Which fitbit to choose, I don't carry a phone while I run

[JessicaMorgan]

Hi There,

     I know I need a activity tracker watch. I don't carry my phone while I run. Should I go for charge 2, blaze or surge? I am confused.

Thanks

Jess

[SteveH · Accepted solution]

I guess it comes down to whether you want to use GPS or not.

All the fitbits will happily track a run without GPS by measuring distance as steps multiplied by stride length. If you are happy with this then you can choose your fitbit based on other features (see www.fitbit.com/compare for details).

However, some runners prefer to have GPS measure their distance as they believe this will give a more accurate measurement. I'm not sure whether this is correct or not but is key to your decision. If you want GPS but don't want to carry a phone then the Surge is your only fitbit option (as the Charge 2 and Blaze need your phone's GPS).

Hopefully you'll get some guidance from others re the need for GPS as my days of running are long gone.

[Rich_Laue]

I cant answer that without you trll8ng us a little about what you want oppose to what you need? The best fitbit for you might not be tge best for me.

Do you need  or want a digital display? need - want - don't care - don't want

Notifacation? need - want - don't care - don't want

Music control?  need - want - don't care - don't want

Replaceable think interchangeable  bands? need - want - don't care - don't want

Cordio score?  need - want - don't care - don't want

Reminder to move? need - want - don't care - don't want

Stopwatch? need - want - don't care - don't want

Countdown timer? need - want - don't care - don't want

Manual logging of exercises? need - want - don't care - don't want

Does tye size matter? need - want - don't care - don't want

Basically you need to answer tyis wuestion, to start go to www.fitbit.com/devices look at what each has to offer. We then can give you our opinions, but you result need to have an idea of what you want first.

[JessicaMorgan]

Hi

Thanks for the replies. I think I need a basic watch that can couple with my iphone (if possible). I don't want to carry a phone while running and measure the distance run accurately, so GPS is a added advantage. I am not sure how good is steps/stride measurement. As SteveH suggested, may be surge is the only option in fitbit.

Thanks

Jess

[Rich_Laue]

I find the step - stride - distance accurate enough. I calculated it over a known distance , by doing the route on 5 days, tyen took an average to calculate the stride.

[shipo]

---

@JessicaMorgan wrote:

Hi

Thanks for the replies. I think I need a basic watch that can couple with my iphone (if possible). I don't want to carry a phone while running and measure the distance run accurately, so GPS is a added advantage. I am not sure how good is steps/stride measurement. As SteveH suggested, may be surge is the only option in fitbit.

Thanks

Jess

---

Contrary to what some say, stride based distance tracking is horribly inaccurate, especially for running, especially when outside in the real world.  Why?  Your stide length will change from run to run (some days you'll feel slow, some days you'll want to run like your hair is on fire), that plus if you run in a hilly region, your stride length will change rather dramatically within the run.

Per your requirements of not wanting to carry a phone and yet wanting GPS tracking of your runs, the only game in the Fitbit town is the Surge; it has in-built GPS and will sync to your phone and/or computer after your run.

Tying the above two points together, I am a runner and have had a Fitbit Surge for the last 19 or so months.  In that time I've logged well over 100 runs with a total distance between 10 and 10.25 miles (and many-many other runs both longer and shorter).  When I look at the log of those ~10 mile runs I see some with as few as 13,000 steps (which equates to a stride length of over four feet), I also see some with as many as 17,500 steps (which equates to a stride length of about three feet), and many dozens of runs in between those two points.  Looked at it one way, my fast runs have a stride length one-third longer than my slow runs, or, if you want to look at in reverse, my slow runs have a stride length only three-quarters as long as my fast runs.

[Rich_Laue]

@shipo because as you say the stride varies,  speed and terrain or how you fee today can do this.  

I used a known distance,  did the path 5 times on 5 diferent days.  Then average it out then used this number for my stride. 

Yes vet seldom is it spot on,  but, as they say,  close enjoy for government work.

[shipo]

---

@Rich_Laue wrote:

@shipo because as you say the stride varies,  speed and terrain or how you fee today can do this.  

I used a known distance,  did the path 5 times on 5 diferent days.  Then average it out then used this number for my stride. 

Yes vet seldom is it spot on,  but, as they say,  close enjoy for government work.

---

Hmmm, October and November were huge months for me in that I ran 675 miles combined for the two months; of those miles, 233.45 were run on a single 10.15 mile course (ran it 23 times).  I just built a spreadsheet with the steps of the 10.15-mile runs and did a calculation showing the stride length; the longest (fastest run) average length for the distance was 3.905 feet, the shortest (slowest run) average length for the distance was 3.217 feet.  If I add in my other runs for the month (ranging from 3.1 miles to 18.25 miles) the average stride length grows even more.  For the 18.25 mile run, my stride length was 3.208 feet, and for that 3.1 mile (5K) race my average stride length was 4.536 feet.

Maybe it's just me, but the gap between 3.208 feet and 4.536 feet per step is no where near "close enough" in my book.

[AdamMSC]

Blaze..
The connected gps gets such a bad wrap by some. When I run my races, I always have a running belt on under my shirt with my car key in it. I also, now,  throw my phone in there.  It is a small phone: iphone 5s. I never even notice it there. I use it because I like to look at my half mile splits while running and to review them later on down the road to track my progress over time. It really is a helpful tool that is easy to use.

[markp88]

I think if you are set on a fitbit then you would be happy with the Blaze or the Surge. 

The Blaze is the nicest option but requires you to run with your phone to have the GPS work, but you get the added advantage of controlling your music through the watch.  The Surge you get GPS runs independant of your phone.

From what you seem to be wanting, its more expensive but the Apple watch will store 2 GB of music on it, and you just pair bluetooth headphones to listen to it.  The new Apple Watches I believe have built in GPS as well.  So you would be getting your GPS runs with music all from the watch without having to bring your phone with you.

Its a pricier option for you but if thats absolutely what you need from your tracker it may be the better solution.

If you can use something called the "FlipBelt" or any phone holder on your runs, then the Blaze I would suggest is the best option as it doubles as a nice watch, and will give you GPS and music controls on the watch as you run. 

[shipo]

---

@markp88 wrote:

I think if you are set on a fitbit then you would be happy with the Blaze or the Surge. 

---

Given @JessicaMorgan stated in her first post she doesn't carry a phone when she runs so the Blaze is a bad option for her.

[FerdinandFitbit]

I agree with @shipo. I would recommend the Surge @JessicaMorgan since you don't carry your phone with you and you'd like to see a map of your route I'd guess. 

See more of the Surge here.

Good to see you all around guys!