Garmin vs Fitbit vs "other"
Options
xmissxamyx
Posts: 70 Member
Hey folks,
So I've been looking at getting a smart watch/fitness tracker. The electronic store currently has the Fit Bit Versa & Versa 2 and Garmin Vivomove(HR hybrid) and Garmin Forerunner watches all around the same price.
They also have a brand Suunto and Withings.
(The last 2 I've never heard of and know nothing about but they sure do look neat!)
Does anyone know much about these watches? I mean they all claim to do basically the same things.
But i was wondering if anyone here has personal experience with any of these models and can recommend one over the other?
Or can make any other recommendations?
I don't really know much about these watches.
(Apart from apple watches, but I dislike apple products so I wouldn't get one of them)
So I've been looking at getting a smart watch/fitness tracker. The electronic store currently has the Fit Bit Versa & Versa 2 and Garmin Vivomove(HR hybrid) and Garmin Forerunner watches all around the same price.
They also have a brand Suunto and Withings.
(The last 2 I've never heard of and know nothing about but they sure do look neat!)
Does anyone know much about these watches? I mean they all claim to do basically the same things.
But i was wondering if anyone here has personal experience with any of these models and can recommend one over the other?
Or can make any other recommendations?
I don't really know much about these watches.
(Apart from apple watches, but I dislike apple products so I wouldn't get one of them)
0
Replies
-
Have a look on the website of dcrainmaker. There are some excellent reviews.1
-
What are the main activities you're planning on using it for? Are there any features that are important to you?1
-
I've used several Fitbits and Garmin models. Garmin is generally better at every price point but it has a seriously flawed algorithm for calculating calories when using the HR monitor, which greatly overestimates calories burned. This issue has been flagged for years and they still haven't addressed it, but if you want something that has an onboard GPS it's best to go Garmin.
Full disclosure: I'm currently using the Versa 2 and really like it, but Fitbit has a lot of sync issues with Android phones.1 -
In the past I have had 2 FitBit's - both were very inaccurate and 1 was recalled for a full refund. I use a Garmin 920XT and really like it. I tried the Garmin Venu but it caused a burn on my wrist and they gave me a full refund for it. In general, Garmin is the preferred tracker of many athletes.0
-
I could pull up a prior response, but I'll start afresh. I've owned a few Fitbits and now use a Garmin Vivoactive 3.
First, I've never had either a Garmin or a Fitbit last much longer than a year. My fitbits were of the prior version that were not waterproof. Fitbit will send you a replacement for more than a year as they break. My Garmin is generally still working after 16months, but the barametric altimeter has failed, so it no longer counts stairs. (This feature never worked very well, anyway.) If you get either, it could be worth getting an extended warranty.
I have never trusted either one to accurately estimate total calories burned in a day! You have to add in some "dead reckoning," meaning that you look at the number and decide if you really need to eat that much. It pays to eat less!
Fitbits are simpler to use. The app is straightforward and the web site is very usable. They used to be more oriented toward general activity monitoring, not training. Maybe this newer one has more training features.
Garmins (particularly the higher-end ones) were developed for people training for something. Running, cycling, swimming, etc. Maybe the lower-end ones are more like FitBits now.2 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »First, I've never had either a Garmin or a Fitbit last much longer than a year. My fitbits were of the prior version that were not waterproof. Fitbit will send you a replacement for more than a year as they break. My Garmin is generally still working after 16months,
Jeez, what are you doing to them
The only Garmin I've had die was a FR405 and even then it wasn't the janky touch bezel that died on everyone. I still have a FR10, 220, and 230 that work 😁1 -
i prefer the look and feel of the fossil hybrid, but its app support is terrible.. still tinkering with how to get it to sync to mfp..
in the past ive used multiple fitbits.. never had a problem with any breaking.. those things are durable, as long as you dont throw it in the washing machine (and even then, fitbit sent me a free replacement)..
the fitbit is definitely the easiest to setup and use.. has tons of app support, syncs to everything..
and i found them to be very accurate, even if i just carry it in my pocket rather than wearing it.0 -
I used FitBit wore a while and it was ok, though I had problems with the bands breaking and the onw I had was not water proof.
I was running and riding a fair amount and determined the Garmin Forerunner 735XT would be a good fit for me. It's waterproof and has the GPS functions I need. The calorie count seems reasonable given my stats. I've had it for 2 years now with no complaints or failures. It is easy to sync as well to MFP, Strava and my phone.1 -
OP, without knowing a bit more about your intended use and goals from a fitness tracking device, it would be hard to suggest which manufacturers and or models would suit your needs well.
Your original list covers a wide range of applications. With that said, some of the models are focused on "fitness tracking", steps, sleep, etc, while another set of devices, such as the Garmin Forerunner and Fenix series, are geared to those who want to capture data for training purposes. The Suunto line also fits into the multisport and outdoor adventure category, with GPS, altimeter, long battery life, etc.
I'd also suggest, as @yirara did, making a visit to dcrainmaker's site for in depth reviews to help understand the differences among models.
Full disclosure: I have only used Polar and Garmin devices. For the last 5 years, I've used a 920XT to track swim, bike, run and other cardio activities and upload the device data to a third party app for analysis. Garmins are very popular among the cycling, running and triathlon crowd.
@nogymhero - I'm interested in your comment regarding Garmin's flawed algorithm for calculating calories when using the HR monitor. I use a garmin chest strap HRM and the numbers don't seem out of line. I also capture calories on the bike via garmin vector power meter, which provides a very accurate measurement. I'd love to learn more based on your experience. I should also admit that I only wear the 920 to capture training data, not to count steps or calories during the rest of each day, so that may be a difference I don't see.
@Jthanmyfitnesspal - I think you must be hard on devices, my friend! My pals and I have pounded on our devices including regular submersions during swims, etc. Never heard any complaints about short lifespan. Mostly, we change devices occasionally to get the latest shiny gadget when it is released!
0 -
OP, without knowing a bit more about your intended use and goals from a fitness tracking device, it would be hard to suggest which manufacturers and or models would suit your needs well.
@nogymhero - I'm interested in your comment regarding Garmin's flawed algorithm for calculating calories when using the HR monitor. I use a garmin chest strap HRM and the numbers don't seem out of line. I also capture calories on the bike via garmin vector power meter, which provides a very accurate measurement. I'd love to learn more based on your experience. I should also admit that I only wear the 920 to capture training data, not to count steps or calories during the rest of each day, so that may be a difference I don't see.
I was using the built-in HR on about 3 models, and it was in continuous HR mode. I imagine when you are using the chest strap with it on an exercise it will suspend normal caloric counts and this might be the issue. I was able to determine that the unit would double the exercise calories after a while. I was walking a lot so I would often end up with outrageous numbers of calories at the end of the day. The last model I used was the VivoSmart 3 about 2 years ago and I found it highly inaccurate. I first started using Garmin HR trackers about 4 years ago and I flagged this issue, as did others, with their support so it may have been resolved by now, but I doubt it. It's something they have known about for years.
Just as an example that I can recall, I did 40k steps one day and it said something like 9K calories and it should have been around 4K.0 -
Personal experience: I have a Fitbit charge 2 for about 3 years now. The first one was knackered and burned my skin where the HR sensor sits. I bought it second-hand, but Fitbit still gave me a precharged creditcard at about 50 pounds over the shop price of a new one. I think they were scared I might sue them (which isn't really something most continental Europeans would do, tbh). So I bought a new one and it's running well. Actually, I thought of upgrading it to a charge 3 as I thought the battery must be half dead by now. On paper it should run for 5 days new. It currently does 6 days on a full charge. Guess I'll continue using it.
How precise is it? That's very person-dependent. And I guess those that get crazy numbers with a fitbit will also get crazy numbers with a Garmin or other device that calculates at least workout calories, but also other movement calories using an HR sensor. This because they don't conform to the equation 220-age. I read a few studies on that suggesting that about 50-40% of a population are 1 standard deviation away from that, and still close to 5% around and more than 3.0 -
Personal experience: I have a Fitbit charge 2 for about 3 years now. The first one was knackered and burned my skin where the HR sensor sits. I bought it second-hand, but Fitbit still gave me a precharged creditcard at about 50 pounds over the shop price of a new one. I think they were scared I might sue them (which isn't really something most continental Europeans would do, tbh). So I bought a new one and it's running well. Actually, I thought of upgrading it to a charge 3 as I thought the battery must be half dead by now. On paper it should run for 5 days new. It currently does 6 days on a full charge. Guess I'll continue using it.
How precise is it? That's very person-dependent. And I guess those that get crazy numbers with a fitbit will also get crazy numbers with a Garmin or other device that calculates at least workout calories, but also other movement calories using an HR sensor. This because they don't conform to the equation 220-age. I read a few studies on that suggesting that about 50-40% of a population are 1 standard deviation away from that, and still close to 5% around and more than 3.
Fun fact, the 220-age was never scientifically proven and was never meant to be stated as a true max HR by the original researchers that mentioned it. They literally eyeballed a chart in a taxi to their presentation and thought it was an interesting trend. They disavowed that this was really a max heart rate, but that it just seemed to be a topic for further research.
I get reasonable results with Fitbit but wildly inaccurate results with Garmin if I'm using continual HR. I don't even really look at the caloric burn estimates anymore TBH.1 -
OP, without knowing a bit more about your intended use and goals from a fitness tracking device, it would be hard to suggest which manufacturers and or models would suit your needs well.
@nogymhero - I'm interested in your comment regarding Garmin's flawed algorithm for calculating calories when using the HR monitor. I use a garmin chest strap HRM and the numbers don't seem out of line. I also capture calories on the bike via garmin vector power meter, which provides a very accurate measurement. I'd love to learn more based on your experience. I should also admit that I only wear the 920 to capture training data, not to count steps or calories during the rest of each day, so that may be a difference I don't see.
I was using the built-in HR on about 3 models, and it was in continuous HR mode. I imagine when you are using the chest strap with it on an exercise it will suspend normal caloric counts and this might be the issue. I was able to determine that the unit would double the exercise calories after a while. I was walking a lot so I would often end up with outrageous numbers of calories at the end of the day. The last model I used was the VivoSmart 3 about 2 years ago and I found it highly inaccurate. I first started using Garmin HR trackers about 4 years ago and I flagged this issue, as did others, with their support so it may have been resolved by now, but I doubt it. It's something they have known about for years.
Just as an example that I can recall, I did 40k steps one day and it said something like 9K calories and it should have been around 4K.
Ah, ok, I understand now. Thanks for explaining.
BTW: 40k is a lot of steps!
@yirara - Sounds like you've made the best of your secondhand Fitbit purchase!
1 -
OP, I agree with others that you would need to figure out what features you need, or if you're new to all of this and aren't sure, at least fill us in on what you want out of using such a device (and which things are more important to you vs. others). If you're totally not sure, I'd frankly suggest starting with the least-expensive one on your list from a reasonably well-regarded mainstream manufacturer (which the ones you name are AFAIK).
Some things you might want, just as examples:
* All day calorie burn estimate
* One of the above that automagically syncs with MFP
* Performance or activity stats (speed, pace, distance, resting heart rate, heart rate ranges, whatever)
* Self tests for estimating HRmax or VO2max
* Specialized tracking for particular sports
* Connection to you phone for notifications or more
* Multiplatform cloud-based app(s) with particular features
* Integration with other workout apps
* Ability to share data with your real-life or MFP friends (if so, it may matter what device they have)
* Goals or challenges
* Timing for workouts (like ability to set interval timers)
* Particular appearance (dainty jewelry-like or Navy-Seal techno, or other stylish look, big watch face, color/type of bands available, etc.)
* Music
* Etc.
One thing I'd point out, if calorie estimates are high on your list: These devices are just giving you calorie estimates, not calorie measurements. They're just very personalized estimates. The all-day estimates should be fairly close for most people, off (high or low) for a few, and way off for a rare very few, because that's the nature of statitical estimates.
The devices that use heart rate to estimate exercise calories are more likely to be close for people of average fitness (no, I can't define that ), and less close for people who are unusually fit or unusually non-fit. HR-based methods tend to be better at estimating exercises that are close to moderate steady-state cardio in terms of energy demands, and worse at things like high-intensity interval training or strength exercise.
I have a Garmin Vivoactive 3 (now supplanted by Vivoactive 4, I believe), and like it. I've been using devices for 15 years + (though this is my first "fitness tracker", I previously used various Polar HRM watches for exercise, a separate earlier Garmin GPS device (Forerunner 205) for speed/pace/distance tracking). I've had the VA3 since August 2018, and it's going great. I wear it every day, only take it off to charge (which is quick). I like that it lets me set HRmax rather than having only age estimating (mine is atypical); that I can tell it what activity I'm doing to get specialized data; that I can pair it with an Ant+ chest belt for certain activities for which wrist HR monitoring doesn't work well (rowing, machine & water); no need to take phone with me everywhere; and the integration opportunities with other apps. I wanted a large watch face, because I like a wristwatch, and I'm old, with iffy eyesight for tiny things. I wouldn't have known it, but I love the watch notification of calls or text messages. (I can put my phone in my purse in restaurants, and still catch that I have an urgent message, because it vibrates on my wrist. ).
The previous Garmin and this one have been very sturdy and reliable (I had the Forerunner for multiple years and used it regularly; if my HRM hadn't died I'd probably still be using it.) The Polar watches back then were a little more life-limited, in my experience, maybe 2-4 years?(snippers)
@nogymhero - I'm interested in your comment regarding Garmin's flawed algorithm for calculating calories when using the HR monitor. I use a garmin chest strap HRM and the numbers don't seem out of line. I also capture calories on the bike via garmin vector power meter, which provides a very accurate measurement. I'd love to learn more based on your experience. I should also admit that I only wear the 920 to capture training data, not to count steps or calories during the rest of each day, so that may be a difference I don't see.
(snip-a-rooney)
Yeah, me, too. My Garmin VA3 (with chest belt used for the activity) is within reasonable tolerance of what my Concept 2 rowing machine estimates (once weight adjusted), and that's normally regarded as a reasonably well-metered device. (I expect wrist-based monitoring would give similar calorie estimates . . . if I didn't move my arms so much that it loses contact.
). It's gross estimates in both cases, I assume.
I don't have super-precise estimates for other things I do, but I do research pretty carefully to be as accurate as feasible before going with a method of estimating a new activity. Garmin's usually in the ballpark someplace, with quite a few other things. (I don't trust/use it for strength training or stretching/yoga.)2 -
Personal experience: I have a Fitbit charge 2 for about 3 years now. The first one was knackered and burned my skin where the HR sensor sits. I bought it second-hand, but Fitbit still gave me a precharged creditcard at about 50 pounds over the shop price of a new one. I think they were scared I might sue them (which isn't really something most continental Europeans would do, tbh). So I bought a new one and it's running well. Actually, I thought of upgrading it to a charge 3 as I thought the battery must be half dead by now. On paper it should run for 5 days new. It currently does 6 days on a full charge. Guess I'll continue using it.
How precise is it? That's very person-dependent. And I guess those that get crazy numbers with a fitbit will also get crazy numbers with a Garmin or other device that calculates at least workout calories, but also other movement calories using an HR sensor. This because they don't conform to the equation 220-age. I read a few studies on that suggesting that about 50-40% of a population are 1 standard deviation away from that, and still close to 5% around and more than 3.
Fun fact, the 220-age was never scientifically proven and was never meant to be stated as a true max HR by the original researchers that mentioned it. They literally eyeballed a chart in a taxi to their presentation and thought it was an interesting trend. They disavowed that this was really a max heart rate, but that it just seemed to be a topic for further research.
I get reasonable results with Fitbit but wildly inaccurate results with Garmin if I'm using continual HR. I don't even really look at the caloric burn estimates anymore TBH.
I know! I'm not sure which story is correct, but from what I read it was a kind of data joke on a cardiologist conference or somesuch. Guy looks at slides (those actual transparent plastic ones) on plane, draws a line through it and then presents it as a joke during the conference. This was in the 60s I think? My thought on that is: were cardio machines in the 60s as good for defining a maxHR anyway, or however they did that?0 -
Personal experience: I have a Fitbit charge 2 for about 3 years now. The first one was knackered and burned my skin where the HR sensor sits. I bought it second-hand, but Fitbit still gave me a precharged creditcard at about 50 pounds over the shop price of a new one. I think they were scared I might sue them (which isn't really something most continental Europeans would do, tbh). So I bought a new one and it's running well. Actually, I thought of upgrading it to a charge 3 as I thought the battery must be half dead by now. On paper it should run for 5 days new. It currently does 6 days on a full charge. Guess I'll continue using it.
How precise is it? That's very person-dependent. And I guess those that get crazy numbers with a fitbit will also get crazy numbers with a Garmin or other device that calculates at least workout calories, but also other movement calories using an HR sensor. This because they don't conform to the equation 220-age. I read a few studies on that suggesting that about 50-40% of a population are 1 standard deviation away from that, and still close to 5% around and more than 3.
Fun fact, the 220-age was never scientifically proven and was never meant to be stated as a true max HR by the original researchers that mentioned it. They literally eyeballed a chart in a taxi to their presentation and thought it was an interesting trend. They disavowed that this was really a max heart rate, but that it just seemed to be a topic for further research.
I get reasonable results with Fitbit but wildly inaccurate results with Garmin if I'm using continual HR. I don't even really look at the caloric burn estimates anymore TBH.
I know! I'm not sure which story is correct, but from what I read it was a kind of data joke on a cardiologist conference or somesuch. Guy looks at slides (those actual transparent plastic ones) on plane, draws a line through it and then presents it as a joke during the conference. This was in the 60s I think? My thought on that is: were cardio machines in the 60s as good for defining a maxHR anyway, or however they did that?
I don't recall any cardio machines having HR monitors till sometime in the 80's since if you ran in the 70s they considered you mentally unstable lol.0 -
Personal experience: I have a Fitbit charge 2 for about 3 years now. The first one was knackered and burned my skin where the HR sensor sits. I bought it second-hand, but Fitbit still gave me a precharged creditcard at about 50 pounds over the shop price of a new one. I think they were scared I might sue them (which isn't really something most continental Europeans would do, tbh). So I bought a new one and it's running well. Actually, I thought of upgrading it to a charge 3 as I thought the battery must be half dead by now. On paper it should run for 5 days new. It currently does 6 days on a full charge. Guess I'll continue using it.
How precise is it? That's very person-dependent. And I guess those that get crazy numbers with a fitbit will also get crazy numbers with a Garmin or other device that calculates at least workout calories, but also other movement calories using an HR sensor. This because they don't conform to the equation 220-age. I read a few studies on that suggesting that about 50-40% of a population are 1 standard deviation away from that, and still close to 5% around and more than 3.
Fun fact, the 220-age was never scientifically proven and was never meant to be stated as a true max HR by the original researchers that mentioned it. They literally eyeballed a chart in a taxi to their presentation and thought it was an interesting trend. They disavowed that this was really a max heart rate, but that it just seemed to be a topic for further research.
I get reasonable results with Fitbit but wildly inaccurate results with Garmin if I'm using continual HR. I don't even really look at the caloric burn estimates anymore TBH.
I know! I'm not sure which story is correct, but from what I read it was a kind of data joke on a cardiologist conference or somesuch. Guy looks at slides (those actual transparent plastic ones) on plane, draws a line through it and then presents it as a joke during the conference. This was in the 60s I think? My thought on that is: were cardio machines in the 60s as good for defining a maxHR anyway, or however they did that?
I don't recall any cardio machines having HR monitors till sometime in the 80's since if you ran in the 70s they considered you mentally unstable lol.
I suppose doctors were somehow able to monitor HR somehow during a workout. I was just thinking aloud where the data for this rubbish equation might have come from and I guess it's something like a very upright exercise bike with lots of friction, and an ecg. Just checked wiki for some history, but found nothing. The German one has a bit of a history though: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergometrie0 -
I’m not a very techy person so I think I’m pretty easy to please. I’ve had a Fitbit HR, I got it around 4 years ago and it worked all that time. I lost it around 9 months ago (I know, bad.) I liked it a lot and i found its estimated calories pretty accurately. I just recently got a garmin vivoactive and I like it a lot too. I like that it has gps and I like the look of it, how it looks like an actual watch and not a band like the Fitbit. I use it when I Run and it’s a lot better than Fitbit in that regard, because of gps and because it will tell me my pace and all that. I’m sure a less expensive watch would have pleased me as well though lol0
-
@Djproulx and @scorpio516 : I look back at the purchase date of my Vivoactive 3m and it was actually a whole year earlier than stated. So I've actually had it for 28 months. It cost about $280, so that's only $10 per month! I would say that my FitBits lasted about $/10 months as well. So, Garmin could just charge you $10/month and agree to keep your watch working.
Yes, the altimeter is dead (reading a constant altitude)-- two of my friends have the same problem with their VA3m's. Still, the watch generally fulfills all it's other functions and it looks fine. And the altimeter is not really needed: You can add your elevation data at the Garmin web site. But I can't figure out how to do that automatically, so I have to remember to log in and do it manually after every run or ride. On the flip side, the barometric altimeter never worked that well anyway and was always thinking I was climbing stairs when walking on the flat. So, maybe this is an improvement.
I've bugged Garmin about it, but no traction yet. It's pretty far out of warranty (now that I remember which year I bought it)!0 -
Garmin has a program to replace out of warranty gear very cheap.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions