Accurate Smart Watch/Fitness Tracker for under a £80

[Topcat30093]

I seek your advice and recommendations please.

I would like to get a Smart watch/Fitness tracker, that I can use to monitor my indoor cycling routine, steps HR, BP, sleep etc accurately.

Both Apple and Garmin watches work perfectly.

But I don't need such a complicated all round device, just one that I can use while training and occasionally for checking my sleep pattern.

I have experimented with a couple of cheaper models - up to £30 but to be blunt, I found their accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. I guess the saying "You get what you pay for" springs to mind!

For example both Apple and Garmin would show my HR, when cycling really hard at between 145 - 160 BPM.

The one that I tried today show the HR completing the same workout at 90 BPM.

Now surely the difference can't be that much.

The other requirement would be one that I can read, so sadly that rules out the slim ones.

Hopefully someone can recommend such a device :-)

[Rod]

I use an Amazfit 5 band which is reasonably accurate. The steps measurement is excellent as is the blood oxygen.
Cheap but good. You can download different screens too.
All the info can be read on your mobile in depth.
About £25

[Captain Morgan]

Sounds like this is the right answer

https://www.garmin.com/en-GB/p/582444

[jukeboxs]

Sounds like this is the right answer
https://www.garmin.com/en-GB/p/582444

^ Not necessarily:

...
The other requirement would be one that I can read, so sadly that rules out the slim ones. ...

I've tried several <= £150 (e.g. Garmin, Chinese brands) and yet to find one that is accurate (for HR and sleep tracking). I've given up until the time I'm willing to spend more or technology improves. But, I'll be happy if this thread proves me wrong.

[MartynJC (UK)]

There is a Fitbit versa 4 on SC - slightly over your budget but not much. I have a Fitbit charge 5 that I find accurate (takes a few minutes to settle when starting exercise and then matches the “handlebar” built in monitor on a running machine) and easy to wear. Looks like it should fit your requirements? Best of luck M

[lewie]

A s/h Apple Watch ?

[Topcat30093]

Thanks for all your suggestions.
Cheers Martyn for the heads up, will take a look.
As Lewie touched on, maybe a preowned Apple or Garmin maybe the answer.
But please continue with your suggestions, in case I have missed other makes.

[ej86]

Do you need to be able to view the data on the device? I have a vivosmart 4 which I can just about read but genuinely can’t work out the user interface on, but I can wear it alongside a normal watch and use my phone for reviewing HRM and sleep data.

[sprite1275]

Huawei watch gt 2.

Awesome watches and battery lasts 2 weeks. There is a deal on second hand ones here. https://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/hua...at-cex-4064942

Mines the older version. GPS heart rate, steps all seem to work really good. Also brilliant for answering calls.

[Topcat30093]

Sorted.
With the help of the Blue Light Discount card, I purchased a Garmin Forerunner 55.

[higham5]

Sorted.
With the help of the Blue Light Discount card, I purchased a Garmin Forerunner 55.

I was going to suggest a Forerunner 45 , but you have supersized that with a 55, a cracking watch. In your opening post you spoke about the difference in HR between watches, I would say “ most” watches using optical sensors will give you variance.

I cycle with a Garmin ( and in the past wahoo) chest strap HR sensors. These detect beat by beat increases, and subject to fitting correctly are close to “ medical “ accuracy.

My Forerunner 45 is great for resting hr and walking, but for intense sprints where my HR ranges from 130- 165 the watch records 140 or lower eg 96. You have to understand the “ green light” cameras are observing your capillaries expand and contract eg pulse. Unless you wear the watch very snugly , the movement in a big sprint disturbs the position of the watch and you get skewed results.

Apologies if you know this already and enjoy your watch.

Steve

[gunner]

I was going to suggest a Forerunner 45 , but you have supersized that with a 55, a cracking watch. In your opening post you spoke about the difference in HR between watches, I would say “ most” watches using optical sensors will give you variance.

I cycle with a Garmin ( and in the past wahoo) chest strap HR sensors. These detect beat by beat increases, and subject to fitting correctly are close to “ medical “ accuracy.

My Forerunner 45 is great for resting hr and walking, but for intense sprints where my HR ranges from 130- 165 the watch records 140 or lower eg 96. You have to understand the “ green light” cameras are observing your capillaries expand and contract eg pulse. Unless you wear the watch very snugly , the movement in a big sprint disturbs the position of the watch and you get skewed results.

Apologies if you know this already and enjoy your watch.

Steve

+1 on using a strap if you want more accurate HR.

[Topcat30093]

I was going to suggest a Forerunner 45 , but you have supersized that with a 55, a cracking watch. In your opening post you spoke about the difference in HR between watches, I would say “ most” watches using optical sensors will give you variance.

I cycle with a Garmin ( and in the past wahoo) chest strap HR sensors. These detect beat by beat increases, and subject to fitting correctly are close to “ medical “ accuracy.

My Forerunner 45 is great for resting hr and walking, but for intense sprints where my HR ranges from 130- 165 the watch records 140 or lower eg 96. You have to understand the “ green light” cameras are observing your capillaries expand and contract eg pulse. Unless you wear the watch very snugly , the movement in a big sprint disturbs the position of the watch and you get skewed results.

Apologies if you know this already and enjoy your watch.

Steve

Thanks Steve for the additional information .
I wasn't aware of the way that different sensors scan for HR and other activities.

I used the 55 this morning and what I liked, was the periodic information, through my headphones, what my HR was.
It did go up above 160, which was good to learn.

As I am doing the exercise to keep fit and not seriously, I shall probably forgo the chest sensor.

[higham5]

Thanks Steve for the additional information .
I wasn't aware of the way that different sensors scan for HR and other activities.

I used the 55 this morning and what I liked, was the periodic information, through my headphones, what my HR was.
It did go up above 160, which was good to learn.

As I am doing the exercise to keep fit and not seriously, I shall probably forgo the chest sensor.

Glad the watch is working for you , the Garmin connect app is outstanding and it keeps all history. I only use a chest strap as I started with them in the 90’s ( Polar) and suits me as it shows up on my cycle computer screen. At this time of year my Garmin watch is under thermals / windproof and thick gloves so I cant glance at it.

[Topcat30093]

Glad the watch is working for you , the Garmin connect app is outstanding and it keeps all history. I only use a chest strap as I started with them in the 90’s ( Polar) and suits me as it shows up on my cycle computer screen. At this time of year my Garmin watch is under thermals / windproof and thick gloves so I cant glance at it.

I remember using a Polar strap, when I was into my running seriously back in the 80's.
Whenever I got sweaty, it would slip down off my chest LOL.