Fitbit Charge HR- Serious gear or a toy?

[SunsetRunner]

I own the Charge HR and I wouldn't use the HR as anything more than a toy that gives an approximation of your HR. I've been using a EKG accurate HR monitor for cycling for 25 years so I have to say I know what my heart is doing. I give fitbit credit for helping me lose weight and getting me off the couch but a "Serious" piece of gear it is not.

For example, I know my resting HR is at 33-35 bpm (taken with an EKG accurate HRM), Fitbit HR states 59 bpm. I go on a walk with the wife in the evening, I wear my chest strap and use my GPS cycling computer so I can log the walk. The HRM is 80-85 bpm, Charge HR is 127-140 bpm.

There is a huge amount of inaccuracy with optical HRM's, will it show a trend? Sort of, if  I see my resting HR go up from 54 to 59 I may be over training. If it's trending down, I'm on track.

The inaccuracy in the HR also impacts your estimated calorie burn example: walk for 4.12 miles at 111 avg HR, Fitbit shows 881 calories burned. The chest strap HRM shows 5 miles (confirmed by additional GPS tracking) an average HR of 80 bpm and 386 calories.

Is the Charge HR accurate, NOPE. Does it get me off the couch? YEP!

The strength of fitbit is logging all your food, setting your own calorie intake and staying as close as possible and getting your steps and stairs and moving and burning more calories than you eat. It helped me lose 50 lbs.

[RivalDealer]

---

@SunsetRunner wrote:

For example, I know my resting HR is at 33-35 bpm (taken with an EKG accurate HRM)

---

Wow! I read that Mo Farah's resting heartrate is 33bpm. Unsure whether I would be proud or worried if mine was that low.

Mine is 60bpm but the charge HR and my Garmin ant+ chest band monitor both measure it the same. The only time I get a different reading from both is when my bpm is really high, like when I'm doing HIIT, the Charge HR seems to round it off so the peaks are not as high and the dips are not as low.

[DaniellaH]

Seriously if my resting heart rate was that low I'd probably think I was dying.  Anyway, my charge HR just said 74 and i did it manually calculating 78 bpm....so I would say it's relatively accurate.  I'll take my readings with a grain of salt but I have no reason to doubt it considering. 

[josephz2va]

Depends on your current physical fitness. How much cardio you have done in high numbers, how much weights you've lifted, how much personal training you have done, what foods you have consumed super high in sodium. The more sodium you consume or the more fat mass you have, the more your system has to tax it out which is a higher heart rate and higher blood pressure.

Wristwatch HR monitors are not accurate to the letter. If you wear a heart rate monitor and run on a cardio machine and look at the screen if it's Polar Ready, the Heart Rate is sometimes 30 points higher than the watch itself. I've ran a 130 to 170 cardio run and the watch keeps down at 147 but the screen is 170 when I have HR Interval mode on and hold it for 2 straight minutes.

[DominicJ]

*IF* your resting heart rate is 30 you are a *VERY* special case, and yes, fitbits HR may not be the right choice for you. 

Then again, you dont wear your chest strap 24/7

My other half has tested hers against a life support wheel chair and its within a few beats.

I think fitbit have been very upfront about the weaknessess of optical HRM technology

[Gnarly]

I've tested mine out today against the heart rate monitor on the treadmill and elliptical and my HR was always within 5 beats of those machines HR monitors. I find it to be very accurate.