Purpose of Page
What really is the true CrossFit Tracking Champion?? I've reviewed a bunch of devices, and I believe these two compare more directly as the Best-of-the-Best-for-the-Price for more fully and adequately tracking CrossFit training - so now I want to review, compare, and contrast them after wearing both for a month of training, tracking, and living.
Final, Full Comparison Review
Two Week Update Review
Initial Comparison Review
Optical Heart Rate Analysis
Workout 1
Both did okay on the EMOM - I had issues getting set up with the OH1 for the lifting part. The Garmin time was longer due to the issue - the Ignite kept locking onto the OH1 instead of being able to use it as a separate monitor.
The Polar held up much better here relative to the other tests I've run, and the Garmin did relatively the same being somewhat close to the outside monitors. The Garmin's ave HR was similar to the Polar only because the warm up and initial Strength portion was included. The HR zones matched more closely - 11:03 HR monitor, 9:58 Garmin (90% accuracy), 6:58 Ignite (70% accuracy). |
Workout 2
This workout was 4 sets of 1-1-1 Squat Cleans with a two minute rest, followed by a Metcon of:
For Time
- 5 Rounds
- 7 Pull Ups
- 15 Wall Balls
- 10 DB Thrusters
They were compared to a chest strap, and the Garmin held up reasonably well, hitting the same average heart rate and similar time accumulation in the peak zone, and the polar missed the mark completely on both. It seemed to track fine in the lifting portion but fail in the Metcon.
14:51 H9, 13:26 Garmin (90% Accuracy), :12 Ignite (0% Accuracy)
For Time
- 5 Rounds
- 7 Pull Ups
- 15 Wall Balls
- 10 DB Thrusters
They were compared to a chest strap, and the Garmin held up reasonably well, hitting the same average heart rate and similar time accumulation in the peak zone, and the polar missed the mark completely on both. It seemed to track fine in the lifting portion but fail in the Metcon.
14:51 H9, 13:26 Garmin (90% Accuracy), :12 Ignite (0% Accuracy)
Workout 3
This was a shorter workout and really only added minor wrist flex but the Ignite really struggled - virtually missing the whole workout output with only 80% of the general HR average, and virtually 0% of the highest zone, which affects the estimated Cardio Load the most, which in turn affects the Strain/Tolerance tracking. The Garmin was slightly more on track, at least in the range of things., at about 92% right with regard to HR average, but only about 30% of the high HR zone.
Workout 4
Mountain biking for basic comparison of two against one another. Clearly there is a GPS issue! 6.5 (Ignite) versus 5.5 (Garmin)! I'll have to look into that - and a visual difference of the stats displayed on the Ignite. As I've said before - Polar produces a good amount of stats, but it is just generally poorly laid out.
Load Evaluation Comparison
Workout 1
Workout 2
Workout 3
Sleep/Recovery Tracking
Here is a good example of wear down, and it came up on both devices - the Garmin's sleep analytics don't help evaluate anything though, other than details to self-evaluate. The Body Batter does show minimal regeneration, though - so is a good indication of how you're doing physically.
The Polar is loaded with stats - both evaluating Sleep for quality on a variety of components, and the Autonomic Nervous System regeneration is great, although it should be noted that it is only tracking 4 hours of sleep, 1 hour after you've fallen asleep. Otherwise it is all really useful information.
The Polar is loaded with stats - both evaluating Sleep for quality on a variety of components, and the Autonomic Nervous System regeneration is great, although it should be noted that it is only tracking 4 hours of sleep, 1 hour after you've fallen asleep. Otherwise it is all really useful information.