Fitbit cardio fitness is not accurate

My Fitbit charge 4 watch measures what it likes to call 'Cardio Fitness'.  I think its algorithm includes things such as my heart rate across the day, my weight, and I am not sure what else.  I know that it accurately tells the time, it is reasonably accurate when it measures my heart rate, and the Fitbit charge 4 is hideously inaccurate when determining my resting heart rate.  This made me wonder if it was accurate when it determines my cardio fitness.

My watch gives me a score for my cardio fitness, it has determined that anything above 44.6 is very good, and anything above 49.4 is excellent. 

Somehow, according to my watch, when I took that screen shot I was scoring in the 52-56 which is well and truly at the top of the excellent range.  I checked earlier today and am scoring 53-57, which is ever so slightly better.  

Sadly, this is not even remotely accurate.

 

My Cardio Fitness according to Fitbit

The cardio fitness scale it uses is:

<30.2   Poor
30.2-35.0   Fair
35.0-39.8   Average
39.8-44.6   Good
44.6-49.4   Very Good
>49.4   Excellent

All of these increments are 4.8 above the previous.  Another increment above 49.4 would be 54.2.  Given that my estimate is 53-57, at very worse I would be at the very top of the Excellent range (if not somewhere in the next increment above excellent).

My actual cardio fitness, if I am being honest, is pretty low.  

My heart rate is often pretty high even when I am sitting still and resting.  I get out of breath walking up stairs.  While I used to jog for hours when younger, these days I would not be able to run a 5km without having to stop and rest.  This is not an 'excellent' level of cardio fitness.  I think my actual cardio fitness would be somewhat below average.

I think the algorithms that Fitbit uses are based on overweight and obese people.  The fact that I am thin and have a low BMI in the Healthy BMI range means that any cardio fitness results that Fitbit provides are massively skewed.  

I use my Fitbit as a watch, and it works well.  I also find it useful for me to be able to keep an eye on my heart rate.  Fitbit is of no use when it comes to 'cardio health' if you are thin.  

If you are thin, or even not massively overweight, please disregard the cardio fitness level, it would be dangerous to think it was even remotely accurate.

Body Fat Calculator not worth doing

If you could wave a magic wand so you would weigh the same, but have less fat, would you do it?  Of course you would, very few people wouldn't.  

What about if you could wave a magic wand that would make you lose weight, but have more fat, would you do that?  Of course not!  No healthy person would.  

Regardless of what we are told, no one, or at least no normal person, wants to lose 'weight'.  What people actually want is to lose 'fat'.  

Being overfat causes a huge number of illnesses for individuals, and is a massive burden on society.  Being overfat, regardless of your weight, is unhealthy.  Similarly being under fat, regardless of your weight, is also extremely unhealthy.  

For some time I have kept an eye on my weight.  Mostly because my weight kept getting too low, which was worrying.  

As well as keeping track of my weight in kilograms, I have kept an eye on my Body Mass Index (BMI).  BMI is a better metric than just weight, but it's not perfect.  

I wondered if knowing my percentage of body fat would be useful.  Recently I measured my neck, hips, waist etc.  I entered these numbers along with my height and weight into a few online calculators that are meant to estimate my percentage of body fat.  Even though I entered exactly the same numbers, the results from different calculators were vastly different.  

Depending on the calculator I used, my body fat estimate came back as low as 5.5% (which is drastically low and close to death) up to a far healthier 10.8%.  To give these numbers some perspective, the 'Healthy' range of body fat for a male of my age is 11% to 20% body fat.  

image from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cells_of_the_human_body_by_mass.svg

My results from various online body fat calculators:

https://www.precisionnutrition.com/body-fat-calculator 
My result: 10.8%

This US Navy body fat calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/navy-body-fat
My result: 6%

A different navy calculator https://www.bizcalcs.com/body-fat-navy/
My result: 9%

The US Army body fat calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/army-body-fat
My result: 5.5%

You may be asking yourself, if I entered exactly the same data into different calculators how can the results vary this much.  The answer is simple: online body fat calculators are not accurate!  

If you want a number that will either make you feel good or make you feel bad, then use online body fat calculators.  When you get a result that you don't like, look around, sooner or later you will find a body fat calculator that gives the result you are after.  This sounds pointless, probably because it is pointless.  

Instead of measurements and online calculators, you could try to use skin fold calipers.  These are meant to be reasonably accurate at estimating subcutaneous fat (ie fat under the skin) if used correctly.  They do not measure or estimate visceral fat (ie much more dangerous fat around the organs).  If you are skinny fat, you will have little subcutaneous fat, and a higher amount of visceral fat.  For most people, fat calipers are probably somewhat useful and relatively accurate.  For skinny fat people, these calipers are not very useful.

Another way to estimate your body fat is to use body fat scales.  I have never used them, but everything I read says that they are ragingly inaccurate.  

If you want a true measure of your body fat, you would need to do a water displacement test, or a Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry scan, or even use an Air-Displacement Plethysmography pod (and even then I am not sure how accurate this last one is).  

If (like me) you lack the money or ability to access to these tests, then stick with BMI.  While BMI is far from perfect, it is better than just using raw weight, and you can measure this at home for free.  All you need are bathroom scales.    

Fitbit resting heart rate

I wrote an earlier post reviewing the Fitbit charge 4.  Overall it is a good piece of equipment.  One of the main issues I noticed was the resting heart rate seemed odd.  

Since then I have kept an eye on it, and the resting hears rate algorithm is clearly not accurate!  Some days my heart rate is constantly above the 'resting heart rate'.  Even when I am asleep.  

The screen shot below is a perfect example.  I did not do any aerobic exercise and was sitting around almost the entire day.  My heart rate never dropped below 84, yet my FitBit Charge 4 calculated my resting heart rate as being 79.  The following day it estimated my resting heart rate to be 77, so it doesn't appear to be averaging over a longer timeframe.  

Never dipped below 84

There are plenty of days like this where my fitbit estimates a resting heart rate that is not right.  

The screenshot below it estimated my resting heart rate to be 77.  On this day my heart rate only went as low as 77 twice in that day, and was significantly above this for the remainder of the day and night.  

If you think the fitbit's algorithm excludes any exercise when calculating resting heart rate, that still wouldn't explain what you see here.  I did not do any aerobic exercise and was sitting for most of that day.  I was working from home that day, so didn't walk to or from my car, I sat in front of a computer all day, and rested in the sun on my deck at lunch time.  I would not have travelled more than 30 meters from my bed that day.  

Only down to 77 twice

Below is another example.  On this graph my heart rate dipped to 80, only twice, and only briefly.  Once around 2am the other around 4am, I was possibly asleep during those times.  Other than that my heart rate was above 80.  Somehow it calculated my resting heart rate to be 80.

This time I worked from the office, so walked to and from my car.  I spent the rest of the day sitting at my desk.  I may have gotten up once or twice to walk to the kitchen or go to the toilet, but there was no exercise.  I didn't even go for a walk at lunch that day.  

Resting heart rate of 80 - but how?

The FitBit Charge 4 is not accurate when estimating resting heart rate.  If you are thinking of getting one, it tells the time well, it seems to count heart beats accurately, but the algorithm that estimates resting heart rate is massively inaccurate.  

Protein powder vs meat vs eggs

I looked into protein shakes to increase my protein intake.  They taste great and take less effort and time than cooking food, but they seem expensive and lack many nutrients that are present in meats, vegetables, and grains.  

Strangely, I am yet to find any decent comparisons of the amount of protein and the price per serve in protein shakes to meats or other foods.  So I looked up and compared several meats, eggs, vegetables, and a few grains.  For ease of reference, I included the websites I gleaned the information.  

I am interested in protein percentage and noted if the food is not considered a complete protein.  Leucine is an amino acid that is important for building muscle, repairing muscle, and it is metabolised in muscle fibers.  I am also interested in iron content as I struggle to get enough iron.  I know a lot of people care about calories, so I also include the amount of calories of each even though I think people vastly misunderstand calories.  

To give the below comparison some perspective, the recommended daily intake for a male about my size and age is roughly:

Protein 50 g
Leucine 2.4 g
Iron 8 mg
Energy 2,000 kcal

To make the comparison as useful as possible, I am comparing 100 grams of each as it would be around one serving, except for the protein powder which is one 40g serving.  

Protein Powder

Note: whey protein are considered complete proteins as they contain good amounts of all essential amino acids.

Protein Powder per 40 g serve

https://www.uprotein.com.au/100-whey-protein-powder-enzymes-2kgs/

Protein 33 g

Leucine 3.39 g

Iron 0.74 mg

Energy 149 kcal

Meat

Note: meat based proteins are considered to be complete proteins as they contain good amounts of all essential amino acids
Note: about 14% to 18% of iron is usually bioavailable from meat

Chicken per 100 g 

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171477/nutrients

Protein 27.3 g 

Leucine 2.33 g

Iron 1.04 mg

Energy 165 kcal

Beef per 100 g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/174032/nutrients

Protein 25.9 g other cuts as low as 13.6 g

Leucine 1.45 g 

Iron 2.6 mg 

Energy 250 kcal

Rabbit per 100 g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/174348/nutrients

Protein 33 g

Leucine 2.57 g

Iron 4.85 mg

Energy 173 kcal

Quail per 100 g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169902/nutrients

Protein 25.1 g

Leucine unknown

Iron 4.43 mg

Energy 227 kcal

Squab per 100g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169905/nutrients

Protein 23.9 g

Leucine unknown

Iron 5.91 mg

Energy 213 kcal

Eggs

Note: eggs are high in all of the essential amino acids and are considered to be a complete protein

Chicken egg boiled per 100g 

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173424/nutrients

Protein 12.6 g

Leucine 1.08 g

Iron 1.19 mg

Energy 155 kcal

Quail egg per 100 g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/172191/nutrients

Protein 13 g

Leucine 1.15 g

Iron 3.65 mg

Energy 158 kcal

Vegetables and Grains

Note: many plant based proteins are considered to be incomplete proteins as they are low in one or more essential amino acids
Note: Plant based iron is not as bioavailable as animal based iron, for example less than 2% of the iron in spinach is bioavailable

Comparison of nutrition: Buckwheat vs Rice vs Wheat vs Maize

Spinach per 100g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/168462/nutrients

Protein 2.86 g (not a complete protein)

Leucine 0.223 g

Iron 2.71 mg (low bioavailability)

Energy 23 kcal

Soy bean (sprouted and steamed) per 100g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/168460/nutrients

Protein  8.47 g

Leucine 0.607 g

Iron 1.31 mg

Energy 81 kcal

Peas per 100g 

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/170419/nutrients

Protein  5.42 g (not a complete protein)

Leucine 0.323 g

Iron 1.47 mg

Energy 81 kcal

Lima beans per 100 g 

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/174253/nutrients

Protein 7.8 g (not a complete protein)

Leucine 0.673 g

Iron 2.39 mg

Energy 115 kcal

Corn per 100 g 

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169998/nutrients

Protein 3.27 g (not a complete protein)

Leucine 0.348 g

Iron 0.52 mg

Energy 86 kcal

Buckwheat per 100g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/170286/nutrients

Protein 13.2 g

Leucine 0.832 g

Iron 2.2 mg

Energy 343 kcal

Rice per 100g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/168930/nutrients

Protein 2.38 g (not a complete protein)

Leucine 0.197 g

Iron 0.2 g

Energy 130 kcal

Wheat per 100g

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/168944/nutrients

Protein 9.61 g (not a complete protein)

Leucine unknown

Iron 3.71 mg

Energy 332 kcal 

Mulberry fresh leaves per 100g

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17135021/

Protein 7.34 g (range 4.72 to 9.96 g)

Leucine unknown

Iron 7.53 mg (range 4.70 to 10.36 mg)

Energy 77.5 kcal (69 to 86 kcal)

Conclusion

Meats: Rabbit meat has more protein than chicken or beef, and had the highest percentage of protein other than the protein powder.  Surprisingly, rabbit meat has far more iron than beef or chicken.  Rabbit meat was also the superior meat when it comes to the Leucine content.  Rabbit meat is very low in fat.  It makes me wonder why more people don't eat rabbit meat.  Rabbit is far too expensive and difficult to buy here, so I would eat chicken as it is high is protein, high in leucine, and has some iron.  

Eggs: Chicken eggs are reasonably affordable and easy to buy, and has good levels of protein, high in leucine, and has some iron.  

Plant foods: As far as plant foods go, buckwheat was the stand out.  Buckwheat is one of the few plants that are considered complete proteins.  Buckwheat is nutritionally comparable to egg, but has higher iron and higher fiber, and is easier to digest.  The carbohydrates in buckwheat are healthy.  

Novel plant foods: mulberry leaves are an underutilised (and seemingly unknown) vegetable.  Mulberry leaves are far more nutritious, easier to grow, higher yielding per square meter, need far less water, and use less fertiliser etc than common vegetables that we eat.  I find them to be unpleasant raw, but when cooked and used like spinach they have a mild taste and an agreeable texture.  I only included this for my own curiosity as you probably can't buy them anywhere and would need your own tree if you ever planned to eat these leaves.

Price comparisons per gram of protein

I tried to compare rough costs per kg, cost per serving, and the cost per gram of protein of some of the foods listed.  Some meats (rabbit, squab, quail) are expensive or even impossible to buy locally, so I have not included them below.  Prices vary from day to day, and from store to store, so the following will not be completely accurate.  Still, this is interesting and may be of some use, so I will leave it in for now.  

Uprotein powder costs $94 for 2 kg, $1.88 per serving, or about 6 cents per gram of protein

Chicken costs about $10 per kg, $1 per 100g or just under 4 cents per gram of protein 

Beef mince costs about $11 per kg, $1.10 per 100g or just under 5 cents per gram of protein (or vastly higher depending on the price of meat or the cut eaten)  

Spinach price varies considerably, sometimes about $15 per kg, $1.50 per 100g, or about 52 cents per gram of protein 

Buckwheat costs about $7 per kg, $0.70 per 100g, just over 5 cents per gram of protein

Eggs cost about $5 per dozen, 2 eggs weigh about 100g and cost about $0.83, or just under 7 cents per gram of protein.  If only eating egg whites (as many people do), the cost per gram of protein doubles

Year and a Half of Lucky Iron Fish

Everyone needs iron in their diet to be healthy and strong.  Some people get enough from their diet, while others do not.  

I wrote a blog post of my experience after five months of using the lucky iron fish.  At that stage I had used it almost every night for about five months, and it was working great.   

The lucky iron fish is meant to last at least five years if used a few times every day.  Once the smile has worn off your ingot it is time to replace it.  

I have used mine for over a year and a half now.  During this time I have used the lucky iron fish almost every night, so I thought it a good idea to do another post saying how the lucky iron fish performed for me over this longer time frame.  

Each night I use the lucky iron fish to make up some iron enriched water.  We drink this water the following day, and it adds more iron to our diet.  

Each evening when I am clearing up after dinner I put the lucky iron fish in a pot, add 2 litres of boiling water, add a few drops of lemon juice, then let this simmer for twenty minutes.  

This is roughly how long I spend in the kitchen cleaning up, so it is not a big issue time wise.  I also have a lemon tree, which ensures I have access to free lemons.

Lucky iron fish after more than a year and a half of use

The same Lucky Iron Fish after only five months

Once twenty minutes is up I remove the lucky iron fish, quickly dry it with a tea towel, and put it on the shelf.  At this time it is usually still very hot, so any water I missed would evaporate fast.

I then take the water off the stove and leave it to cool.  Once cooled I pour it in a bottle.  You could add this iron enriched water to cooking, but we drink it the following day.  It tastes like water, but it has iron it in.

While it makes no difference, I always put my lucky iron fish with the leaf side up, that way I will know if wear and tear is due to it being scratched against the pot.

After using this each night for over a year and a half, my lucky iron fish has no rust, and is still looking good.  It had a little rim around the nose end that is no longer there, other than that it looks much the same.  The side that scrapes against the pot in the photo below doesn't even look very worn yet.

Lucky iron fish - still looking good

If your diet is low in iron you could buy iron supplements, or try to eat more meat, or you could use a lucky iron fish.  I used to buy iron pills, and they work for me, I now only use the lucky iron fish and I am much happier with it.

The Lucky Iron Fish is much like any other dietary supplement.  It does nothing if you already consume enough iron.  It works really well if you diet is lacking enough absorbable iron in your diet.  

The difference with the Lucky Iron Fish to taking iron pills is that the Lucky Iron Fish is far cheaper, it lasts a long time, it takes up less space, and is easier on the stomach than iron pills.  

With the Lucky Iron Fish there are no issues if you are vegetarian or vegan, and there are no religious worries for Orthodox or Muslims or Jewish people or any other faith.  I believe a percentage of sale price still goes to fund humanitarian work in Cambodia and a few other countries.

There are a few other brands that make similar iron fish, unfortunately I don't know if any of those are safe.  Lucky Iron fish has been tested, and retested, by many laboratories, on many occasions, and all confirm that this is safe and effective.  

Other brands have not had such rigorous testing, and I don't know where their iron comes from, so I would not risk using one.  

I remember not long ago a shipment of iron was seized at the border.  One of the nuclear facilities in China had been decommissioned, the metal had been sold, and it was hideously radioactive.  A lot of radioactive iron from that source had made it into our country before this shipment was stopped.  While I know that the iron used for Lucky Iron Fish is safe, I can't know about the iron used by other companies.

If you need more iron in your diet, consider trying a Lucky Iron Fish or Lucky Iron Leaf.

Be strong (byt' sil'nym).

Fitbit charge 4 review

A year or two ago my wife got me a Fitbit charge 4 watch. I have had it for a while now, and used it extensively, so figured I should do a review on it to give people a better understanding before buying one. 

To prevent the screen from getting ruined I put a special little cover on it. This hasn’t stopped it from working or made it less sensitive, but has protected it from scratches and drops of deck stain etc.  

 

The band didn’t last very long before it broke, luckily replacement bands are cheap and easy to find. I got one with lots of little holes so my sweat can get out and sunlight can reach more of my skin. 

I recharge it once a week or thereabouts, which is easy to do.  When the battery runs low it sends me an email.

My Fitbit charge 4 has some features that I like, and some that I dislike. 

Fitbit charge 4 

Some features I like are that it measures my heart rate and oinks at me when my heart rate is high for too long, it tells the time like a normal watch, it acts as a pedometer counting my steps and estimating the distance walked, it can roughly tell me how long I sleep each night, and it emails me each week to let me know how that week compared to the previous week.

Some features that I dislike are that it has a ‘stalking’ function where it can track my every step using an intrusive GPS, it has a ‘constant irritation’ function where it can alert me every time I receive an email, a 'threatening email' function where it sends me increasingly threatening emails telling me to recharge as the battery level goes down, and some ‘eye strain/meditation’ functions that tell you to watch some tiny dots for two minutes to calm yourself.  

I am happy to say that most of the functions I dislike, such as the stalking function and the constant irritation function, can easily be turned off. I can also put it on ‘sleep’ or ‘do not disturb’ which prevents it from oinking or lighting up when I don’t want it to.  It still emails me about the battery going flat, I guess this could be useful but I find it irritating.

Overall it has a lot more features that I like than those that I dislike.

The heart rate monitor has its down sides, but overall I think it is good. It quickly and reasonably accurately tells me what my heart rate is in beats per minute. If my heart skips a beat, or beats twice, the Fitbit somehow ignores this and evens them out. It draws a little graph of my heart rate across the day, but my heart rate needs to be at that level for more than a certain amount of time otherwise it is not included. I have had plenty of times where I wake at night and my Fitbit tells me my heart rate is 140+ beats per minute, only to check the graph in the morning and find no mention of anything over 110 which is rather frustrating.

If my heart rate is above some number that it decides is in the ‘fat burning zone’ it will oink at me and encourage me to keep going, presumably it thinks I am exercising at these times. This number changes from day to day due to some algorithm it has. Sadly my heart often races for no reason, so this oinking often happens while I am just sitting still, or even when I am sleeping, so the encouragement serves more as a reminder to concentrate on my heart and slow it down rather than encouragement to exercise.

screenshot of Fitbit heart rate

The heart rate monitor also tells me what my average resting heart rate is across each day. This is completely inaccurate and should be ignored. For the above screen shot it told me that my resting heart rate was 77 over that day. I was resting for the majority of that day and my heart rate only once dropped below 78 once for a very brief moment during the entire day. 

 

As you can see, my average resting heart rate would have been a lot higher than 77 that day. 

The heart rate monitor also tells me I am super fit for my age, which I am not. I assume the algorithms are aimed at fatter people and even though I have entered my height and weigh the algorithms cannot work for skinny people such as myself. This is one of the many reasons why skinny fat people like me need to train differently.

Fitbit charge 4 with cover and new band

The watch tells me the time and the date, and is easy to see. Other than that I have no real comment, it is a watch that does what a watch should do.  I think it can also act as a stop watch.  It estimates how many calories you have burned, which is meaningless because in my opinion no one should ever count calories.  

The pedometer tells me when I have not walked enough steps each hour, or not enough each day, and I think I can change the number of steps that is considered enough. The pedometer is not overly accurate, to be honest it isn’t too bad and I don’t think any pedometers are ever completely accurate. An example of its inaccuracy is that I have been woken at night by the kids calling out for help, I have walked all the way up and down the hall as well as into another room to wash my hands, all to have it only record 9 steps. I have had other times where me rocking back and forth has been recorded as hundreds of steps. It seems a little inconsistent, but over a day I think it evens out near enough for my purposes.

The function designed to tell me how much I sleep isn’t accurate and doesn’t tell me anything that I don’t already know. I know when I sleep, and I know when I am awake. I put it on sensitive mode that is meant to be more accurate, yet sometimes I can get up, get dressed, eat breakfast, and be at work (working from home) for half an hour before it records me as even being awake. As long as you take it as a trend rather than an accurate number of minutes or hours slept then I think it is useful enough.

The Fitbit makes graphs for all kinds of things.  I like graphs, so I like how it does this.

I think if I paid extra I could get more graphs, more stats on health related things, and access to training videos etc.
 

My verdict

Do I like my Fitbit charge 4 watch: Yes

Do I need a Fitbit or similar:  No

Which brand is the best: I have no idea.  There are a few different brands that make a similar product.  This suits my needs really well, but you may need it to do other things that this one doesn’t do.  

Are they worth the money: Probably not if you buy one new.  Second hand they are cheaper than a watch so I think they are worth the money.  I wear mine pretty much all day every day.  I use it as a watch and I find the heart rate monitor very useful.

 

Non-rotating push up handles review

Push ups are without doubt a great body weight exercise, they are also highly under-rated. Push ups build strength in a lot of muscle groups, can be done almost anywhere, at almost any time, you don’t need to get changed and drive to the gym, you don’t need any equipment, you can do as few as you need to, you can do variations to focus on certain muscles or to increase their intensity, the list goes on and on.

I am amazed at how this relatively simple exercise is so often overlooked by people trying to get stronger. A few year ago I started doing a one hundred push ups per day for thirty day challenge, and it changed my life. After the first 30 day challenge I have been doing back to back 30 day exercise challenges and haven’t missed a day in over 2 years. You can read more about it here.

About a year or so into my challenges I wanted to get push up handles. I had seen rotating push up handles, and while they look great I can’t justify the expense. I had also seen non-rotating push up handles, and push up stations, which ranged in price from about $6 to about $160. I bought the cheapest ones I could find.  

After using push up handles for about a year, as well as doing push ups without the handles during this time, I thought I would tell of my experiences, as well as my thoughts about buying them.

To be clear, I have never used the fancy rotating push up handles so cannot comment on them. They look pretty amazing, but I don’t know how long they last before breaking, or if they offer any benefit over non-rotating push up handles. If you want a blog post on those you can give me some to use for a year, or you can write a guest blog post.

Push up handles

While push ups are free, the handles did cost money. I spent about $8 for a pair. They are metal and have squishy things on the handles which make them nicer to hold. After using these for over a year they look much the same as the day I bought them, so I expect them to last a long time.

Advantages of non-rotating push up handles

Push up handles allow for a greater range of motion and I can get deeper if I want to. I can get lower and work right to the end of my muscles. They can also be good for stretches.

My left wrist can be a little temperamental, this is the result of an old injury and is mostly an issue in cold weather or if rain is coming. The push up handles keep my wrists at the proper angle, and seems to reduce/eliminate pain. To be clear, wrist pain is usually caused by improper technique. If you are having wrist pain from push ups you need to do something about it or you risk injuring yourself.

They protect my hands if I am doing push ups outside on gravel or concrete. This sounds silly, but sometimes if the weather is nice the kids and I do many push ups and variations outside. I was originally stopping from scratching my hands, now I can do more sets.

Probably the most impressive advantage I have noticed, is that I can do other exercises with them that I am unable to do without them. I can do elbow lever, and bent arm planche using push up handles, but I am unable to do these exercises without them. I am training to do various other things, using the handles is the first step, once I am stronger I plan to be able to do these exercises without the handles.

Disadvantages of non-rotating push up handles

The biggest disadvantage is I may not always have the push up handles with me. I can always do push ups without them, so this isn’t a huge issue.

While mine were cheap, they did cost money. While they are small and simple to store, they are one more thing that I now own.

Other than that I can’t think of any disadvantageous to the push up handles.

Other types of push up handles

There are various different places that make non-rotating push up bars, from what I can tell they all do the same thing. Some cost vastly more than others, some look prettier, I think that mostly has to do with their brand rather than being able to add anything. If I had tools and was a little handy I would make my own from scraps.

As mentioned I have no views on the rotating push up handles because I am yet to use them. They may be great, they may be utterly dreadful, I don’t know.

I have seen “push up stations” which are push up bars with a colourful mat. The mat shows you different spots to place your handles for different exercises and to focus on different muscles. I think this is a bad idea. I use those different configurations but I don’t need an expensive mat to show me what to do. Perhaps your arms are longer or shorter than the person that these mats were designed for, in that case this mat will enforce you holding your bars at the incorrect spacing for your body and putting yourself at risk of injury. I would avoid these stations as they appear to be an expensive gimmick over function.

Cheap push up handles

My verdict

Do I like push up handles: Yes

Do I need push up handles: No

Which brand is best: It doesn't matter because they all do much the same thing

Are they worth the money: Yes for the cheaper ones. No, not even remotely worth the money for the more expensive types