Best smart watch for tracking progress
shyanrae4
Posts: 3 Member
In your experience, what is the best smart watch for my weight loss journey. I have a Samsung galaxy note 8. I'm looking at reviews for multiple different models. I want to make sure I don't waste my money and I get something that will help me keep track of my progress in mfp. What are your opinions? TIA. -Shyan
0
Replies
-
It depends on what you need. I have a Garmin 35 because I need the GPS and want to track my pace while walking, running and biking and be able to program intervals and tempo paces. OTOH, I don't do fancy programming and don't need music or Bluetooth or the ability to track swimming, so I have a fairly basic model without a lot of bells and whistles. YMMV
0 -
garmin fenix is nice - i dont use most of the functions, but still worth it for the basic functions and looks nice
0 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »It depends on what you need. I have a Garmin 35 because I need the GPS and want to track my pace while walking, running and biking and be able to program intervals and tempo paces. OTOH, I don't do fancy programming and don't need music or Bluetooth or the ability to track swimming, so I have a fairly basic model without a lot of bells and whistles. YMMV
I'm more looking for something to help me track how many calories I'm burning when working out. I'm tracking all the calories going in but have no way of tracking getting rid of them. Thank you!!
1 -
I'll echo what the others said, that Garmin is excellent for tracking progress over time in terms of fitness and activity. The web site and app offer great analytics and can show trends on long and short time frames.
For calories, assuming they're walking mostly, any modern Garmin or Fitbit would be great. Obviously not iPhone with a Galaxy phone. 🙂 I use a Garmin Fenix and Note 8, it's just the right amount of integration for me. It's an expensive watch and I'm not recommending that one specifically, I got it for long wilderness hikes.0 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »It depends on what you need. I have a Garmin 35 because I need the GPS and want to track my pace while walking, running and biking and be able to program intervals and tempo paces. OTOH, I don't do fancy programming and don't need music or Bluetooth or the ability to track swimming, so I have a fairly basic model without a lot of bells and whistles. YMMV
I'm more looking for something to help me track how many calories I'm burning when working out. I'm tracking all the calories going in but have no way of tracking getting rid of them. Thank you!!
What kind of workouts do you do: What activity, and at what pacing(s) (like steady state, intervals, HIIT)?
Some workouts can be more accurately calorie-estimated by a tracker than others. Some workout types benefit from certain features (if you care about developing fitness in addition to calories).
Sometimes, other features make a difference to workouts, too. For example, I wanted a tracker that didn't require me to take my phone with me, so it needed on-board data storage; I needed speed/distance tracking via gps; and it needed to pair with a chest belt because my main activity plays poorly with wrist-based heart-rate monitoring, and I care about heart rate during exercise for its own sake. (I'm a rower, mostly on-water, but machine in Winter.)
Be aware that - unfortunately - these devices are still just giving you estimates (not literally measuring calorie burn), so the calorie estimate will still need to be reality-checked against experience over time.
ETA: If look makes a difference to you, that's an issue, too. Some people want something more "jewelry looking". Personally, I wanted something with a good-sized normal watch face, because I'm old and nearsighted, but if possible I preferred it not be something so covered with warts and buttons that it made me look like a Navy Seal wannabe.3 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »It depends on what you need. I have a Garmin 35 because I need the GPS and want to track my pace while walking, running and biking and be able to program intervals and tempo paces. OTOH, I don't do fancy programming and don't need music or Bluetooth or the ability to track swimming, so I have a fairly basic model without a lot of bells and whistles. YMMV
I'm more looking for something to help me track how many calories I'm burning when working out. I'm tracking all the calories going in but have no way of tracking getting rid of them. Thank you!!
the garmin does this for a wide variety of activities (my fenix lists a variety of exercises - most of which i don't do). but as others said, you have to take the readings with a grain of salt.0 -
Rather than starting with what watch ... start with what activities you do (or plan to start doing) then look at what devices track those well and have a backend that provides realistic estimates for burn.
Just within Garmin's options you have the Vivofit, to the lower number Forerunner series (the bigger the number in that line, the more feature filled and costly), up to the Fenix and Forerunner 945. Across that span are devices that will track a single activity at a time up to open water triathlon trackers that connect to every sensor you can imagine. Which of those meets your needs depends on what you do now and what your goals are in the future.3 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »It depends on what you need. I have a Garmin 35 because I need the GPS and want to track my pace while walking, running and biking and be able to program intervals and tempo paces. OTOH, I don't do fancy programming and don't need music or Bluetooth or the ability to track swimming, so I have a fairly basic model without a lot of bells and whistles. YMMV
I'm more looking for something to help me track how many calories I'm burning when working out. I'm tracking all the calories going in but have no way of tracking getting rid of them. Thank you!!
What kind of workouts do you do: What activity, and at what pacing(s) (like steady state, intervals, HIIT)?
Some workouts can be more accurately calorie-estimated by a tracker than others. Some workout types benefit from certain features (if you care about developing fitness in addition to calories).
Sometimes, other features make a difference to workouts, too. For example, I wanted a tracker that didn't require me to take my phone with me, so it needed on-board data storage; I needed speed/distance tracking via gps; and it needed to pair with a chest belt because my main activity plays poorly with wrist-based heart-rate monitoring, and I care about heart rate during exercise for its own sake. (I'm a rower, mostly on-water, but machine in Winter.)
Be aware that - unfortunately - these devices are still just giving you estimates (not literally measuring calorie burn), so the calorie estimate will still need to be reality-checked against experience over time.
ETA: If look makes a difference to you, that's an issue, too. Some people want something more "jewelry looking". Personally, I wanted something with a good-sized normal watch face, because I'm old and nearsighted, but if possible I preferred it not be something so covered with warts and buttons that it made me look like a Navy Seal wannabe.
All I really do right now is treadmill and elliptical and a few strength training machines at planet fitness.
0 -
Pretty much all basic activity trackers from the major brands will easily handle treadmill and elliptical workouts and Polar, Apple, and Garmin all have decent apps and models to give a reasonable estimate for caloric burn on those aerobic activities. It puts you in the range for Garmin's Venu or Vivoactive ... Polar's Unite or Ignite ... Apple Watch.
Where all of them will struggle is in giving a burn number for the strength training. Some will count your reps but any calorie count for those events should be taken with a grain of salt.1 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »Pretty much all basic activity trackers from the major brands will easily handle treadmill and elliptical workouts and Polar, Apple, and Garmin all have decent apps and models to give a reasonable estimate for caloric burn on those aerobic activities. It puts you in the range for Garmin's Venu or Vivoactive ... Polar's Unite or Ignite ... Apple Watch.
Where all of them will struggle is in giving a burn number for the strength training. Some will count your reps but any calorie count for those events should be taken with a grain of salt.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by my Garmin (Vivoactive 4). For strength training it only counts calories during the actual sets and not during the breaks between sets, so the calorie burn given is very reasonable. The burns I've gotten are between 80 and 130 calories for 10 to 15 sets, which doesn't seem excessive.
It's quite 'hit and miss' though with regards to recognising the number of reps and the type of exercise: I keep my own log for that).
0 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »Pretty much all basic activity trackers from the major brands will easily handle treadmill and elliptical workouts and Polar, Apple, and Garmin all have decent apps and models to give a reasonable estimate for caloric burn on those aerobic activities. It puts you in the range for Garmin's Venu or Vivoactive ... Polar's Unite or Ignite ... Apple Watch.
Where all of them will struggle is in giving a burn number for the strength training. Some will count your reps but any calorie count for those events should be taken with a grain of salt.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by my Garmin (Vivoactive 4). For strength training it only counts calories during the actual sets and not during the breaks between sets, so the calorie burn given is very reasonable. The burns I've gotten are between 80 and 130 calories for 10 to 15 sets, which doesn't seem excessive.
It's quite 'hit and miss' though with regards to recognising the number of reps and the type of exercise: I keep my own log for that).
Part of it is that the model for caloric burn for resistance training has inherent issues. If your device isn't even accurately measuring reps and sets how can it then determine the amount of work done?
0 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »brianpperkins131 wrote: »Pretty much all basic activity trackers from the major brands will easily handle treadmill and elliptical workouts and Polar, Apple, and Garmin all have decent apps and models to give a reasonable estimate for caloric burn on those aerobic activities. It puts you in the range for Garmin's Venu or Vivoactive ... Polar's Unite or Ignite ... Apple Watch.
Where all of them will struggle is in giving a burn number for the strength training. Some will count your reps but any calorie count for those events should be taken with a grain of salt.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by my Garmin (Vivoactive 4). For strength training it only counts calories during the actual sets and not during the breaks between sets, so the calorie burn given is very reasonable. The burns I've gotten are between 80 and 130 calories for 10 to 15 sets, which doesn't seem excessive.
It's quite 'hit and miss' though with regards to recognising the number of reps and the type of exercise: I keep my own log for that).
Part of it is that the model for caloric burn for resistance training has inherent issues. If your device isn't even accurately measuring reps and sets how can it then determine the amount of work done?
The sets aren't recognised by Garmin, I start and end my sets manually, so there's no mistaking when I'm lifting and when I'm resting. I'm not saying it's necessarily accurate, since it's based on HR, but it's not particularly inflated (something that is often said about calorie burns given by activity trackers for strength training).0 -
Just FYI - one of the Fitbit models when you select Weights as the exercise you are doing, will use the database rate of burn, not per HR.
Since that is a decent estimate if actually doing sets & reps, don't have to do a start/stop or manual logging type think.
Don't recall which model, was couple years ago - maybe all newer ones do now.
It's easy to tell (from the HR and calorie burn graph) and confirm from math.1 -
Just FYI - one of the Fitbit models when you select Weights as the exercise you are doing, will use the database rate of burn, not per HR.
Since that is a decent estimate if actually doing sets & reps, don't have to do a start/stop or manual logging type think.
Don't recall which model, was couple years ago - maybe all newer ones do now.
It's easy to tell (from the HR and calorie burn graph) and confirm from math.
I haven't done the research to confirm, but I've wondered whether Garmin does that as well. I usually just use the MFP estimate for strength training, but have experimented with using my Garmin (Vivoactive 3) for rep/set counting**, so of course it gave a calorie estimate for the workout. It wasn't crazy high, somewhat close to the MFP METS based estimate (and I'm sure my weight wasn't exact between MFP & Garmin). OTOH, as a li'l ol' lady with joint issues, I'm more about higher rep, lower weight, so there isn't a lot of Valsalva kind of stuff going on.
For sure, the trackers (that know what exercise we're doing) have the *potential* to vary estimation methods, to use the relatively best one for that activity. Whether they act on that potential is, of course, a separate question. Glad to hear at least some of the Fitbits do.
** (Results: 😆🤣)0 -
So, I know OP wants a fitness tracker for this, BUT I don’t trust any of them to be even remotely accurate. Some people seem to have success with them, but I have had several over the years and the number of calories they thought I burned, I would be SO skinny 😂😂😂
I use GymGoal app for weight lifting and track reps/sets. Then I enter “weight lifting” as cardio in MFP and put my time. I subtract from my time an estimate of my rest time. MFP gives me a lower calorie burn than the GymGoal app does, so I go with that
Treadmill and elliptical: don’t hold on to the display. If you do, you aren’t burning nearly as much as you think you are. I subtract about 20% off the readout I get from the machine and manually enter it into MFP.
Granted, not as easy as a watch tracking everything for me, but I’m a little old school. Plus, if it isn’t broken why fix it? I consistently lose the expected amount of weight using my methods. Not saying it would work for everyone and I get that the tracker might be easier.
I didn’t read this whole thread, but if there is one tracker that most people find accurate (and check reviews of them too), then give it a shot and let us know how it goes.1 -
I have a Apple Watch and I love it !0
-
I have had 3 fitbits and 2 Garmins in my time and the Garmins are much better in my experience. Currently I have a Garmin Vivosport which isn't fancy and is quite old now but it does what it needs to. Because I wear it at all times apart from in the shower it has given me a LOT of data and I've been able to work out my maintenance calories over time with a fair degree of accuracy. Obviously smartwatches are limited in what they can do and how reliable they are but they can be useful.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 432 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions