DC Rainmaker Blaze review is live

[Timeflies1980]

Hi all see the link:-

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/03/fitbit-blaze-depth-review.html

Pretty favourable review, apart from lack of full notification support and the onging HR during excercise debate (same for all Fitbits with HR).

Happy reading

Dave

[Julia_G]

@Timeflies1980 , thanks for posting!

[bjanow]

I think the Fitbit team needs to get full notification ASAP if they want this to sell as well as they would like. Waterproof the device or test it in the shower and certify it. It needs to be able to get wet, not necessarily submerged as in a pool. I have found the HR much more accurate than the review but I don't run very much. I'm a biker and walker and I've found it to be extremely accurate with a glitch or two now and again. My polar with a strap also has glitches so I'm fine with that. Alert notification is important to a lot of people just not me. Get that going too.

[WendyB]

@Timeflies1980 Thanks for posting the Link! Enjoyed the review!

[racertempo]

That reviewer has one heck of a low resting heart rate, my lowest ever recorded was 56, but I am usually 62-67bpm.  48 is super low at night 

[bjanow]

He's a runner doing 7 or 8 miles / run. I bike a lot and teach spinning classes. My resting HR is about 43 in the morning so his is not really that low. Elite athletes can be in the 30s.

[Gshock]

Full notification functionality would definitely be a welcomed and easy addition through software.

[SunsetRunner]

Good but don't rely upon its HR during workouts. Pretty much my summary so far too.

[bjanow]

---

@SunsetRunner wrote:
Good but don't rely upon its HR during workouts. Pretty much my summary so far too.

---

Extremely disappointed in the walk/run HR department. My biking is spot on but my walking HR showed as 143 - 160 when in fact it was about 75-95.

[Salpal23]

Are any wrist based hr monitors real accurate? I'm genuinely curious.

Are any chest based hr monitors compatible with the fitbit app?

Regarding this review, I mostly agree with everything they're saying. A lot of the same points are being made across the board. The Blaze is good but needs some help in a few areas.

Hopeful that a firmware upgrade can fix some of this stuff.

[racertempo]

---

@Salpal23 wrote:

Are any chest based hr monitors compatible with the fitbit app?

---

No, none are compatible.

I am always perplexed when people say it is inaccurate.  It is not supposed to be perflectly accurate, just like the review linked.  If you walk 8800 and it records 8400, it is close enough and in the general ballpark as nothing will be perfect.  Same thing goes for the HR monitor, especially given that it is on the wrist.  The wrist is 100% convience based for everyday every minute use, and it is the best thing out there that is not a chest strap.

[bbarrera]

---

@racertempo wrote:

---

@Salpal23 wrote:

Are any chest based hr monitors compatible with the fitbit app?

---

Same thing goes for the HR monitor, especially given that it is on the wrist.  The wrist is 100% convience based for everyday every minute use, and it is the best thing out there that is not a chest strap.

---

Not really, the Scosche Rhythm+ is worn above/below elbow and is more accurate than wrist based HRM. Even if we stay on topic, the Mio and Garmin have more accurate wrist-based HR monitors. And Fitbit makes some bold claims on this page - https://www.fitbit.com/purepulse - how can I "maintain intensity" if it misses a HR peaks or falsely reports a HR peak as seen in the DC review? 

[Rich_Laue]

I like that unlike a chest strap, the wrist monitor can be worn all day.

Even DC Rainmaker admits that a chest strap is not perfect, and can be lying to you. This is unlike what anyone else will tell you.

So it turns out that no uncertified, non-medical grade heart rate monitor is perfect, maybe that is why they all have the disclaimer, "Not for medical use".

[racertempo]

---

@bbarrera wrote:

---

@racertempo wrote:

---

@Salpal23 wrote:

Are any chest based hr monitors compatible with the fitbit app?

---

Same thing goes for the HR monitor, especially given that it is on the wrist.  The wrist is 100% convience based for everyday every minute use, and it is the best thing out there that is not a chest strap.

---

Not really, the Scosche Rhythm+ is worn above/below elbow and is more accurate than wrist based HRM. Even if we stay on topic, the Mio and Garmin have more accurate wrist-based HR monitors. And Fitbit makes some bold claims on this page - https://www.fitbit.com/purepulse - how can I "maintain intensity" if it misses a HR peaks or falsely reports a HR peak as seen in the DC review? 

---

Mio and Garmin being "more accurate" is depending on how that is measured.  I thought that my Tomtom Cardio was slightly more accurate, but that the Charge HR was close enough switch to is for regular use.  It is not like folks are making serious medical decisions based on this information.

My father wore the Charge HR at night several nights in a row, and he has a pacemaker set at 65.  The Charge HR showed a flat line at 65 with a few dips below, which is probably where the pacemaker kicked in.  The accuracy was king of shocking.....but i understand that workout numbers may vary based on intensity.

The Tomtom read higher nubmer for me in singles tennis that the Charge HR....but now the Blaze is up with where I was with the Tomtom.

It still all comes down to what I said, along with Rich Laue.....the pure all-day usage on the wrist.  Something on the elbow is just as impractible as a chest strap.

[bbarrera]

---

Even DC Rainmaker admits that a chest strap is not perfect, and can be lying to you. This is unlike what anyone else will tell you.

---

Nice try to FUD the issue with a post from 2010. Like all things tech there have been improvements to deal with electro-static issues, so its down to a corner case (very dry skin) that doesn't happen often.

The truth is chest straps are the closest you'll get to an EKG.

WSJ Joanna Stern confirmed accuracy of (Polar) chest-strap to EKG in a lab:
"In my rigorous 45-minute SoulCycle spinning classes, the watch’s sport band hugged my wrist snugly, enabling a surprisingly accurate heart-rate reading. It stayed within five beats of my trusty Polar chest-strap monitor—still the closest you can get to an EKG, according to my tests. At the end of three workouts, both the Polar and the watch reported similar average beats per minute. That’s far more accurate than the Fitbit Charge HR and Microsoft’s Band. "
http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-watch-review-what-the-apple-watch-does-bestmake-you-look-good-1428...

In the industry, there isn't argument about the accuracy of chest straps, except when you post on these forums.

Like anything, there are a few corner cases where a chest strap can give false readings. The primary reason these days is down to one: very dry skin (weather conditions) and you haven't worked up a sweat yet. It doesn't happen often, but when it does the workaround is surprisingly easy, wet your finger and moisten the electrodes. 

Fitbit PurePulse HR accuracy issues are common and documented. Fitbit HR accuracy happens often, and it isn't a corner case of a chest strap on very dry skin.

[bjanow]

Resting HR and cycling HR are insanely accurate for me over the past 4 or 5 days. But my walk/run today blew that out of the water. Perhaps it was the pounding that the review spoke of, I'm not sure. But is it possible to fix that with a firmware update or are we stuck with what we got? I run very slowly and HR is not a concern of mine at this time. I'll be training for a 10k in spring and would like to have some data on HR training but I refuse to wear a chest strap in the heat, it just bugs the heck out of me.

It does seem like we have a pretty good start with this watch but some needed updates would be very welcome indeed. As as the reviewer said, a simple xyz date or any info whatosever would be great. Fitbit has not been forthcoming in that regard and they need to get on the ball.

[Rich_Laue]

Just pointing out that add the chest strap gets older, it will nit be as accurate. I knkw peop k e tgat have to slatger on the sane electrical cream that's used by ekg technivians, beige they get an accurate reading. Of course they could shave their chest hair. Not adding fear but reality. There is a reason that arm based HRM monitors are getting popular, many are willing to put up with the slight inaccuracy gor comfort.

This is the same for wrist based step counters, they will never be as accurate as a body core unit such as the Fitbit One, since they can only monitor arm motions, and do not look at leg motions,  but many still are willing to put up with this inaccuracy for convenience. 

[bbarrera]

---

@Rich_Laue wrote:

Just pointing out that add the chest strap gets older, it will nit be as accurate. 

---

No. I think you like making up stories to bolster your argument. Please provide references. Its like your annecdotal evidence that none of your 10-12 friends with Flex have issues with band failure, yet I can go on Amazon where there are 20,000 reviews and over 2000 discuss the band and a lot of those talk about band failure.

My annecdote - I workout with endurance athletes and triathletes that have been using chest straps for decades and nobody has issues with chest straps 'losing accuracy as they get older.' The only issue I'm aware of is that the chest strap needs to be replaced after a few years, due to sweat and washing they eventually stop working and need to be replaced. No biggie.

And regarding 24x7 HR monitoring - what is the value for the average person?

Fitbit One is better at step counting, and if you walk/run for exercise then it also does a very good job at calorie estimation. Do you really get more accurate calorie burn estimates from using PurePulse? I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other, although personally my Flex did a great job helping me lose 30 pounds but once in shape and I started training it did a terrible job at calorie estimates. I don't consider that evidence one way or the other, as my training involved spinning and cycling which are activities that Fitbit has known problems with manual calorie estimates and PurePulse accuracy issues.

Resting Heart Rate (RHR) is for athletes, as another tool to predict overtraining or stress or sickness, things that will impact your performance or training schedule. And Fitbit gets it wrong, reinventing in a way to make it useless for athletes.

I'm a data geek, its mildly amusing to look at all-day HR graphs but of no practical benefit. If you are training hard then RHR is another tool to predict overtraining, but if you are training hard then HR accuracy is important so why buy a device that can't be relied upon? And if you have a medical condition, well, as you and others have pointed out the Fitbit devices aren't for medical use.

[SunsetRunner]

A slight inaccuracy wouldn't worry me and, as said, is more or less expected. It still impressed me when it tracks beat for beat my polar. However, what is annoying is when it all goes south and the data is nothing like what is happening. Further, this departure from accuracy is not consistent, also annoying.

[racertempo]

---

@bbarrera wrote:

---

@Rich_Laue wrote:

Just pointing out that add the chest strap gets older, it will nit be as accurate. 

---

No. I think you like making up stories to bolster your argument. Please provide references. Its like your annecdotal evidence that none of your 10-12 friends with Flex have issues with band failure, yet I can go on Amazon where there are 20,000 reviews and over 2000 discuss the band and a lot of those talk about band failure.

And regarding 24x7 HR monitoring - what is the value for the average person?

---

No one "made up stories to bolster an arguement".  I could care less if you agree with me or not, I simply gave an example where I said it was close enough for me to be happy.  I also said that the convience factor  of the wrist is why people don't want the chest strap.....and I also said that you cannot expect it to be perfect on the wrist, because it is on your wrist   Then you threw out some "above the elbow"  monitor arguement....which is just as impractible as on the chest.  

Like RichLaue said, being on the wrist is a convience and nice to have it there.  I like it, I trust it, you don't trust it.....good for me, good for you.  Can we move on now?