Wearable Fitness Tech

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.

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,

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.

kiela64 wrote: »

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.

I have a Fitbit Alta HR which I love.

It is not so much about getting an estimate on my calories, as it is just a little motivator to move more during the day.

I have the fitbit charge hr. It just won't sync with my Android phone. Cheap though, for counting steps and hr monitor matches up with the one on my treadmill.

crazyravr 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!

I have Vivoactive HR and love it. I dont use it as a smart watch and I didnt get it for the apps. I got it for running and cycling and for that its great. Does great HRM, has long battery life and built in GPS. Thats all I need.

Get it at SportCheck $199 and sign up for 10% off coupon.

Surprised they still have them, but checked and you are correct. Thought they'd only sell the VA3 now.

Wife has this one and it is a good choice.

PAV8888 wrote: »

Sometimes we tend to over-think things just a little bit! <me? guilty? nah!>

Not only is HR not a good proxy for caloric expenditure for ALL activities, but even for activities that it IS a good proxy the accuracy is NOT 100%

But, for our tools to be useful (just as with logging, just as with scale weight) we do not NEED accuracy. We DO NEED CONSISTENCY.

What the watches offer is convenience and an external, relatively unbiased unless you choose to manipulate the results, consistent reference point.

Are HR straps more accurate? They used to be substantially more so but now the difference tends to be 1 or 2 beats. But even when they were 10 beats off, who has done the am I sweating yet, is there some water around, time to lick the strap dance in order to get their strap to register anything? EXACTLY. I'll take the watch and not have to worry about lifting my shirt, thank you very much!

As to the accuracy/consistency, as long as you don't continuously change your mix of activities, what the watch does is remove a source of error: your own perception and varying decision making as to what and how to log or not log your various activities.

Just as with any other estimation method that you use, you still have to review your expected and real results after 4 to 6 weeks. Still look at your actual weight trend over time vs what you expected and you can still adjust your goals based on what your results are.

Interesting! Great insight. By this logic, I would follow that it's best to get the cheapest functional thing because they're all inaccurate anyway. That definitely puts you off getting something thats over $20 haha.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

kiela64 wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

Sometimes we tend to over-think things just a little bit! <me? guilty? nah!>

Not only is HR not a good proxy for caloric expenditure for ALL activities, but even for activities that it IS a good proxy the accuracy is NOT 100%

But, for our tools to be useful (just as with logging, just as with scale weight) we do not NEED accuracy. We DO NEED CONSISTENCY.

What the watches offer is convenience and an external, relatively unbiased unless you choose to manipulate the results, consistent reference point.

Are HR straps more accurate? They used to be substantially more so but now the difference tends to be 1 or 2 beats. But even when they were 10 beats off, who has done the am I sweating yet, is there some water around, time to lick the strap dance in order to get their strap to register anything? EXACTLY. I'll take the watch and not have to worry about lifting my shirt, thank you very much!

As to the accuracy/consistency, as long as you don't continuously change your mix of activities, what the watch does is remove a source of error: your own perception and varying decision making as to what and how to log or not log your various activities.

Just as with any other estimation method that you use, you still have to review your expected and real results after 4 to 6 weeks. Still look at your actual weight trend over time vs what you expected and you can still adjust your goals based on what your results are.

Interesting! Great insight. By this logic, I would follow that it's best to get the cheapest functional thing because they're all inaccurate anyway. That definitely puts you off getting something thats over $20 haha.

Well, maybe if calorie estimates are the sole goal, as perhaps they are for OP. Back in the olden days, we used to use HRMs to guide training , and some of us used to use GPS devices for that, too (speed/pace, distance, recording fixed laps, etc.). Some of us still do.

That said - and I know it's heresy to some - I still think a HR-based device can be a helpful input to estimating calories, depending on the exercise modalities you personally prefer. I mean, some people actually do steady state cardio sometimes - think of that! - not just circuits, HIIT, weights, Zumba or whatever. And, as Pav said, consistent calorie estimates are useful in the absence of truly accurate ones, especially in a context where one tracks CI and CO and adjusts based on results. But I also think it's important to try to understand the devices' limitations as calorie estimators.

I understand that I"m fortunate that my budget allows it, but I'm happy to pay a couple of hundred dollars for a device that lets me set and track HR training ranges (even though RPE works fine for training: I'm a data geek ), automatically tracks my 500m splits on-water, and that sort of thing. Yeah, they estimate calories. But calories isn't the only reason a person might find them useful, worthwhile, or interesting.

I can't speak for the OP, and I'm not into HIIT, but walking and low-impact cardio like stationary cycling and swimming. (And untrackables like yoga and my physio exercises and attempting to break into some strength work). I'm not sure any but the cycling would use HR usefully.

I like that a device removes the decision-making even if it needs to be tested long term. But if going up in price doesn't improve accuracy, it doesn't really seem worth it then - unless the person is an athlete in training with specific goals doing activities like distance running/cycling outdoors. Which sounds awesome but isn't me, personally. And I think fitness trackers are marketed to more low-key people like me. So it is an insight I didn't have before.

Features that are more interesting to me for non-caloric reasons are - stairs climbed (monitoring my knee health), and laps swum (I was looking into lap tracking rings but even the more inexpensive ones pushed $75 CAD so it didn't seem worthwhile to get a second device at that point). I guess it varies. But HR doesn't appear to be as valuable as marketed (which makes sense - it was just new to me haha).