Fitness watches/ trackers

[squiggs96]

I can't quote Slava's post because he used quotation marks.

We are similar that the Whoop is usually lower than my OTF or my Garmin readings. OTF and Garmin are identical, but it's the same HRM, so it should be the same. A wrist monitor just isn't as accurate as a chest strap. Where we differ is the calories burned output from Whoop vs Strava vs Garmin vs Zwift vs OTF. Whoop is substantially higher for me than the other four, but with a lower HR. All of my settings for weight, height, gender, etc. are the same across the platforms. Each one uses a different algorithm. Strava doesn't even use HR when they calculate calories burned. They have their reasons, but I don't buy into them.

I don't believe you can pair a HRM with your Whoop. You can use your Whoop strap as the heart rate for your Garmin, but I don't believe it exists where I could pair my external HRM and Whoop would use that data. If it did, I would be way more inclined to use it.

As for comparing to others, it's the same with Whoop as it is with many other platforms. People lie and cheat. I was in a Zwift race in a division where your FTP should be at a maximum of 3.1 watts/kg. It's a race of less than 20 minutes, so people's w/kg for the race would be higher than that. The winner had a 4.7 w/kg and weighed 125 pounds. I can see his picture in his avatar. He is clearly 160-170 pounds. Because he puts his weight at 125, Zwift thinks he is producing massive output from his tiny body, and it makes him go faster. I had stopped doing these races because of all the cheaters, but when there are no races inside I need something to do that's competitive. It's funny seeing these people outside and they always have an excuse why their performance is 50% of that on a trainer. My guess is the Whoop people doing 8,000 calories per day are the same.

I'm also not trying to talk anyone out of the Whoop. If it works for you, great. I just didn't love it enough to pay for it. If I got a free six month trial I'd do it, but I wasn't willing to commit to six months of paying for it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

A wrist monitor just isn't as accurate as a chest strap.

I know this is pretty much a scientific fact but I tested my wrist rate monitor on my Garmin with a chest heart rate monitor that synced to a treadmill and there was no discernible difference over multiple two hour+ runs. I think either exactly the same average or off by a beat or two max despite no connection between the two monitors.

I might look at my wrist and see it says 142 while my treadmill way say 137 for a second but then my wrist one will catch up. It's almost like it was just 'delayed' by about 5 seconds and otherwise was the exact same. There's blips here and there if I were to chart them but I was surprised just how close they were.

Either the wrist heart rate monitor is better than "advertised" or it's inaccuracy was somehow able to align with the inaccuracies of the chest one.

[Oling_Roachinen]

One thing though is that I'm a pastey white guy. Since the wrist heart monitor is essentially looking at your veins it might be more accurate for someone like me who you can literally see through.

Perhaps one of those unintended racist technologies like face apps that couldn't recognize minorities.

EDIT: Yep, looks like it's been researched https://www.statnews.com/2019/07/24/...acy-dark-skin/

Originally Posted by Fitbits and other wearables may not accurately track heart rates in people of color

“We could see that there [were] some differences in accuracy between, for example, different skin types and skin colors,” said Mikael Mattsson, a senior researcher at Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet and an author on one of the only papers to examine the link between heart rate tracker accuracy and race.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I can't quote Slava's post because he used quotation marks.

We are similar that the Whoop is usually lower than my OTF or my Garmin readings. OTF and Garmin are identical, but it's the same HRM, so it should be the same. A wrist monitor just isn't as accurate as a chest strap. Where we differ is the calories burned output from Whoop vs Strava vs Garmin vs Zwift vs OTF. Whoop is substantially higher for me than the other four, but with a lower HR. All of my settings for weight, height, gender, etc. are the same across the platforms. Each one uses a different algorithm. Strava doesn't even use HR when they calculate calories burned. They have their reasons, but I don't buy into them.

I don't believe you can pair a HRM with your Whoop. You can use your Whoop strap as the heart rate for your Garmin, but I don't believe it exists where I could pair my external HRM and Whoop would use that data. If it did, I would be way more inclined to use it.

As for comparing to others, it's the same with Whoop as it is with many other platforms. People lie and cheat. I was in a Zwift race in a division where your FTP should be at a maximum of 3.1 watts/kg. It's a race of less than 20 minutes, so people's w/kg for the race would be higher than that. The winner had a 4.7 w/kg and weighed 125 pounds. I can see his picture in his avatar. He is clearly 160-170 pounds. Because he puts his weight at 125, Zwift thinks he is producing massive output from his tiny body, and it makes him go faster. I had stopped doing these races because of all the cheaters, but when there are no races inside I need something to do that's competitive. It's funny seeing these people outside and they always have an excuse why their performance is 50% of that on a trainer. My guess is the Whoop people doing 8,000 calories per day are the same.

I'm also not trying to talk anyone out of the Whoop. If it works for you, great. I just didn't love it enough to pay for it. If I got a free six month trial I'd do it, but I wasn't willing to commit to six months of paying for it.

Yeah, I didn't take it as you trying to convince me (or anyone) not to use it, it's just a discussion.

You're probably right about the people cheating. I have no idea, but the top person in the Crossfitters group right now shows as 20.7 strain and 6168 calories. That's insane! The only reason I look at that group is to see the numbers, just because it blows my mind.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah, I didn't take it as you trying to convince me (or anyone) not to use it, it's just a discussion.

You're probably right about the people cheating. I have no idea, but the top person in the Crossfitters group right now shows as 20.7 strain and 6168 calories. That's insane! The only reason I look at that group is to see the numbers, just because it blows my mind.

When I see people with multiple workouts in a day at 3pm that have strain totals of 16.9/20.1/15.9

All I do is roll my eyes.

Because NFW is someone doing that amount of exercise in the first 10 hours of the day. At my peak prepping for olympic qualifiers I wasn't training that much (maybe that's why I never made it though, haha!!!)

The best bet for it is much like most analysis. Measure against yourself and your own performances and build off of those totals.

Clearly people care more about what their are scoring than actual fitness.

Same stuff happens with the leader boards on live fitness apps like iFit or Peloton. The cheating is annoying if you pay attention to it!

[stampsx2]

Well that makes sense then. The 8000 calorie a day crossfit trainer adjusted his weight to show higher caloric counts. People look at his score and sign up for his program. Pathetic if you ask me.

Leaderboards are kind of pointless then. Whoop should cut out the top 25 performers cause they’re liars.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Well that makes sense then. The 8000 calorie a day crossfit trainer adjusted his weight to show higher caloric counts. People look at his score and sign up for his program. Pathetic if you ask me.

Leaderboards are kind of pointless then. Whoop should cut out the top 25 performers cause they’re liars.

Well let’s not be too hasty! I’m like top five in Calgary this morning and I’ll take that ego boost, thank you very much! (Later today when I’m middle of the pack, I’m in full agreement though!)

[sa226]

Buuump.

Recommendations on smart watches? For android phones specifically. I'm looking for more of an all around watch rather than a pure fitness tracker.

I've sort of narrowed it down to ticwatch and Samsung galaxy watch. But am open to other suggestions. Looking more in the 200 to 250 range, but I suppose I can be convinced to go higher.

I like the value and pure wear os of the ticwatch, but the Samsung watch has some nice features like the rotating bezel and the body composition thingamy, so I'm torn.

[Azure]

Galaxy Watch 4 is nice.

Not sure how accurate all the readings are though.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by sa226

Buuump.

Recommendations on smart watches? For android phones specifically. I'm looking for more of an all around watch rather than a pure fitness tracker.

I've sort of narrowed it down to ticwatch and Samsung galaxy watch. But am open to other suggestions. Looking more in the 200 to 250 range, but I suppose I can be convinced to go higher.

I like the value and pure wear os of the ticwatch, but the Samsung watch has some nice features like the rotating bezel and the body composition thingamy, so I'm torn.

Wondering about the same, but also looking for an option with a Sim that doesnt require pairing to phone all the time.

[MoneyGuy]

I’m giving up on Fitbit. That’s two now that have stopped working, plus two friends have had the same thing happen. I was thinking of buying an Apple Watch but stumbled on excellent reviews for the Vital. Anyone able to compare Apple with Vital or have used a Vital and can provide a review? I want a step counter, heart-rate snd BP monitor, and sleep monitor. I want an app but imagine all do.

[Slava]

I have an Apple Watch and it’s adequate. I was just talking to my wife about how limited they are though. I went to the gym last week, didn’t start a workout and it basically has no idea that I exercised. They can tell you’re standing, and can measure your heart rate and everything, but apparently 45 minutes of hard work doesn’t factor in?

I’m about done with mine, and when this one dies I’ll probably just go with a “real” watch. I don’t know how much value there is in tracking things for me. I also don’t really need all the notifications and such.

[MoneyGuy]

I also like the ability to get text notifications on my watch, which Apple does; it also lets you text, I understand. Vital? Probably not.

[indes]

The only reason I like a smartwatch is to get notifications and not having to look at my phone. My Garmin golf watch does that so I've ended up just using that mostly and barely ever use my Samsung.

Prior to that I had a fossil hybrid smartwatch which was nice just to get the vibration when I got a text and who doesn't like a good step counter. Looks much sharper too.

[PepsiFree]

Apple Watch is good if you want an extension of your phone (complete with being able to call, text, and check notifications/emails/etc) that is a good (not the best) fitness tracker with some other features and capabilities. If you need the absolute best fitness tracker, it’s probably the wrong choice, but if you want more than that and are OK with the fitness tracking not being absolutely perfect, it’s great.

[Wastedyouth]

I had a Ticwatch pro, it failed in 18 months. Very disappointing. It was ok for most tracking, but like most of them, pretty unreliable. I have gone watchless now for almost 9 months and at times I feel naked. But I am getting used to being less connected and I dont totally hate it.

[DoubleF]

I found Apple watch to be the best option for most garden variety movement tracking and sleep tracking. But where it blows the competition away is the user experience for the interconnectivity with the phone and durability vs other brands.

If you are very sport specific, there are other options. If you like Android vs Apple, there's options too, but in the past, we seemed to replace my father in law's Samsung gear and other smart watches every 18-24 months as well as some occasional random finicky things straight out of the box. Apple watches are like 36 months+ without much issue.

Apple watches are also relatively easy to trade in or resell to recoup costs if you don't like them. You can't easily do the same with many other activity tracker and smart watch options. Ergo it'll potentially cost you the same or much less than discovering you didn't like a different brand or the watch failed prematurely.

IMO, I didn't like fitbit. Suunto wasn't bad, but felt occasionally archaic. Garmin is very specific to certain activities. I didn't like older Android ones, but the newer Huawei and Gear seem like they're decent value.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I found Apple watch to be the best option for most garden variety movement tracking and sleep tracking. But where it blows the competition away is the user experience for the interconnectivity with the phone and durability vs other brands.

If you are very sport specific, there are other options. If you like Android vs Apple, there's options too, but in the past, we seemed to replace my father in law's Samsung gear and other smart watches every 18-24 months as well as some occasional random finicky things straight out of the box. Apple watches are like 36 months+ without much issue.

Apple watches are also relatively easy to trade in or resell to recoup costs if you don't like them. You can't easily do the same with many other activity tracker and smart watch options. Ergo it'll potentially cost you the same or much less than discovering you didn't like a different brand or the watch failed prematurely.

IMO, I didn't like fitbit. Suunto wasn't bad, but felt occasionally archaic. Garmin is very specific to certain activities. I didn't like older Android ones, but the newer Huawei and Gear seem like they're decent value.

I just find Apple hardware to be really good. I kind of wish I could use a mac for work based solely on that reason.

[Hack&Lube]

I really want an Apple watch but I also still wear other traditional watches and would like to have both but I feel like having the smart watch on your wrist all the time is the best option to keep track of your sleep, heartbeat, health, etc.

[MoneyGuy]

I’ve been wearing a Fitbit for years but haven’t yet replaced it as I haven’t decided what to do. My left wrist feels odd (naked).