rate zones. If your true max heart rate is higher than the 220 - age calculation, then the heart rate data causes the calorie burn to be a little higher.
For example, my max heart rate is 159 BPM using the 220 - age formula (220 - 61 = 159). I got my heart rate up to 169 doing sprint intervals several times, and even that would be a little under my true max heart rate. Some say you should take your highest recorded heart (at full throttle (and I mean full out effort until you are going to pass out)) rate and add 5 to it. I have mine set to 174 now.
Once you get a feel for your true max heart rate and have your device set up properly, you should start seeing more accurate calorie burns both during exercise and even non active calories in many devices.
Just something to take into account.5 -
You can try Fitbit Charge 2. I think this band makes your demand fulfill.1
-
ashleyallen87 wrote: »Saturday morning I was doing a full body workout video at home (youtube) and the woman leading the class was wearing an apple watch that told her "we" had burned over 600 calories during the hour long video. I love this!
While I dont think I want to spend that kind of money (also dont have an iphone), I am very interested in purchasing some sort of wearable device that shows me how many calories I have burned during an exercise so Im not guessing anymore! I would like to stat under $200 (Canadian). Any recommendations?
Given the type of workout you describe it is extremely unlikely that 600 calories is remotely accurate. Apple watches, and other activity trackers aren't designed in a way that measures that type of activity.
Personally I wouldn't bother, just inject it into MFP as circuit training and track your progress,
4 -
the VivoFit is waterproof, it's not a swim tacker.I have had a Fitbit Flex and a Garmin Vivofit2. I would highly recommend the Garmin. Among other advantages it never needs charging, just replace the batteries every few years. The Fitbit stopped holding a charge after about 14 months. Also, I can swim with the Garmin.
Calorie burns calculated are somewhat inaccurate at first. If you are meticulous in your logging, it gets better and better. My Fitbit was about 100 calories over when I compared it to real life data, but this was after wearing it for about 2 months. My Garmin is about 50 calories under, but I have had it for 3 years now.
Interesting, how was your experience with the swim tracking for that model of Garmin?
I have a Forerunner 735XT multisport that does track swimming. As long as I add the pool length before starting a session I've found it very accurate for distance. It also gives me a measure of stroke efficiency, which is useful for drills training.
All that said, it doesn't measure if I'm using a kickboard.
1 -
MonkeyMel21 wrote: »ashleyallen87 wrote: »MonkeyMel21 wrote: »I have had the Garmin Vivosmart HR and now have a Fitbit Charge HR. The fitbit isn't terrible and the app is very user friendly, but I definitely preferred the Garmin. They didn't make the same model anymore when I lost my old Garmin, which is why I decided to give fitbit a try. Now I have to wait at least a couple years (or I somehow come in to a huge amount of money) before going back to Garmin.
Also, I do still have a Samsung Gear S2 classic in rose gold with a white leather band. I use it more as a smart watch, as I really don't like the app and I bought it to be fancy, not to get it all scratched up while weight lifting (which is almost what happened immediately). I would suggest not getting a Samsung unless you have a Samsung phone to pair it with.
ETA: I also meant to add that you need to watch out for that high calorie burn (@Tacklewasher reminded me) . 1-it's going to be different for different bodies, and 2-my fitbit gives me waaaay too high of a calorie burn for weight lifting/calesthenics/etc, and a fairly low but probably more realistic burn for running.
really eh...I honestly thought it would give a very accurate picture of the calorie burn since its based on heart rate, thats great to know though!
Wrist based heart rate monitors won't be as accurate as a chest strap monitor anyway, and both are most accurate doing steady state cardio. You just have to play with the numbers in combination with your MFP calorie goal, to get the best idea of how much exercise calories you can eat back.
There are two factors that frequently get conflated when people start giving advice on activity measurement. Accuracy or otherwise of the measurement of HR, and whether that data can be used to extrapolate a meaningful calorie expenditure estimate.
Optical (wrist or arm) vs electrical (chest strap) measurement is very close in terms of contemporaneous HR measurement, essentially within 1-2%, so the chest straps are more accurate line is generally ill-informed received wisdom. Several years ago optical technology was poor, so it was a reasonable statement, things have moved on a lot. Electrical can pick up additional data around beat strength and consistency, but most devices don't use that and it has absolutely no bearing on calorie estimation.
As far as using HR as a basis for calorie estimation, that's driven by the type of activity, not how HR is measured. The algorithms are based on research that was carried out on steady state, aerobic range, tests. So for running at a steady pace for a decent distance the estimates are going to be pretty good. For anything where HR starts to vary the relationship breaks down. If the heart isn't working in the aerobic range then the relationship breaks down as well. So for walking HR has no bearing on calorie estimates. Similarly for interval training.
So essentially, in the type of session originally described a calorie estimate based on HR is likely to be high with potentially as much as 100% error. For a 60 minute steady paced run, on the other hand, it would be pretty reliable.3 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MonkeyMel21 wrote: »ashleyallen87 wrote: »MonkeyMel21 wrote: »I have had the Garmin Vivosmart HR and now have a Fitbit Charge HR. The fitbit isn't terrible and the app is very user friendly, but I definitely preferred the Garmin. They didn't make the same model anymore when I lost my old Garmin, which is why I decided to give fitbit a try. Now I have to wait at least a couple years (or I somehow come in to a huge amount of money) before going back to Garmin.
Also, I do still have a Samsung Gear S2 classic in rose gold with a white leather band. I use it more as a smart watch, as I really don't like the app and I bought it to be fancy, not to get it all scratched up while weight lifting (which is almost what happened immediately). I would suggest not getting a Samsung unless you have a Samsung phone to pair it with.
ETA: I also meant to add that you need to watch out for that high calorie burn (@Tacklewasher reminded me) . 1-it's going to be different for different bodies, and 2-my fitbit gives me waaaay too high of a calorie burn for weight lifting/calesthenics/etc, and a fairly low but probably more realistic burn for running.
really eh...I honestly thought it would give a very accurate picture of the calorie burn since its based on heart rate, thats great to know though!
Wrist based heart rate monitors won't be as accurate as a chest strap monitor anyway, and both are most accurate doing steady state cardio. You just have to play with the numbers in combination with your MFP calorie goal, to get the best idea of how much exercise calories you can eat back.
There are two factors that frequently get conflated when people start giving advice on activity measurement. Accuracy or otherwise of the measurement of HR, and whether that data can be used to extrapolate a meaningful calorie expenditure estimate.
Optical (wrist or arm) vs electrical (chest strap) measurement is very close in terms of contemporaneous HR measurement, essentially within 1-2%, so the chest straps are more accurate line is generally ill-informed received wisdom. Several years ago optical technology was poor, so it was a reasonable statement, things have moved on a lot. Electrical can pick up additional data around beat strength and consistency, but most devices don't use that and it has absolutely no bearing on calorie estimation.
As far as using HR as a basis for calorie estimation, that's driven by the type of activity, not how HR is measured. The algorithms are based on research that was carried out on steady state, aerobic range, tests. So for running at a steady pace for a decent distance the estimates are going to be pretty good. For anything where HR starts to vary the relationship breaks down. If the heart isn't working in the aerobic range then the relationship breaks down as well. So for walking HR has no bearing on calorie estimates. Similarly for interval training.
So essentially, in the type of session originally described a calorie estimate based on HR is likely to be high with potentially as much as 100% error. For a 60 minute steady paced run, on the other hand, it would be pretty reliable.
Just to see if I understand you, would you then say if one did not do any steady state cardio like running, a wrist HR tracker is more of a hindrance (producing incorrect data), and an activity tracker without HR is going to be more reliable?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MonkeyMel21 wrote: »ashleyallen87 wrote: »MonkeyMel21 wrote: »I have had the Garmin Vivosmart HR and now have a Fitbit Charge HR. The fitbit isn't terrible and the app is very user friendly, but I definitely preferred the Garmin. They didn't make the same model anymore when I lost my old Garmin, which is why I decided to give fitbit a try. Now I have to wait at least a couple years (or I somehow come in to a huge amount of money) before going back to Garmin.
Also, I do still have a Samsung Gear S2 classic in rose gold with a white leather band. I use it more as a smart watch, as I really don't like the app and I bought it to be fancy, not to get it all scratched up while weight lifting (which is almost what happened immediately). I would suggest not getting a Samsung unless you have a Samsung phone to pair it with.
ETA: I also meant to add that you need to watch out for that high calorie burn (@Tacklewasher reminded me) . 1-it's going to be different for different bodies, and 2-my fitbit gives me waaaay too high of a calorie burn for weight lifting/calesthenics/etc, and a fairly low but probably more realistic burn for running.
really eh...I honestly thought it would give a very accurate picture of the calorie burn since its based on heart rate, thats great to know though!
Wrist based heart rate monitors won't be as accurate as a chest strap monitor anyway, and both are most accurate doing steady state cardio. You just have to play with the numbers in combination with your MFP calorie goal, to get the best idea of how much exercise calories you can eat back.
There are two factors that frequently get conflated when people start giving advice on activity measurement. Accuracy or otherwise of the measurement of HR, and whether that data can be used to extrapolate a meaningful calorie expenditure estimate.
Optical (wrist or arm) vs electrical (chest strap) measurement is very close in terms of contemporaneous HR measurement, essentially within 1-2%, so the chest straps are more accurate line is generally ill-informed received wisdom. Several years ago optical technology was poor, so it was a reasonable statement, things have moved on a lot. Electrical can pick up additional data around beat strength and consistency, but most devices don't use that and it has absolutely no bearing on calorie estimation.
As far as using HR as a basis for calorie estimation, that's driven by the type of activity, not how HR is measured. The algorithms are based on research that was carried out on steady state, aerobic range, tests. So for running at a steady pace for a decent distance the estimates are going to be pretty good. For anything where HR starts to vary the relationship breaks down. If the heart isn't working in the aerobic range then the relationship breaks down as well. So for walking HR has no bearing on calorie estimates. Similarly for interval training.
So essentially, in the type of session originally described a calorie estimate based on HR is likely to be high with potentially as much as 100% error. For a 60 minute steady paced run, on the other hand, it would be pretty reliable.
Just to see if I understand you, would you then say if one did not do any steady state cardio like running, a wrist HR tracker is more of a hindrance (producing incorrect data), and an activity tracker without HR is going to be more reliable?
HR is pretty meaningless to most exercisers, most of the time. It's useful as a training tool if you're working on performance improvement in a particular discipline. For example in a marathon performance improvement plan I'd potentially use effort ranges to define some sessions.
The use of HR in stuff like Orange Theory is no more than a marketing gimmick to make it seem more scientific than it actually is.
The data that you'll get from an optical HR sensor is as correct as the data from an electrical sensor, but using that data to extrapolate calorie expenditure from isn't particularly meaningful.
I'd actually say that in the example that this thread started with, a circuit type class, no activity tracker is going to give you meaningful data. A non-HR based estimate will be just as unreliable as an HR based one.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions