Garmin GPS versus Surge

[ThBeales]

Interesting results from recent bike ride.

Garmin
3.01 miles
Max Speed 25.5
Calories 174
Climbing 221
Heart 125 avg. 152 max.

Fitbit
3.02 miles
Max Speed 23.5
Calories 125
Climbing 284
Heart 126 avg. 137 max.

[Heybales]

So GPS was good. Must have been clear sky, perhaps not a lot of buildings.

You'll find others with very different experiences.

The HRM was not good though.

That's about average - seems about half get decent inaccuracies for HR as it goes higher.

Hence the difference in calorie burn.

Not big after 3 mile ride, 50 calories.

But if doing an hour at decent clip - that's not good at all, that is creating a huge extra deficit someone actually wanting to get improvement from exercise would not like.

[ASHMAN]

WHICH ONE WAS MORE ACCURATE?

[Heybales]

---

@ASHMAN wrote:

WHICH ONE WAS MORE ACCURATE?

---

The data doesn't allow an answer strictly speaking to your question.

2 values can't be compared to each other for accuracy - that implies you know one of them is the accurate value - therefore wouldn't need to ask.

You would require a 3rd known true value to compare each to.

But, you can discern a lot from the given data.

Garmin
3.01 miles
Max Speed 25.5
Calories 174
Climbing 221
Heart 125 avg. 152 max.

Fitbit
3.02 miles
Max Speed 23.5
Calories 125
Climbing 284
Heart 126 avg. 137 max.

Garmin is using an EKG accurate HR measuring device, so that is more accurate there.

So the fact it saw a higher maxHR means the Fitbit missed beats at higher levels.

The fact the Fitbit saw a higher avgHR despite that fact means it didn't move as low as often or as fast as the Garmin did, indicating it had more time lag to see new HR info.

Since you didn't ask about accuacy for what exactly, I'll mention the calorie burn formula based on HR that is not accurate tells alot about potential accuracy of calorie burn given.

Garbage in, garbage out.

For distance the Garmin with better GPS chipset saw faster speed, so that's good indicator it adjusts faster than Fitbit GPS, likely meaning it's distance was more accurate.

Climbing just depends on models, barometric pressure is much more accurate potential than GPS if that's what Garmin used, then again a high pressure front could have moved in and screwed that up.

Then again the Garmin could have corrected it's elevation data with survey data and is more accurate.