Hiking performance data

[Traveler]

For a number of years I've used a Fitbit to track fundamental data to keep an eye on physical performance while hiking. The Fitbit has gone to the great Dashboard in the sky (doffing cap) and I need to replace it. I would like to get a heart rate monitor in the next performance monitoring widget, but reading the wrist type are not nearly as accurate as chest strap types and was curious if anyone uses a heart rate monitor during their hikes for performance monitoring and if so, what type (watch, arm band, or chest strap) and if it can be monitored in real time versus downloading data. I am leaning toward a chest strap type but not getting a clear picture on real time monitoring with an iPhone.

Anyone use these type of devices?

[Slugg]

I don’t have any recommendations but there is another option you didn’t mention - a ring. My friend has an “Oura Ring” that he decided would be better than a watch.

Personally, I am interested in a fitness tracking device but don’t want to have to “wear” one - I would be interested in a chip implant or a “patch” type thing.

[One Half]

I went from a fitbit to a Garmin Instinct 2 watch. I really like that I can see my heart rate, distance, pace, etc as I am walking/hiking.

[LoneStranger]

I use a heart monitor for my indoor cycling during the Winter months. It keeps me from going harder than a man my age should

I am on my second Wahoo Tickr. The first was destroyed by a leaking battery after 7 years. It has bluetooth and ANT to sync up with whatever apps and devices you might need it to talk to. The detachable chest strap can be washed which is nice for cycling use.

[Slugg]

Well I actually just got a Fitbit Inspire 3 for free with 6 months premium subscription free from my job’s employee health clinic. So I guess I’ll give this thing a shot.

[Alligator]

Years ago I had a chest strap heart rate monitor that coupled with a wrist unit GPS. I used that more often in trail runs but did take it hiking too. I had a Microsoft band and then a couple of Fitbits. I found the wrist monitors to be accurate as well. I am not familiar with any current comparisons regarding the differences between wrist and chest monitors. However, I would guess that any fine difference between the two is really only going to be of benefit to elite athletes. Even if one is more variable than the other, the data you are looking at is exhaustive given the lengthy data record produced. That amount of data would smooth pretty well. You won't want to wear the chest strap monitor day after day.

[Alligator]

One feature that is always helpful in monitoring devices is the sbility to export the data easily to whatever application you intend to analyze and store the data. Often devices come with propriety apps that don't export so well. I have a couple of varieties of temperature monitors/controllers that export data through bluetooth and wifi, but have different manufacturers with different apps. I can collect and export the data but generally would need a hub of some sort to export directly to the cloud. Exercise monitors are a little more high end and have somewhat lengthier product histories so pushing to the cloud was easier for instance with my fitbit. Really just how many hoops you have to jump through for a device is worth considering.

[HeartFire]

I have a Coros Apex 2 watch, and a Polar 10 chest strap I wear when running, I've never used it while hiking. Polar has a great app to go with the strap, and my watch reads the Polar strap. all of this can be exported to Strava, Apple health etc. Coros also makes an arm band HR monitor - it's still a light based (like the wrist) but as it's 'closer to the heart' it's supposed tobe more accurate than wrist based. Probably more comfortable than wearing the chest strap.

[Traveler]

Thanks everyone for the input! Some general findings if interested:

There are indeed a lot of options for this equipment. Research indicates chest strap type monitors are among the most accurate over wrist type monitors due primarily to the use of ECD technology that reads electric impulses from the heart. The chest strap type provides real time data via cell phone app and bluetooth which requires cell phone use to see which may not always be handy or easily accessed. I am not sure when carrying a pack how comfortable/uncomfortable the chest strap would be especially using a sternum strap.

For wrist strap type, research indicates Fitbit (Inspire HR) is in the upper end of the wrist type monitors which are not much less expensive than chest strap types. Since I already have a lot of data in the Fitbit app it makes sense to get this device as it also measures steps/distance, elevation gain, and heart rate info. The wrist type is not as accurate as the chest strap type, using pulsing LED lights to read the heart rate. They do have a bit of lag when monitoring in real time, though for my purposes I can live with that. Perhaps the feature I like most about it is being able to glance at the wrist strap and see basic information quickly, regardless if it is raining or other hazards exist that raise concerns with pulling a cell phone out.

From all this I am leaning toward the Fitbit wrist type unless additional information waves a red flag. Thanks again everyone!

[RockDoc]

I'm not up on the newest stuff, but today I was wearing both a Garmin watch and a Polar chest band and watch. During my workout they both gave the same heart rate. So I would not discount the watches altogether. The Garmin also saves detailed data including a map to view in the app.

[Slow Trek]

Normally,when I get to the top of a mountain,I am just grateful my heart is still beating...

[HankIV]

Normally,when I get to the top of a mountain,I am just grateful my heart is still beating...

…and if it isn’t…oh well.

[Alligator]

I've always liked coupling my fitness data with geographical data. I know this can be done by pairing some fitness devices with a phone. However, as a backpacker, it concerns me to be running that pairing all day as far as power consumption. When my last tracker faded out, I had been looking at various models but there was a bit of a jump in price between GPS and non-GPS units. I also had wanted more of a fitness tracker and not anything fancy like an Apple or Samsung watch. I think some Fitbits have GPS now though.

[Slugg]

I've always liked coupling my fitness data with geographical data. I know this can be done by pairing some fitness devices with a phone. However, as a backpacker, it concerns me to be running that pairing all day as far as power consumption. When my last tracker faded out, I had been looking at various models but there was a bit of a jump in price between GPS and non-GPS units. I also had wanted more of a fitness tracker and not anything fancy like an Apple or Samsung watch. I think some Fitbits have GPS now though.

I took my Fitbit Inspire 3 on a hike for the first time yesterday and yeah, it does have GPS. You can can enable it to plot a track (drains the battery faster). I didn’t do that but it has the capability. It also just tracks your mileage by default - it exceeded my expectations in that regard, pretty much dead on.

[Alligator]

I took my Fitbit Inspire 3 on a hike for the first time yesterday and yeah, it does have GPS. You can can enable it to plot a track (drains the battery faster). I didn’t do that but it has the capability. It also just tracks your mileage by default - it exceeded my expectations in that regard, pretty much dead on.

I had a Fitbit Charge 4(?) as my last one. It was still working but there was some problem where it was faded out. If I jumped through some hoops, it could be reset and the brightness returned but it kept doing it. Several of the Fitbit models and versions after that I think I saw had GPS. I really like the simplicity of the Charge but I was willing to move slightly back up. However, I usually buy these at Christmas time during Black Friday sales and I just haven't found the right Fitbit at the right price. Some of the other outdoorsy brands were much costlier. Personally I used mine a lot more frequently in the gym so I didn't need the GPS as much but it would be nice for less frequent bike rides, outdoor runs, and hiking but shelling out another $200+ for the other brands not worth it IMHO. I really want just vitals and position is nice without having to carry a cell. These things just don't last very long and they become a reoccuring tech cost. They are like tablets where there's overlap of function compared to cells for the pricier fitness trackers.

You may know this but very helpful for a lot of gps devices to set the recording frequency wider when hiking to save battery since we aren't moving particularly fast.