Wearable Fitness Tech
Replies
-
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?
This is how I understood the research I did before I bought my tracker. I chose one without an HRM because of that. The Garmin Vivofit2 I chose has an optional chest strap HRM, but it works via bluetooth. Most of my cardio is in the pool and bluetooth does not work properly underwater. On the other hand, it was only $25 more so if I did other cardio it would be cheaper and more accurate than a wrist worn because I would only wear it when doing cardio.1 -
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.0 -
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.3 -
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.0
-
Strap HRM are more accurate, but even those are not 100%. If you want something for exercise only, not to count steps, a Myzone belt is in your budget and very good and easy to use0
-
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.
0 -
Strap HRM are more accurate, but even those are not 100%. If you want something for exercise only, not to count steps, a Myzone belt is in your budget and very good and easy to use
A steel rule is more accurate than a plastic rule. How would you use either to determine the colour of my motorbike?3 -
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.0 -
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. 4 -
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).0 -
Well except for the fact that the $20 one may not connect with the apps you want to use, and may use more rudimentary algorithms, and give more inconsistent results than the better developed and more expensive ones, and may not offer the ecosystem and pretty pictures and graphs and interpersonal activities that the more developed products do....
That said the amount of additional information you get from the $300 Fitbit as compared to the $50 Fitbit Zip is strictly speaking not worth $250, especially if all you're looking for is a tdee estimator!
I still sprung for the not quite at the top $199 level one-- because more Blinky lights and pretty pictures!
4 -
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).
FWIW, my Garmin Vivoactive 3 gives me a very imaginative estimate of stairs; I'm not sure how it counts them (haven't bothered to try to find out because I don't care). I live in a weird house where all the living areas are on the 2nd floor. The VA3 says that so far today, I've gone up 7 flights of stairs, and down 3. I didn't count, so 7 might be in the ballpark (seems low) . . . but I can guarantee that in real life I've gone down a flight for every single flight I've gone up.
The sleep tracking is also silly wrong in some cases (maybe in most cases, but I don't have a cross check for everythng). For example, it has me asleep (REM at that!) at times when I'm demonstrably awake and reading or texting.
Maybe there's something odd about me as an individual with respect to fitness tracking, but I kind of wonder how much people simply trust that these devices are delivering truth because they're techno-magic.
It seems close enough for things I actually care about (HR, pace/distance for rowing, etc.), but - for me - has some funny ideas about data points I don't care about, but others might.1 -
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).
FWIW, my Garmin Vivoactive 3 gives me a very imaginative estimate of stairs; I'm not sure how it counts them (haven't bothered to try to find out because I don't care). I live in a weird house where all the living areas are on the 2nd floor. The VA3 says that so far today, I've gone up 7 flights of stairs, and down 3. I didn't count, so 7 might be in the ballpark (seems low) . . . but I can guarantee that in real life I've gone down a flight for every single flight I've gone up.
The sleep tracking is also silly wrong in some cases (maybe in most cases, but I don't have a cross check for everythng). For example, it has me asleep (REM at that!) at times when I'm demonstrably awake and reading or texting.
Maybe there's something odd about me as an individual with respect to fitness tracking, but I kind of wonder how much people simply trust that these devices are delivering truth because they're techno-magic.
It seems close enough for things I actually care about (HR, pace/distance for rowing, etc.), but - for me - has some funny ideas about data points I don't care about, but others might.
Oh, definitely techno-magic lives in the minds of vulnerable consumers. I saw a review on youtube of one of the trackers I was investigating saying that he was very disappointed in Fitbit for not being able to track your food automatically with a picture or through your wrist. Uh, buddy....
I'm sure I'm not invulnerable either.
I didn't expect much from sleep tracking, also who wants to wear a watch in their sleep?! but darn, stairs is a myth too? It sounded useful.Well except for the fact that the $20 one may not connect with the apps you want to use, and may use more rudimentary algorithms, and give more inconsistent results than the better developed and more expensive ones, and may not offer the ecosystem and pretty pictures and graphs and interpersonal activities that the more developed products do....
That said the amount of additional information you get from the $300 Fitbit as compared to the $50 Fitbit Zip is strictly speaking not worth $250, especially if all you're looking for is a tdee estimator!
I still sprung for the not quite at the top $199 level one-- because more Blinky lights and pretty pictures!
That is true. I had a $20 or $30 (on sale from like 2015) Misfit Flash. It synced with MFP (although it took me ages to figure out why it was giving me so many calories for merely existing - Misfit and MFP disagree on BMR/burn before exercise with the same stats, which is a problem but it turned out to be okay in the end once I understood what was going on. It was actually a more accurate estimate for me than MFP).
The troubles I had were late syncing. It would sync partway through the day and I would be unable to force-sync it in the evening to close my diary. I'd often close being "over" and then have it sync overnight and my calories would appear the next day. Annoying, but not impossible issues.
But the app is very lacking. It ran on a "points" system that was near meaningless from what I could understand, and did nothing with the data.
What was awesome about it was that it could be worn anywhere, on the shoe or ankle or waist or wrist based on what was most appropriate for an activity. It also never needed to be charged, with the coin cell batteries.
I lost it and I thought I'd get an upgrade, but the Fitbit Charge 3 is going to chime in at $250 CAD with warranty, before tax. And idk. Just. Not sure I'm up for that AND you have to charge it, and it's probably not more accurate, the HR tracking might throw things off weirdly. Idk. I think the low end is probably best. Although the Vivoactive 3 and Charge 3 both had my complete heart-eyes for a good week each, I've been reading lots and it seems much less worth it, especially after reading here. Fitbit & Garmin seem to have lots of benefits, but ultimately it might not be worth the $$$ for minimal improvement.... A runner, on the other hand, would benefit a ton from either.0 -
The only accurate way I know of to measure exercise calories (outside of a lab) is cycling with a power meter.
It literally measures the number of joules you're outputting at any point in time. The number of joules you've put into the pedals over the course of a ride is equal to average watts x ride length in seconds / 1000
So if you did a 60 minute ride (3600 seconds) at an average of 200 watts you'll have exerted 720kj (3600x200/1000) into the pedals (+/- the accuracy of the power meter which is usually about 1-2%).
While far more accurate than other methods like 'heart rate' or 'time & perceived effort' it's still gets a little fuzzy as efficiency needs to be taken into account. Generally speaking when cycling 20%-25% of your energy goes into the pedals. The other 75%-80% gets burned off as heat so taking the above 1 hour ride you get:
720kj ride at 25% efficiency = 720kj/0.25 = 2880kj burned or 2880kj/4.186 = 688 calories
720kj ride at 20% efficiency = 720kj/0.2 = 3600kj burned or 3600kj/4.186 = 860 calories.
More often than not I've seen people recommend assuming 25% efficiency to err on the more conservative side.2 -
Steps for Ann (possibly since my info refers to Fitbit) and Kiela do not factor into the caloric information; but are a nice challenge to keep things interesting.
Fitbit determines steps by awarding a flight for each 10 ft of barometric pressure drop detected while movement is also present. In other words flights get awarded for UPWARD "flights" of stairs only.
High wind or airplane travel or "stepping" while on an escalator, or a plugged hole where the barometric sensor is located can all throw the numbers for a ride (note that by definition a watch that has a hole for barometric pressure to be measured cannot be full sealed--What the kitten? Question to self: If diver watches can measure pressure, why do Fitbits need a hole?!?!?!)
Charge HR/Surge era watches had a lot of reliability issues and only Fitbit's superb customer service and warranty coverage at that time averted a public relations disaster. Charge 2 era watches appear to be solid with the changeable straps being a recurring "consumable" issue.
Because of how Fitbit handles their warranty returns procedure I would ensure that any **used** Fitbit I get can be registered on the Fitbit web site before paying for it.2 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Strap HRM are more accurate, but even those are not 100%. If you want something for exercise only, not to count steps, a Myzone belt is in your budget and very good and easy to use
A steel rule is more accurate than a plastic rule. How would you use either to determine the colour of my motorbike?
Do you ever feel like Cassandra, speaking a truth most people just won't hear or believe?0 -
Steps for Ann (possibly since my info refers to Fitbit) and Kiela do not factor into the caloric information; but are a nice challenge to keep things interesting.
Fitbit determines steps by awarding a flight for each 10 ft of barometric pressure drop detected while movement is also present. In other words flights get awarded for UPWARD "flights" of stairs only.
High wind or airplane travel or "stepping" while on an escalator, or a plugged hole where the barometric sensor is located can all throw the numbers for a ride (note that by definition a watch that has a hole for barometric pressure to be measured cannot be full sealed--What the kitten? Question to self: If diver watches can measure pressure, why do Fitbits need a hole?!?!?!)
Charge HR/Surge era watches had a lot of reliability issues and only Fitbit's superb customer service and warranty coverage at that time averted a public relations disaster. Charge 2 era watches appear to be solid with the changeable straps being a recurring "consumable" issue.
Because of how Fitbit handles their warranty returns procedure I would ensure that any **used** Fitbit I get can be registered on the Fitbit web site before paying for it.
If the Garmin only counts "up" flights, why is it separately and explicitly reporting "down" flights? I think it thinks it's counting both directions. Very rarely, it's given me more "downs" than "ups", usually it's the reverse . . . yet I've only ever done equal numbers of each, since I got it.
And I don't care about steps. I don't step much, as the bad knee mostly doesn't enjoy major walks, just whatever steps happen by doing life. I was surprised to find that (it thinks) I average 6000-some steps a day; I would've guessed lower. Still doesn't explain why I need to set MFP on "active" to get anywhere near correct calorie estimates.
@kiela64, I wouldn't assume that just because a device estimates something incorrectly for me, it estimates it incorrectly for everyone. Stairs might work fine for you. My sleep problems have defeated the insights of the hospital's sleep clinic; I can't expect a mere wristwatch to understand it. TDEE of these devices seems to work for most people, yet not for me. Perhaps I emanate estimate-defeating rays of some kind.
I still like the Garmin, glad I bought it, it helps me do what I need done. 2 -
I have the fit bit blaze, Samsung g2, Amazfit and the Samsung galaxy watch. It really depends on if you want your watch to be a fitness tracker first and then a smartwatch or vice versa. For fitness I love my Amazfit because it's simple. When working out I don't care to have the extras the smartwatches have. Plus it's only $80 and the battery life is amazing. A full charge easily last me 20 days. Check it out on Amazon!0
-
Steps for Ann (possibly since my info refers to Fitbit) and Kiela do not factor into the caloric information; but are a nice challenge to keep things interesting.
Fitbit determines steps by awarding a flight for each 10 ft of barometric pressure drop detected while movement is also present. In other words flights get awarded for UPWARD "flights" of stairs only.
High wind or airplane travel or "stepping" while on an escalator, or a plugged hole where the barometric sensor is located can all throw the numbers for a ride (note that by definition a watch that has a hole for barometric pressure to be measured cannot be full sealed--What the kitten? Question to self: If diver watches can measure pressure, why do Fitbits need a hole?!?!?!)
Charge HR/Surge era watches had a lot of reliability issues and only Fitbit's superb customer service and warranty coverage at that time averted a public relations disaster. Charge 2 era watches appear to be solid with the changeable straps being a recurring "consumable" issue.
Because of how Fitbit handles their warranty returns procedure I would ensure that any **used** Fitbit I get can be registered on the Fitbit web site before paying for it.
If the Garmin only counts "up" flights, why is it separately and explicitly reporting "down" flights? I think it thinks it's counting both directions. Very rarely, it's given me more "downs" than "ups", usually it's the reverse . . . yet I've only ever done equal numbers of each, since I got it.
And I don't care about steps. I don't step much, as the bad knee mostly doesn't enjoy major walks, just whatever steps happen by doing life. I was surprised to find that (it thinks) I average 6000-some steps a day; I would've guessed lower. Still doesn't explain why I need to set MFP on "active" to get anywhere near correct calorie estimates.
@kiela64, I wouldn't assume that just because a device estimates something incorrectly for me, it estimates it incorrectly for everyone. Stairs might work fine for you. My sleep problems have defeated the insights of the hospital's sleep clinic; I can't expect a mere wristwatch to understand it. TDEE of these devices seems to work for most people, yet not for me. Perhaps I emanate estimate-defeating rays of some kind.
I still like the Garmin, glad I bought it, it helps me do what I need done.
Ugh! Pretty much every instance of "steps" in my original was supposed to be "stairs". Obviously if garmin reports downward stairs they don't do things the same way as fitbit!0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »Strap HRM are more accurate, but even those are not 100%. If you want something for exercise only, not to count steps, a Myzone belt is in your budget and very good and easy to use
A steel rule is more accurate than a plastic rule. How would you use either to determine the colour of my motorbike?
Do you ever feel like Cassandra, speaking a truth most people just won't hear or believe?
Oh Indeed. It's the long standing engineer Vs marketing issue.3 -
Steps for Ann (possibly since my info refers to Fitbit) and Kiela do not factor into the caloric information; but are a nice challenge to keep things interesting.
Fitbit determines steps by awarding a flight for each 10 ft of barometric pressure drop detected while movement is also present. In other words flights get awarded for UPWARD "flights" of stairs only.
High wind or airplane travel or "stepping" while on an escalator, or a plugged hole where the barometric sensor is located can all throw the numbers for a ride (note that by definition a watch that has a hole for barometric pressure to be measured cannot be full sealed--What the kitten? Question to self: If diver watches can measure pressure, why do Fitbits need a hole?!?!?!)
Charge HR/Surge era watches had a lot of reliability issues and only Fitbit's superb customer service and warranty coverage at that time averted a public relations disaster. Charge 2 era watches appear to be solid with the changeable straps being a recurring "consumable" issue.
Because of how Fitbit handles their warranty returns procedure I would ensure that any **used** Fitbit I get can be registered on the Fitbit web site before paying for it.
If the Garmin only counts "up" flights, why is it separately and explicitly reporting "down" flights? I think it thinks it's counting both directions. Very rarely, it's given me more "downs" than "ups", usually it's the reverse . . . yet I've only ever done equal numbers of each, since I got it.
And I don't care about steps. I don't step much, as the bad knee mostly doesn't enjoy major walks, just whatever steps happen by doing life. I was surprised to find that (it thinks) I average 6000-some steps a day; I would've guessed lower. Still doesn't explain why I need to set MFP on "active" to get anywhere near correct calorie estimates.
@kiela64, I wouldn't assume that just because a device estimates something incorrectly for me, it estimates it incorrectly for everyone. Stairs might work fine for you. My sleep problems have defeated the insights of the hospital's sleep clinic; I can't expect a mere wristwatch to understand it. TDEE of these devices seems to work for most people, yet not for me. Perhaps I emanate estimate-defeating rays of some kind.
I still like the Garmin, glad I bought it, it helps me do what I need done.
Ugh! Pretty much every instance of "steps" in my original was supposed to be "stairs". Obviously if garmin reports downward stairs they don't do things the same way as fitbit!
Elevation in Garmin devices uses the barometric altimeter.1 -
my head is spinning after reading all of this! haha thank you everyone for the advice and recommendations, definitely has given me some food for thought
2 -
ashleyallen87 wrote: »my head is spinning after reading all of this! haha thank you everyone for the advice and recommendations, definitely has given me some food for thought
In the long run, this is what you need to consider:
1) Price
2) What you want to get out of a tracker and can a tracker give you what you need
3) What is your daily lifestyle?
4) Knowing the limitations, is it worth it TO YOU?
Sometimes I think some people expect too much from their trackers. They are not going to do everything for you so there is still a lot of space for human error.
2 -
I have a Fenix 3. I had a VAHR that my wife now uses. Some comments based on the above discussion.
I wear it 23.5/7 and take it off for ~ a half hour daily to charge it. Some days it needs more (over 10km run outside with GPS on), but generally it's on my wrist.
Sleep tracking works pretty good for me. It's not perfect and may start when I know I'm still watching tv, but it's close. It has kept me focused on getting enough sleep. The VAHR was good as well.
My activities include strong lifts 3 times a week, 5k 3 times a week and 10K on Sundays. I did try swimming for a while but I found it got boring.
For lifting it's a bit high. My best guess is ~120 cals for 30 mins and it gives 150-180.
For running it is really close. 390-410 for 5K. Based on my weight the formulas give me 410. The only issue is on the treadmill it comes in a bit short (4.75K when the tm says 5K) so it is a bit light for calories.
More to the point. When I track faithfully, both food and exercise, I lose pretty much spot on to what the numbers say I should.
I don't track stairs and found both of them to be wonky for stairs. I have one flight at home and one flight at work so I don't get a lot of opportunity to do stairs.
Never swam with the VAHR, but the Fenix is okay for lap counting, but not perfect. Someone who can do the flip-turn would probably have better results than I did.
I'm glad I have it as it helps me keep track of what I'm doing and does help motivate me. I like gadgets and it's been one that has not ended up on a shelf for me (I have lots of those). Have had the F3 since last Christmas and had 2 VAHR (broke one) and a Vivosmart HR before that.3 -
ashleyallen87 wrote: »my head is spinning after reading all of this! haha thank you everyone for the advice and recommendations, definitely has given me some food for thought
In the long run, this is what you need to consider:
1) Price
2) What you want to get out of a tracker and can a tracker give you what you need
3) What is your daily lifestyle?
4) Knowing the limitations, is it worth it TO YOU?
Sometimes I think some people expect too much from their trackers. They are not going to do everything for you so there is still a lot of space for human error.
I will agree with this sediment. Most people expect too much from their wearable technology and it ends up backfiring. I personally find fitness wearable devices to be over priced for the information they provide. The accuracy of each device is very dependent on the user and operational conditions that more times than not are not optimal.
For example: if your 500 dollar wearable fitness device over estimates cal burn by a consistent 30-50% what's the point? Might as well just use the free MFP built in guesstimate cal burn and get comparable results.4 -
For example: if your 500 dollar wearable fitness device over estimates cal burn by a consistent 30-50% what's the point? Might as well just use the free MFP built in guesstimate cal burn and get comparable results.
A. that would be a *kitten* purchase of a *kitten* tracker. If your tracker is that far off I would look at length of time you've given this, your activity mix, and even more so your food logging.
B. same reasons you buy something pre-made and ready to go when with sufficient effort you could make your own.
C. the tracker's results tend to be less directly controlled by your self perception and decision making and thus have the possibility of being more consistent for many of us. Examples: i didn't log moving my furniture around because it is just part of cleaning my house which I always did even though I am set up as sedentary. Or: I logged a half hour laundry cadio session even though I spent the rest of my day at the computer or on my couch because I really want a slice of toast and if I don't log something I will be in the red.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »For running it is really close. 390-410 for 5K. Based on my weight the formulas give me 410. The only issue is on the treadmill it comes in a bit short (4.75K when the tm says 5K) so it is a bit light for calories.
The Fenix estimates running calorie expenditure based on distance and elevation. It uses HR as a corroborating data point, rather than material to the calculation.Never swam with the VAHR, but the Fenix is okay for lap counting, but not perfect. Someone who can do the flip-turn would probably have better results than I did.
The Fenix swim tracking elements are the same as those in my 735xt. I've never had a discrepancy.
0 -
ashleyallen87 wrote: »my head is spinning after reading all of this! haha thank you everyone for the advice and recommendations, definitely has given me some food for thought
In the long run, this is what you need to consider:
1) Price
2) What you want to get out of a tracker and can a tracker give you what you need
3) What is your daily lifestyle?
4) Knowing the limitations, is it worth it TO YOU?
Sometimes I think some people expect too much from their trackers. They are not going to do everything for you so there is still a lot of space for human error.
I will agree with this sediment. Most people expect too much from their wearable technology and it ends up backfiring. I personally find fitness wearable devices to be over priced for the information they provide. The accuracy of each device is very dependent on the user and operational conditions that more times than not are not optimal.
For example: if your 500 dollar wearable fitness device over estimates cal burn by a consistent 30-50% what's the point? Might as well just use the free MFP built in guesstimate cal burn and get comparable results.
If it overestimates by a consistent percent, even a smallish range of percents, you're golden. Based on weight-results experience, if it's randomly within the range of 30%-50% over, you subtract 40% from what it says, and eat that. It'll work as well as static TDEE calculators (or NEAT calculators like MFP) but be scaled to the variations in your personal activity level, so it's an improvement on those other options.
I'm still not paying $500 for it unless it does user-set HR ranges and speed/pace/distance stuff to guide workouts, though. Heck, I cheerfully paid $200-something for a Garmin Vivoactive 3 that pegs my TDEE around 30% low, and I'm a happy consumer. (I kinda expected it to guess around 30% low, even before I bought it.)
It's a fitness tracker, not a calorie tracker, right? - at least "fitness tracker" was the term you used. 5 -
I have a top of the line Garmin watch. I'm sure it's too generous with my walking calories. (This morning it had awarded me 2 miles worth before I got 1,000 steps.). This is consistent, it's not too high one day and too low the next. So I know how to deal with it.
That's acceptable to me because walking isn't the main thing I do or what I bought it for.
The watch talks to my power meter, so my bike calories are never more than 2.5% off, and that's just the icing on the cake.
I don't trust the Nordic ski calories. But to having maps on my wrist that work when I'm out of cell reception is valuable to me too.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