It's all about averages!

[Rona1117]

I keep reading posts complaining about certain daily inaccuracies: too many or too few steps, or the heart rate missing or adding beats, etc.. True, total accuracy will not be achieved on any given day (logging steps when scratching your head, or not logging steps when pushing a shopping cart), but over a long period of time, averages form that will provide consistent and useful information. I've been logging most items on my Blaze for 5months, which means, all categories (steps, calories in, calories out, calories burned, heart rate, etc.) have had significant entries over a long enough period of time to be reasonably accurate and provide me with the information I need. (In other words, I have scratched my head and pushed a shopping cart enough times during the 5 months that it evens out.). I have lost 20 pounds and have hit and now held my ideal weight for several weeks. I know by adding up a category total and dividing by the number of entries I reach an average number that is accurate for what I want to achieve and maintain. Specifically, I have learned, (but only after months of tracking), that I can maintain my current desirable weight of 188 if I exercise at least 30 minutes every day, consume no more than 2300 calories, burn at least 3000, take at least 12,000 steps and climb at least 14 flights of stairs. So, my suggestion is to not fret over minor inaccuracies on a daily basis. Log everything for many months, compute averages, and work from there. I hope this helps you relax and enjoy your Fitbit a little more.

[FerdinandFitbit]

That's an awesome different point of view @Rona1117. Hadn't considered that way but totally makes sense and in the end it's the results on your own body, the achievements what matters. Of course, Fitbit will motivate you reach your goals but it's the hard work and the outcome what each of us will feel proud of in the end.

Thanks for sharing this with the Community and happy stepping! 😄 Welcome to the Community!

[bbarrera]

Generally agree although I have a slightly different point-of-view. I ride my bike, and I ride fast and hard. I need accurate heart rate while riding, like last night when I was pushing 24-26mph for 10 miles. At those speeds I was riding just below my HR lactate threshhold, occasional bumping above, and HR accuracy is needed to avoid spending too much time above my threshhold (by making minor adjustments to speed). Optical HRM on the wrist still isn't good enough, so I still use a chest strap when going out for a ride.

Otherwise I agree with you, so much that after losing all that weight and getting into an exercise groove I found it unnecessary to pay attention to calories consumed or step count or all day heart rate - eat sensibly and only need to pay attention to heart rate during exercise. For me it all comes down to a few key weekly numbers - how many hours I ride (e.g. yesterday 3 hours and 3000 calories burned), and how many times I lift weights (muscle burns more calories than fat).

My heart rate barely rises when walking, I'm blessed that after 5 dedicated years of buidling up to this point (starting with Fitbit Flex) that now in my mid 50s walking is no longer an effective exercise for me and I had to find something more vigorous - cycling for me, as running is too hard on my body.

[shipo]

---

@bbarrera wrote:

Generally agree although I have a slightly different point-of-view. I ride my bike, and I ride fast and hard. I need accurate heart rate while riding, like last night when I was pushing 24-26mph for 10 miles. At those speeds I was riding just below my HR lactate threshhold, occasional bumping above, and HR accuracy is needed to avoid spending too much time above my threshhold (by making minor adjustments to speed). Optical HRM on the wrist still isn't good enough, so I still use a chest strap when going out for a ride.

---

I'm curious, what would you do with 100% accurate heart rate information from your rides?  If your answer is to apply it to your calculated heart rate zones, then why would you bother?  I ask because the zones are so horribly inaccurate as to render any "accurate" heart rate information moot.

As an alternative to paying attention to your heart rate, I would recommend you pay attention to your breathing as follows:

• If you can ride along and maintain a conversation in short sentences, they you're exerting yourself at a sustainable pace.
• If you're breathing hard, but can sustain the pace for say an hour or more, you're working out at a good tempo pace (typically used for race preparation).
• If you're finding it difficult to catch your breath and are in immediate danger of collapsing, you're going way too hard.

If you follow those rules, then as a general rule (in the running community at least), your heart rate is irrelevant.

[bbarrera]

---

@shipo wrote:

I'm curious, what would you do with 100% accurate heart rate information from your rides?  If your answer is to apply it to your calculated heart rate zones, then why would you bother?  I ask because the zones are so horribly inaccurate as to render any "accurate" heart rate information moot.

---

You are making an incorrect assumption about zone accuracy. This is all explained in books on training for cycling or triatholons, and its standard training stuff thats been around decades.

To summarize, every 1-2 months I field test my max heart rate and update my HR zones as they can change over time (I also get updates from Garmin and TrainingPeaks based on actual rides). I use Joe Friel's 7 zones designed for cyclists. Then I use those HR zones during structured training, to improve performance and prepare for big rides. For example right now at upper end of zones my steady state (SS) training zone is 151-155bpm, climbing repeat (CR) zone is 156-160bpm, and power intervals (PI) are 165-170bpm. For example a 90 minute training ride this week called for 4x Steady State intervals, a single interval consisting of a) 10 minutes at 151-155bpm, then b) 5 min rest (140-145bpm). This 15 minute interval is performed a total of 4 times.

As you mention, a more basic method is "rate of perceived exertion" (RPE), and in the cycling world HR method is in the middle (very cost-effective) and the more advanced method relies on (expensive) power meters. I see no reason to fall back to RPE given the low cost of a chest strap, the ability to "dial-in" a workout, integration with cycling equipment and training websites, and clear performance gains achieved by following a structured training program. In addition most of my training is done above Tempo pace, to increase power and improve my body's ability to process lactate buildup in muscles while still riding hard.

If you want to get faster cycling or running, you need to do a lot more interval work and a lot less tempo work. I want to get faster, so your recommendation isn't helpful and thats why I mostly train above/below my threshhold and use an inexpensive and accurate chest strap. As an alternative to chest strap I've tried Fitbit (Surge/Blaze/ChargeHR) and Apple Watch, the AW has been more accurate versus Fitbit, but both have enough 'wander off into the weeds' moments of HR inaccuracy that its not worth the frustration. 

Hope that helps. 

Going back to the original topic, averages are fine for a lot of people trying to get in shape and lose or maintain weight. Worked for me, at least until I got to losing the last 10 pounds. And some of us have moved beyond that, and would love to see a Fitbit that properly supported training for endurance sports like running, cycling and swimming.

[npufal]

I particularly don't agree with the OP. I guess it all depends on how you see the FitBit Blaze.

My intent when I bought it, 3 days ago, was to use this as my primary device for tracking either my daily exercises (weight lifting + cardio training) plus have a better idea of my calories burned throughout the day (the 24/7 HR monitor is pretty neat for that). If my intent with the Blaze was to use it as a secondary device, i.e. only track my calories burned/steps/etc, then I wouldn't care about the HR innacuracy. The problem is that the Blaze is advertised as a complete solution (check the website + exercise profiles available in it) and that in my opinion is misleading/doesn't sound right. 

I guess most people don't bother to use a chest strap to have accurate HR readings while training and that's the why they feel fine about the HR sensor in the Blaze. But really, it's WAY off if you really care about that metric and HR is very important when doing cardio training to make sure you exercise in the proper zone and don't mess up with yourself.

Another example is that I can't get my mind around why the Blaze has a profile called "Weights" if for all of those workouts it's always way innacurate. For instance, when my HR is 140BPM the Blaze always display something between 80-90BPM - and I'm wearing it exactly like the instructions tell me to do during exercises. 

If you advertise something as being good for everything, make it work that way. Tell the truth to your customers. Good marketing is not misleading marketing.

That bothers me a lot and the fact that some people feel good about this situation make it even worser, as they make it harder for the company to acknowledge the product flaws and at least try to fix it.

[shipo]

---

@bbarrera wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

I'm curious, what would you do with 100% accurate heart rate information from your rides?  If your answer is to apply it to your calculated heart rate zones, then why would you bother?  I ask because the zones are so horribly inaccurate as to render any "accurate" heart rate information moot.

---

You are making an incorrect assumption about zone accuracy. This is all explained in books on training for cycling or triatholons, and its standard training stuff thats been around decades.

---

The heart rate stuff has been around for decades, however, that doesn't mean it is anywhere near correct, it just means it has been repeated and published so often it has become a factoid.  There are lots of books and articles supporting the notion of zones, and just as many which refute said notions.  If you've found a method which works for you, great, however, what works for you may well not work for the next individual.

As for interval training; I coach many runners in two different running clubs, and unless one of my runners is up near the pack of elite runners in their respective age group, interval training is A) pretty much worthless, and B) a great way to get injured.  For non-elite runners, I coach what is effectively a slightly modified system of LSD (Long Slow Distance), the modification being a distinct ramp up of pace for the last few miles of a run, but only once the runner can sustain at least an hour at their normal training pace.  The results speak for themselves in rapidly improving times and a very good track record of avoiding injury.

Even for elite age-group runners, my wife and I both qualify, interval training is of a marginal value.

[bbarrera]

We will have to agree to disagree, I stand by what I wrote and can't find scientific studies that refute what I've said.