Fitbit vs Polar

[stevesven]

Not seen photos here but this speaks volumes

[Hidden]

So which one do you think was telling the truth?

[stevesven]

Definitely the Polar unfortunately

[Hidden in reply to stevesven]

😩

[IanMK]

Yes - That’s because the Polar device monitors the electrical activity in the heart, so measures heart beats and the Fitbit monitors blood flow in the wrist and measures the pulse rate. When the heart is not functioning correctly these two parameters are not necessarily the same.

[KMRobbo]

i had the same with my Garmin versus my wifes fit bit!

[fairgo45]

What model polar did you buy I'm looking to change my device and was going for the fitbit3 but you have made me rethink

I have a Garmin tracker that is irritating and not accurate and is always needing charging every 5 days

[jondeanp in reply to fairgo45]

I have a Polar M400. The battery lasts over a week

It’s been superseded by the M430. Although the battery life is reduced I believe by the wrist based HR measurement

I guess it depends what you are hoping to use it for also

[momist in reply to jondeanp]

"by the wrist based HR measurement"? So what technology is used in the older one that measures the electrical activity of the heart? Any 'wrist based HR measurement' is likely to be using the redness of the skin to detect the pulse of increased blood pressure during a beat, and will suffer the same inaccuracy during AF that the Fitbit does.

[jondeanp in reply to momist]

My M400 only uses a chest strap for HR monitoring. The newer models can also use chest strap if required, but "may" suffer" the same inaccuracies as the fitbit. I believe the technology used in Polar & Apple Watch has advanced and "may" capture AF results more accurately although i haven't seen any evidence to prove.

[momist in reply to jondeanp]

As far as I know (no experience of it) the Apple device uses the same technology as the Kardia. The Apple watch is already in contact with your (left?) wrist and to get a heart reading, you touch a contact on the watch with your other hand, so completing a two lead electrical cardio graph device. (Single channel).

[stevesven in reply to fairgo45]

Any polar with a chest strap is more accurate , Polar FT1 is the one shown.Batteries can be replaced for wrist display but the chest strap is a sealed unit.

Expect chest strap to last for about 18months

[jondeanp in reply to stevesven]

Polar chest monitors units do have replaceable batteries and are a separate item to the strap.

The straps (as i recently found out) and as you pointed out, do breakdown and require replacing

[Alann996]

I personally would always go for a chest-strap based Polar. I’ve used a FitBit. And found it wildly inaccurate compared to my Polar.

I simply don’t trust wrist monitoring devices I’m afraid 🤔

[Gfern]

The Fitbit in the photo is showing resting heart rate is the polar also showing the resting heart rate?. .

[beardy_chris]

Resting Heart Rate is always likely to be very different from the instantaneous heart rate.

[stevesven in reply to beardy_chris]

By the time I took photo it went to resting heart rate , it was actually reading 53bpm

[radagast58]

I'm going to play Devils Advocate here. These devices can be useful if you have a fit and healthy heart and you want to measure your response to exercise or your resting heart rate. For very rapid or very slow rates they are notoriously unreliable. They are even more unreliable if your heart rate is irregular. By definition, PAF is characterised by an irregularly irregular heart with marked variations in pulse volume. It can be very difficult to get an accurate heart rate even by doing a manual pulse rate!

I had very major heart surgery earlier this year and had some potentially serious post operative complications. The Consultant Anaesthetist who monitored me while I was in ITU used to say "don't just tell me numbers" when his juniors were briefing him on my progress.

My point is maybe it would be more useful to become familiar with how your pulse "feels" and not just focus on the rate. This then needs to be put in context with how you actually feel. Are you breathless, do you have chest pain or tightness, do you feel faint or dizzy and how long have you had the symptoms? You can then make an informed decision as to whether you require urgent medical attention.

Technology has its place but it's not always reliable and shouldn't be used in isolation to make critical decisions.

I hope the experienced contributors on here don't think I'm being patronising!!

[Hidden in reply to radagast58]

I agree, I love my fitbit but it’s heart rate is not accurate when I’m exercising or in a fib. At rest it is 100% correct as occasionally I check it against listening to my heart rate with my stethoscope.,

[loobylou777 in reply to Hidden]

I Agree Holski

When last in Afib my Fitbit told me my heart rate was 85. My Alivecor told me it was 144. It was indeed 144

[stevesven]

By the time I took photo it went to resting it was actually reading 53bpm

[radagast58]

bhf.org.uk/informationsuppo...

[IanMK]

Both devices are designed to work with a heart that is functioning normally. As radgast58 states, you shouldn’t get hung-up on the numbers. The devices are useful to compare your heart rate during exercise with that at rest (for a normal functioning heart).

For a heart that is beating abnormally, an Alivecor Kardia mobile or the new Apple Watch may be useful. These provide basic electrocardiograms, although they are limited to short-term ‘snapshots’.

[stevesven in reply to IanMK]

Numbers are important