Smart fitness watches

if it doesn't have GPS then I don't know why you would own one

if you don't do any activities outside of the gym then I don't know why you would own one at all

>>39608387
this

tracking distance would be decent if i ever ran

only people I know that wear them DON'T go to the gym. people that go to my gym don't have them lol

>>39608379
Have one. It eventually lead me to start coming here.

I recommend getting one that has a built in heart monitor. You won't give a fuck about steps but with heart you'll known when you're burning fat.

As for brand, I got a Garmin one as they were cheaper and did the basic core shit. Plus using a watch battery over usb charge is so much less hassle.

>>39608788
Can it accurately tell you how much calories you're burning?

>>39608379
>>39608802
The ones which actually measure your heart rate are accurate but tend to be more expensive.

>>39608379
I have Fitbit charge HR
I time my runs and track daily calories burned, also use the Fitbit app to track food, also the heart monitor is accurate enough so I don't have to wear my doctor ordered one

>>39609102
Adding to my post that new Fitbit watches with heart monitors can be found online as low as $90, maybe lower with the holidays. Best of luck guys

>>39608387
>unless it can use your phone's gps

I have a fitbit charge 2 and although it definitely got its weak points, it's a joy to have.

However, it's still a tool based on (very) educated guesses so don't consider it 100%

>>39608379
You keep posting this thread so you can shill a smart watch pls stop

I bought a Charge 2. Tracks HR moderately well, I'd say it's within 10-15 beats off the actual rate. Step measurement is less accurate. At work, I can rack up 6000-7000 steps even though I'm mostly standing up for hours at a time.

It's a gimmicky piece of hardware that's decent if you're looking to become more active. The stat tracking and functionality is nifty, but whether this is worth $190-200+ dollars is up to you.

>>39608379
depends.

Theyre good because they get people active and enthusiastic about training...

but if you are fit and run, especially at higher intensities, the correlation between heart rate and Vo2 isnt really valid after 160bpm. If youre training below it, then I guess its fine. Not only tat, but considering if you are training that high of an intensity you are more than likely doing intervals, you will never truly know your heart rate because you would have an oxygen deficit to make up and by the time you take HR you would not have made up for it as you never reach steady state.

Add in that they use generic numbers to estimate as they do not have GPS and you get a shitty estimation of calories burned.

Add in that these things use the most basic Max Heart rate equation, with a standard deviation of 12 fuckin BPS and it only makes it that much more embarrassing.

A big problem is also that they tend to be placed at the top of the wrist, making their readings shit. Microsoft has better ones at the bottom of the wrist. Still inaccurate, but more accurate.

verdict: theyre ok if youre casual about getting fit or want to look cool. If you actually care about accuracy, not so much.

I got one for use as a sleep tracker because I have sleep problems.
From what I hear, HR monitoring is iffy even if you use it properly. Nothing can really accurately tell you your calories burned except maybe a scientist with a bunch of electrodes.

For the love of god avoid fitbit. I bought one at the start of the year, looked after it, didn't have it anywhere near water and the strap gradually degraded and fell apart finally last week.

It really depends on what you're looking for and how you put it to use. It's what you make of it.
I've been using a Fitbit for almost two years at this point, wearing it almost nonstop (when possible). Started with the Charge HR, and upgraded to the Charge HR 2 a few months ago.
When you've been wearing it day in and day out, questions of accuracy in tracking steps, calories, etc. kind of become secondary. You form a baseline understanding of what the numbers indicate about your activity level for a day. So while a 6,000 step day might not capture precisely how many steps I took over those 24 hours, I have a pretty good idea of what sort of an activity level that indicates. If you're the sort of person who can easily form good habits and stick with them, then the information the device provides you is very convenient. The deeper your record with it, the more useful the info.
In terms of workouts, it'll give you the most information from runs (and other cardio), but isn't terribly informative about how your lifting workouts are in terms of intensity.
Also bears mentioning, but the sleep tracking is super useful to me. Furthermore I'm not the type to wear a watch, so it's nice to have the time on my wrist at all times.

>tldr;
In summary, I'd say it's a worthy investment in health awareness. The motivational factor won't last, so you need to be the type who gets off on having that extra information.

If you get one, make sure it tracks heart rate. Fitbit has good social features if you care about that sort of thing. My two Charge HRs lasted 10 months and 6 months respectively. That sounds bad, but they were on me continuously and subject to a lot of abuse. Warranty covered the replacement the first time with no trouble. The Charge HR2 seems to have fixed some of the durability issues with swappable straps.

>>39609102
> doctor ordered one

Should you even be working out