Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why I'm reconsidering the Watch... (fitness)
- Thread starter Mad Mac Maniac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can't remember and haven't tried in a while. I'm going for a run this afternoon and will be glad to give it a try and post a comparisons to my 620's results. I may even do an extreme trail run. Of course 1 run doesn't offer much objective info but.....
As an avid runner, I've generally moved forward from listening to music to not when running because it's easier for me to concentrate and pace that way. Still, the music function of the Apple Watch is a positive.
However, with what the Apple Watch currently offers, I can do the exact same with my Jawbone Up in a smaller package. Now, I know the Smartwatch has lots of other benefits in regards to phone to watch abilities, but if I'm trying to use it to replace my Jawbone Sports band, I'd expect more capabilities and decent battery life to counter the simplicity and smallness factor of my Jawbone. And right now I don't feel like the Apple Watch accomplishes that. It does step tracking/distance tracking only. Workout reminders? Unnecessary and my Jawbone can sort of do that too. Plus it lacks sleep tracking which is something I use a lot with my Jawbone.
I really want to buy an Apple Watch but until it offers better battery life and more capabilities in regards to sports (which Apple's hyped up I admit more than it meant to) I'm going to hold off. I'd love a hydration tracker, sleep tracker, and such. As of now, if I bought an Apple Watch, I'd still have to wear my Jawbone Up.
However, with what the Apple Watch currently offers, I can do the exact same with my Jawbone Up in a smaller package. Now, I know the Smartwatch has lots of other benefits in regards to phone to watch abilities, but if I'm trying to use it to replace my Jawbone Sports band, I'd expect more capabilities and decent battery life to counter the simplicity and smallness factor of my Jawbone. And right now I don't feel like the Apple Watch accomplishes that. It does step tracking/distance tracking only. Workout reminders? Unnecessary and my Jawbone can sort of do that too. Plus it lacks sleep tracking which is something I use a lot with my Jawbone.
I really want to buy an Apple Watch but until it offers better battery life and more capabilities in regards to sports (which Apple's hyped up I admit more than it meant to) I'm going to hold off. I'd love a hydration tracker, sleep tracker, and such. As of now, if I bought an Apple Watch, I'd still have to wear my Jawbone Up.
Here you go. I ran a known about 6.2/10K extreme trail run with 860 vertical feet/260 vertical meters. The Nike App was BY FAR the worst accuracy I have ever tested on an App. It came in at 7.83 miles/12.6K which is an error of almost 25%.
What a horrible App and not even in the ballpark. If you have been using this 'junk' to time your runs you are in for a rude awakening.Also where is the mapping feature in the App?
The only redeeming feature is the auto pause. All the Apps I have used that have auto pause are terrible. I think they are tied to the M/accelerometer. You must be a 'statue' for them to pause. The Nike auto pause worked well.
Took one for the team (little booboo).
Here you go. I ran a known about 6.2/10K extreme trail run with 860 vertical feet/260 vertical meters. The Nike App was BY FAR the worst accuracy I have ever tested on an App. It came in at 7.83 miles/12.6K which is an error of almost 25%.
Also where is the mapping feature in the App?
Wow, well thanks good to know... haha. Thanks for the comparison!! Maybe just the step counter in the Watch would even do better than that..
OH wait! As I went to answer you mapping question I realized what the problem is. You must have selected the indoor running option where it only uses the accelerometer in the phone (and I think it uses it in conjunction with your height, if you input that info). Because when you use the outdoor GPS run, it will automatically display the map. Haha, well if you're up for trying it again, that'd be cool. But I'd understand if you don't.
It say Outdoor and it also says GPS signal strength (I did this in my house but went outside and does get a GPS lock) then the countdown. However I don't see a map.
I'm going to run 10 to 12 road miles tomorrow and willing to give it another go. What do I need to do different?
Weird... I don't know what to tell you. I just select outdoor and it automatically tracks me using gps and displays it on a map. It even can show the map while you're running to check your route.
OK figured it out. Was outside and keep getting a low GPS warning and the signal bar was bouncing from 0 to 1. I thought something was wrong with the App and was about to reinstall. Just happened to look at a location services and I didn't cut location services on for the App. I'm not sure why it doesn't notify you of this instead of just saying low GPS signal. It should be NO GPS signal.
Ran road about 11.4 miles (18.35K) with about 1110' (338M) elevation gain. It was cloudy and I suspect my Gamin 620 recorded just a little short. The 620 said 11.36 miles. The Nike+ App came in at 11.5 miles. So this is only a 1.23% difference between the 2. I still need to do an extreme trial run but was impressed with todays results. I may replace Strava as my backup recording because the auto-pause is 1st class. It even seem to do a better job that my 620 which has adjustable auto pause speed sensitivity.
Oddy I don't have a Password in 1Password but Nike says my user name is used and when I ask for at the password to my email it says sent but never get.
EDIT: Just to add, I'm happy to see more accurate results because with Apple and Nike's close relationship there is a chance the aWatch' running/bike App my at the very least include some or parts of Nike's algorithms or code.
Last edited:
Awesome!! Thanks for doing that for me. I guess it'll benefit you too if you do switch over for your backup app.
Alternatively, I think your first run may actually help give a rough gauge of what kind of accuracy the Awatch will have when NOT paired with GPS. So that's good to know. 25% error would be way too high. I could probably live comfortably with up to 10% error. I think there might be ways to calibrate based on height and your running stride. The nike+ app will allow you to adjust your treadmill run if it's not accurate and my hope (I don't know if there's any truth to it or not) that this action helps to calibrate for accuracy.
Keep in mind the first run was an extreme trail run. My stride length was only 0.88M. On my road run today my stride was 1.03M (about my road run average) which is probably closer to the algorithm Nike would use to calculate distance based on my hight/sex/age. So it would likely be much more accurate on a road run. Still there is no replacement for displacement (GPS).
Also another correction. I use so many Apps and have so little memory recall.
I have been using Digifit as my backup recording and NOT Strava.I have my Nike account going and will use Nike for at least a few more runs and see how it shakes out. I'm very optimistic as of now that Nike+ will become my goto backup.
I have the Incase (top picture). Used it when I ran and now when I cycle or hike.
I use this for my iPhone.
I'm looking forward to the release of the Apple Watch. It would be valuable to me as a fitness device and I like the other features as well. So, I can see myself wearing this every day instead of my current watch.
Last edited:
ALL of these watches fail hard IMO as fitness tools mainly due to the dysfunctionality of the heart rate monitor. Having to stand perfectly still for 10-20 seconds to get a heart rate doesn't really do much for anyone unless they are...standing still I suppose.
Obviously you are talking about watches/phones/fitness bracelets that use optical (LED) sensors and not watches with EKG sensors. While this is true it could be that Apple has perfected the sensor the way they did the Finger Print sensor. We will have to wait untill some fitness reviewers like DC Rainmaker can get a hands on review.
Unfortunately Apple usually doesn't allow comprehensive reviews until right before launch.
To my knowledge a watch with EKG sensors does not exist, only chest bands which directly measure electric impulses right from the heart. The wrist is too far away from the heart and has too much interference from arm muscle activity even if it weren't too far away. There has been some recent research trying to "denoise" the electrical signals, although the studies I've seen have limited success due to individual body impedance. I've seen them have some luck with sensor placement on the arm closer to the trunk, but not very much success with wrist placement.
On the same subject the optical sensors are actually quite accurate on the fingertip, they just have poor accuracy at the wrist and require the patient to sit still for several seconds. I highly doubt Apple will perfect this, the technology just isn't there. Now what they may do is what Mio did with their optical wrist mounted HR monitor. They use accelerometers and other methods to make their readout instant, always on and from what I'm reading fairly accurate, although still short of a chest strap in most cases. I haven't played with one, but I plan on buying one soon. Mio has patents on most of these methods, if Apple bought them or licensed their technology I'd be highly interested in an apple watch for sure, or I could just save my money and get the Mio band which doesn't have a display and allows me to wear it without looking like I'm wearing 2 watches.
I'm not doubting a smartwatch's fitness prowess in terms of GPS and steps, if you are a runner/walker, but for me they are useless until I can get a continuous accurate heartrate readout that is instant and does not make me stand still. This is especially true for those of us who interval train and need to see our HR spike up constantly.
I am not an avid runner, but a few minutes into the keynote I knew that the Apple Watch is more smart watch than fitness watch. I will probably get one, but I will continue to wear my fitbit flex (I hope fitbit is working one something new) on my right wrist. I weigh myself daily and like having my weight, steps, etc. in one app.
Just did a little over 6 miles (9.8K) today. 2 miles on road and 4 miles on a concrete trial that has lots of hills and goes down as low as about 100' (30M) below street level. It appears the Nike+ App loses accuracy when a satellite or 2 are dropped. My Garmin read 6.09 miles (9.8K) which is about correct and the Nike+ App read a little long at 6.24 Miles (10K). Still only about a 2.4% difference.
Well the good thing about the Apple watch is the app store. I have no doubt that there will be chest HR monitors available at (or soon after) launch
I'm not doubting you, but just curious how do you know what the correct distance is for these runs? I assume you're using established trails that list their distance? But how do you know that is 100% accurate?
BT HR straps are available now. Here is a good one from a local compony. As long as the aWatch supports them they will be available day/date. If not you will have to carry your iPhone to pair with.
The Trail is measured and marked. It is part of the PATH trail system we have in Atlanta. I have driven the street part. Also I have run that route numerous times with several different devices.
I have carried my iPhone, in a fanny pack, since the original so it is part of my running routine. However I respect other runners who don't cherish the idea of having to "lug" their iPhone with them.
It's a compromise Apple must make. You can't put everything everyone wants in the aWatch and expect it to fit and work for at least a day.