Importing Heart Rate Date

[SunsetRunner]

I have been an avid Fitbit user since 2016, and am on my 4th, a Sense.  When I exercise using my Wahoo Tickr-X chest strap, the heart rate data on both my Wahoo and Strava app are close to 20% higher than the data the Fitbit records.  When I cycle the apps will send all the pertinent information, km, time, etc.., but the Fitbit uses its heart rate data instead of what is being recorded with the Tixr-X.

I am shocked this is occurring and would like to know if anyone has a resolution that does not include me having to buy another brand of expensive wearable.

[t.parker]

The simplest (and probably only) answer is: no, there is no solution that doesn't involve buying another brand.

The longer answer is: What you need is the ability to connect your watch to an external sensor and no Fitbit supports that. 

[SunsetRunner]

Could not agree more!

Get Outlook for iOS

[SunsetRunner]

So the big question that needs to get addressed is, if the Heart Rate data is out by so much, how bad is the rest of the data?  You have to question the integrity of the data.

[t.parker]

It depends. I believe the results are not too bad when resting (or sleeping). I did plenty of tests and I found out a few issues, some fixable, some not.

- Positioning of the watch.

It affects readings greatly. I do lots of bodyweight exercises and anything that requires bending the wrist causes bad readings. I know the Fitbit's advice and I know how to wear the watch but who wants to get distracted by the watch when in the middle of exercising? I'd rather take it off at all. This probably cannot be fixed.

- Smoothing/filtering.

This is visible when there are short spikes or dips in HR. Any anaerobic activity usually causes a quick rise of HR and then, after the set is done, dip to the resting range. Healthy heart slows down really quickly within seconds. On Sense, the spikes and dips are usually way lower or not present at all. This is because of aggressive data smoothing. There is a valid reason for the smoothing - it filters out the occasional errors. It is necessary but it is implemented rather badly and causes losing real HR spikes and dips resulting in what users reported - too low HR during anaerobic activities (like weights). This can be fixed.

- Cadence noise

This is interesting. I noticed that most of the users claim Sense is ok for running. Well... I disagree here but I have a theory why it is fine for the majority of amateur runners. Most recreational runners run with rather a low cadence (steps per minute) in the range of 130-160. It is falling very easily into the range of HR average person will reach during the run and any noise from cadence (steps mistakingly taken for heartbeats) will result in small inaccuracies, maybe more jagged HR graph here and there but in general - it won't affect final reading so much. For somebody who cares mostly about the final average and calories burned - good enough. My case is different. I run with cadence 182spm and the max HR registered by Fitbit on my recovery runs (when my real HR doesn't go above 145bpm) is very near that value and very often exactly that. This, however, happens only at the beginning of the run, then the smoothing does the job and my HR drops to lower levels but because it keeps fighting with cadence noise it stays way above my real heart rate. In other words, Fitbit always shows higher HR for my steady-state runs than it should (unlike for others when it shows pretty much ok HR). This cannot be easily fixed. It may be improved but I have seen many watches suffering from cadence noise. The problem will affect mostly runners so not everyone may experience this issue. However, this issue shows that the algorithm cannot handle shock-related false readings. Probably more advanced filtering could improve things (especially, if the activity is step-based and steps are expected).

I don't think there is much depending on HR during exercise. Well, calories? Anyway, this is just a guestimate. Anything else? If one wants to exercise with HR zones in mind then Fitbit isn't the right choice anyway. External sensors would solve the HR issue for good but Fitbit is stubborn and this won't happen.

[SunsetRunner]

I don’t look at my watch when cycling, jogging, or rowing. I use Wahoo or Strava, and the data imports to Fitbit. My issue is the heart rate data from the workout is being ignored and the Fitbit Heart rate data is supplemented in place. Maybe your right in not wearing the watch during the workout to see if it pulls in the correct heart rate data.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me, they should follow Apple and Garmin and pair with a chest strap.

Get Outlook for iOS

[t.parker]

There is no way Fitbit will import external (pre-recorded) HR data. Simply, either you go with Fitbit HR or a different watch. I also use a chest strap. It's paired with a Garmin watch and works perfectly. When I cycle, I use my watch as a bike computer (strapped to the handlebar) so no need to run any additional apps on the phone and the watch has paired my speed and cadence sensors, too. Comparing with competitors, Fitbit manufactures toys with a minimum of features and focusing mostly on counting steps. If you need a watch that can use a chest strap (and other useful sensors) then just get one. Use what is the closest to what you need.

[SunsetRunner]

That’s pretty much where I’m at, and I’m unwilling to take it further other than what Garmin model watch for Cycling?

I must say I wonder about the future of this product and brand as insurance companies work to adjust policies based on a persons activity, how can a Fitbit even qualify.

Get Outlook for iOS

[t.parker]

@SunsetRunner I'm quite happy with Fenix 6 Pro. I keep it paired with cadence and speed sensors (the distance is computed using a speed sensor so it maintains accuracy in case of GPS hiccups, also useful if you use a turbo trainer for indoor cycling). I use in-watch turn-by-turn navigation (a very useful feature when cycling new route) and a chest strap, so I can attach the watch to the handlebar and still record my HR. It just turns into a tiny bike computer. It works for me.

I think, the future of Fitbit won't be affected by that as it looks like the company found its own market. In fact, as you mentioned insurance companies, Fitbit trackers are very often preferred. Insurance companies want to see your activity as steps and as step counters, Fitbit devices do the job. Sometimes the simplicity is the way to go and Fitbit is more into health and basic activity tracking rather than sports tracking. In fact, since Charge 2 (my first Fitbit device) I haven't seen any improvement and new features for sports tracking, and all new features are purely health-related. Garmin and Polar aim at a totally different audience (although it does look like they take their first steps into the health market). Depending on the features, Fitbit may or may not be for you but they seem to find customers after all.

[SunsetRunner]

If you play guitar, wear your Fitbit.  You will get 10,000 steps in no time.  The Fitbit is too flawed to be considered a serious fitness tracker.  
I personally am focussed on active minutes, Strava and Wahoo will have me over 50 on a 10k ride with the chest strap, but the heart rate issue with Fitbit has me below 20.

I love the interface and available metrics, but the heart rate issue makes it a non starter for anyone serious about fitness.

[t.parker]

Recording fake steps is easy with pretty much any wrist-worn step counter (I could do it with Suunto, can do it with Garmin). I never look at steps because it is not a metric of anything important for me. Same about active (zone) minutes - rather useless. I, on the other hand, see a lack of metrics and no advanced data analysis (aggregation, comparing). I run more than ride my bike and I find it very hard to track any kind of progress with Fitbit. If you are a runner, you want to know your PBs, you want to be able to see how HR responds to changes in the elevation, cadence, pace. On top of that, you want to have some track record of your achievements for 5k/10k/half/full marathon - this doesn't exist in the world of Fitbit (which is kinda surprising, after I ran half-marathon, no acknowledgment). You want to aggregate data and track performance. There are rewards for steps but runners usually don't care that much about steps (with exception of cadence, a parameter not supported by Fitbit). With additional sensors, you can get more accurate data (even for cycling, like for example power meter). Maybe, if Fitbit offered other features that I need, then the HR issue would be more important but my requirements are a lot higher, and fixing HR would not make Sense any better in my eyes because it lacks in other areas. I don't think this is the direction, though.

[SunsetRunner]

I agree on the pb’s, but as an older individual it’s not a focus, but trends over periods of time are.  In the end I like to see if my health is benefiting from my efforts, but when the differential in my heart rate from Wahoo imported into Strava as X, somehow becomes R in Fitbit, the dashboards are not trustworthy.

Either way I am on the hunt for a viable alternative that provides the reasonable accuracy I am seeking, while also providing the important fitness tracking metrics a better wearable should.

Fitbit is, as stated previously a toy, and the Sense is their most expensive toy.