Wearable Fitness Trackers

[SPINMAN]

I'm wanting to change to a different wearable Fitness tracker. I have been using fitbit for years and currently using the Sense. Fitbit is now owned by Google. Don't know if that's good or bad. It has lots of sports available to sense. I need it to be able to use in the water for swimming. Mostly swim bike run but some hiking and HITT activities. Fitbit is OK but heart rate very delayed and not the most accurate. Distance seems accurate. What do you think? Anything better than a fitbit?
Thanks

[meamoantonio]

Garmin is the gold standard in terms of HR and Distance tracking, if you also like tracking effort using a power meter, their offering is also pretty good, I like the ecosystem they have developed which also includes being able to pay for stuff using the watch (Garmin Pay, similar to Apple Pay but its Garmin, only available in the US though)

[SPINMAN]

As far as power meters and pedals, Wahoo bought out speed play which I've used on MTB for years. Wahoo is known for its user-friendly interface, ease of use, and simple design, while Garmin provides a wider range of advanced features and training metrics, often at a higher price. Have to see what sales are coming up before memorial day.
Thanks

[GirishH]

I have only used the Garmin Instinct and wholeheartedly agree with @meamoantonio on his observations about Garmin. The Instinct is truly a watch designed for activity tracking and is incredibly rugged. It doesn’t have many bells and whistles, and I actually prefer it that way.

After about 5–6 years of use, the battery started having issues. I contacted Garmin customer service, and they offered to replace the battery or send me a refurbished Instinct for less than half the price of a new one. After hearing about the adventures my Garmin and I have shared, they threw in another 30% discount on top. The only catch is that I have to cycle to Nepal to pick up the replacement, as it’s coming from the US with a friend who’s visiting his family there..:-)

In the meantime, I bought a used Amazfit Bip. It has too many bells and whistles and doesn’t do fitness tracking as well. I truly can’t wait to have my Instinct back on my wrist.

I have heard of issues with Garmin Instinct Solar but can't really confirm.

[enkei]

I had a fitbit, now have an Apple Watch. However, the last time I researched the subject, I found the only way to get reliable, accurate HR was with a chest strap.

[meamoantonio]

(05-15-2025, 06:08 AM)GirishH Wrote:  I have only used the Garmin Instinct and wholeheartedly agree with @meamoantonio on his observations about Garmin. The Instinct is truly a watch designed for activity tracking and is incredibly rugged. It doesn’t have many bells and whistles, and I actually prefer it that way.

After about 5–6 years of use, the battery started having issues. I contacted Garmin customer service, and they offered to replace the battery or send me a refurbished Instinct for less than half the price of a new one. After hearing about the adventures my Garmin and I have shared, they threw in another 30% discount on top. The only catch is that I have to cycle to Nepal to pick up the replacement, as it’s coming from the US with a friend who’s visiting his family there..:-)

In the meantime, I bought a used Amazfit Bip. It has too many bells and whistles and doesn’t do fitness tracking as well. I truly can’t wait to have my Instinct back on my wrist.

I have heard of issues with Garmin Instinct Solar but can't really confirm.

Cycling to Nepal to pick up a watch sounds like an awesome adventure you can make a movie out of, please do send us pictures when you do this!

[Criminal]

So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

[GirishH]

@Criminal, I agree with most of your questions—I find myself asking the same ones all the time.

When I got my first Garmin ( Instinct), it was a basic, used model with no bells or whistles. I remember riding 20-30 miles to pick it up since it was a Craigslist purchase. For safety, I completed the transaction inside a police station.

To be honest, I never look at my heart rate and still don’t fully understand training HR compared to other metrics.

I also don’t check my sleep graph. I always joke that I’ll know how well I slept based on how I feel the next morning—no graph needed.

When I’m riding long distances, like hundreds of kilometers, I avoid checking my watch or distance. I prefer to distract myself from the long day ahead. Seeing that I still have 50 km to go can be pretty discouraging.

At the end of the day, though, I enjoy looking back at how far I’ve traveled and how many mountains, forests, or states I’ve crossed. So, my GPS watch is helping me give me with that pleasure.

Now, the task of picking up that new/refurbished Garmin is giving me an excuse to visit Nepal and meet friends from Boston—so that’s my motivation. So, that GPS watch is my excuse to cycle to Nepal and back.

As for nutrition, I stick to plain water, except on days over 40°C when I lose a lot of salt. Then, I use WHO-recommended Oral Rehydration Salts for dehydration.

I’m not trying to win any races, so I don’t see the need for extra chemicals or fancy gadgets on my bike.

(05-19-2025, 10:30 AM)Criminal Wrote:  So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

[SPINMAN]

(05-23-2025, 02:31 AM)GirishH Wrote:  @Criminal, I agree with most of your questions—I find myself asking the same ones all the time.

When I got my first Garmin ( Instinct), it was a basic, used model with no bells or whistles. I remember riding 20-30 miles to pick it up since it was a Craigslist purchase. For safety, I completed the transaction inside a police station.

To be honest, I never look at my heart rate and still don’t fully understand training HR compared to other metrics.

I also don’t check my sleep graph. I always joke that I’ll know how well I slept based on how I feel the next morning—no graph needed.

When I’m riding long distances, like hundreds of kilometers, I avoid checking my watch or distance. I prefer to distract myself from the long day ahead. Seeing that I still have 50 km to go can be pretty discouraging.

At the end of the day, though, I enjoy looking back at how far I’ve traveled and how many mountains, forests, or states I’ve crossed. So, my GPS watch is helping me give me with that pleasure.

Now, the task of picking up that new/refurbished Garmin is giving me an excuse to visit Nepal and meet friends from Boston—so that’s my motivation. So, that GPS watch is my excuse to cycle to Nepal and back.

As for nutrition, I stick to plain water, except on days over 40°C when I lose a lot of salt. Then, I use WHO-recommended Oral Rehydration Salts for dehydration.

I’m not trying to win any races, so I don’t see the need for extra chemicals or fancy gadgets on my bike.

(05-19-2025, 10:30 AM)Criminal Wrote:  So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

Yes, wearables help. MAXHR and HR limits are important if you ride over 100km

[GirishH]

@SPINMAN, please let us know what you end up buying.

I mostly check my elevation profile when I’m dead tired at the end of the day. I try not to look at it beforehand—I don’t want to scare myself before taking on the challenge.

After you mentioned HR and MaxHR, I reviewed that data from a few long rides. Now I have a sense of what my typical range is.

To be honest, the elevation and speed profiles help me appreciate my accomplishments, while the HR plot I guess, tells me about my health. I guess, it shows me whether I’m within my normal range or pushing myself too hard ( or not) compared to previous rides..?

(05-26-2025, 03:52 PM)SPINMAN Wrote:  

(05-23-2025, 02:31 AM)GirishH Wrote:  @Criminal, I agree with most of your questions—I find myself asking the same ones all the time.

When I got my first Garmin ( Instinct), it was a basic, used model with no bells or whistles. I remember riding 20-30 miles to pick it up since it was a Craigslist purchase. For safety, I completed the transaction inside a police station.

To be honest, I never look at my heart rate and still don’t fully understand training HR compared to other metrics.

I also don’t check my sleep graph. I always joke that I’ll know how well I slept based on how I feel the next morning—no graph needed.

When I’m riding long distances, like hundreds of kilometers, I avoid checking my watch or distance. I prefer to distract myself from the long day ahead. Seeing that I still have 50 km to go can be pretty discouraging.

At the end of the day, though, I enjoy looking back at how far I’ve traveled and how many mountains, forests, or states I’ve crossed. So, my GPS watch is helping me give me with that pleasure.

Now, the task of picking up that new/refurbished Garmin is giving me an excuse to visit Nepal and meet friends from Boston—so that’s my motivation. So, that GPS watch is my excuse to cycle to Nepal and back.

As for nutrition, I stick to plain water, except on days over 40°C when I lose a lot of salt. Then, I use WHO-recommended Oral Rehydration Salts for dehydration.

I’m not trying to win any races, so I don’t see the need for extra chemicals or fancy gadgets on my bike.

(05-19-2025, 10:30 AM)Criminal Wrote:  So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

Yes, wearables help. MAXHR and HR limits are important if you ride over 100km