4 ms·

For normal fitness people, I would think an iPhone would be more than enough for your needs. Get an iPhone strap or carry it on your hand. There's really no nee

by mtw 10y ago

For normal fitness people, I would think an iPhone would be more than enough for your needs. Get an iPhone strap or carry it on your hand. There's really no need to have a watch. On the other hand, if you are planning for something serious, like running a half-marathon in spring, or doing interval training, then you begin to need heart rate monitoring. Many then discovers that the Apple Watch HRM is cr*p (mine read 215bpm which is at least 25bpm more than my biological max) and you can't really use Apple Watches for fitness. Apple would need to invest massively in heart rate monitoring technology (+battery) to get any interest from fitness crowds. One are that makes sense for Apple Watch is simple activity tracking. How many steps, how many floors climbed. Where you have been. How much sleep you had etc. Those are important metrics for your health and worth the price. But at the same time, you can get a Fitbit or a Vivoactive for $150 less

MBCook 10y ago
The watch has two primary benefits over the phone: it can track your fitness when you don't have your phone if you don't want to carry it, and it can track your heart rate which makes it far more accurate at figuring out your calorie burn. In response to your comments on the HRM in an Apple smart watch, that hasn't been my experience. It seems to work quite well, and articles I've seen say that compares surprisingly well to a chest strap or something like that. I will say that it is HIGHLY dependent on having a good fit. The band that came with my watch cost me a lot of problems, when I got one it was more adjustable it got a lot better. I'd say an Apple Watch is a quite a few steps up from a basic fit bit, and it doesn't compare to a high-end Garmin, but I think it's more than enough for most people in the market.
- mtw 10y ago
  The Apple Watch is "ok" for running. Especially with the sports rubber band. Activity tracking like walking or cooking, gardening will also show good to excellent readings. But you should try it in cycling on roads. Pebble stones, bumps, traffic, sudden stops. Readings are inaccurate, especially if you are reading fast (!= commuting) The worst inaccuracies I saw was in martial arts and bootcamps. Those are when you move your hands in unpredictable speed and directions. I think readings would also be quite inaccurate in most racquet sports. I'm not sure I have seen any reviews about the Apple Watch in these conditions.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    Hmm. Not sure I've seen many reviews covering that. Mostly running and swimming and such.
yellow_postit 10y ago
Completely agree. I used to be a dedicated Fitbit and more recently Vivoactive wearer and after just switching to using the iPhone plus some apps like Jawbone for sleep tracking I find the value-add of the low-end fitness 'watches' to be completely replaced by the iPhone's built in capabilities. I do plan on buying a Fenix when the next model rev comes out to use when in the mountains and I don't want to rely on a smartphone or wear my automatic watch, but I'd be very concerned if I was Fitbit.
dingaling 10y ago
> On the other hand, if you are planning for something serious, like running a half-marathon in spring For the encouragement of would-be or newbie runners, it is of course entirely possible to run a half-marathon distance without any form of monitoring, diagnostic or tracking equipment. Invest in good shoes first and don't worry about gadgets. The only one I'd recommend would be a small mobile phone in a back-pocket in case of emergency if you're running cross-country or remote roads.
- mtw 10y ago
  Agreed. You don't need a fancy Garmin or the latest gadgets. See the kenyans who are running and training without fancy gadgets. A gps sports watch helps though to track progress and also get feedback. It provides that extra bit of motivation that makes a difference
acdha 10y ago
> mine read 215bpm which is at least 25bpm more than my biological max How did you learn that max? One of the things I learned training for some events was that most people thought their max was much lower than it actually was — not just due using those crude age-based formulas but also things like trying to measure it too early or late in a workout, without the right level of warm-up, etc. A fair number of people had been holding back too much because they thought their max was lower than it actually was.
- mtw 10y ago
  Because I got a chest heart rate monitor after this. I pushed harder, faster and I can't get it past 182bpm. The Apple Watch has problems when you move your wrist above a certain speed.

by mtw 10y ago

MBCook 10y ago

The watch has two primary benefits over the phone: it can track your fitness when you don't have your phone if you don't want to carry it, and it can track your heart rate which makes it far more accurate at figuring out your calorie burn. In response to your comments on the HRM in an Apple smart watch, that hasn't been my experience. It seems to work quite well, and articles I've seen say that compares surprisingly well to a chest strap or something like that. I will say that it is HIGHLY dependent on having a good fit. The band that came with my watch cost me a lot of problems, when I got one it was more adjustable it got a lot better. I'd say an Apple Watch is a quite a few steps up from a basic fit bit, and it doesn't compare to a high-end Garmin, but I think it's more than enough for most people in the market.

mtw 10y ago
The Apple Watch is "ok" for running. Especially with the sports rubber band. Activity tracking like walking or cooking, gardening will also show good to excellent readings. But you should try it in cycling on roads. Pebble stones, bumps, traffic, sudden stops. Readings are inaccurate, especially if you are reading fast (!= commuting) The worst inaccuracies I saw was in martial arts and bootcamps. Those are when you move your hands in unpredictable speed and directions. I think readings would also be quite inaccurate in most racquet sports. I'm not sure I have seen any reviews about the Apple Watch in these conditions.
- MBCook 10y ago
  Hmm. Not sure I've seen many reviews covering that. Mostly running and swimming and such.

yellow_postit 10y ago

Completely agree. I used to be a dedicated Fitbit and more recently Vivoactive wearer and after just switching to using the iPhone plus some apps like Jawbone for sleep tracking I find the value-add of the low-end fitness 'watches' to be completely replaced by the iPhone's built in capabilities. I do plan on buying a Fenix when the next model rev comes out to use when in the mountains and I don't want to rely on a smartphone or wear my automatic watch, but I'd be very concerned if I was Fitbit.

dingaling 10y ago

> On the other hand, if you are planning for something serious, like running a half-marathon in spring For the encouragement of would-be or newbie runners, it is of course entirely possible to run a half-marathon distance without any form of monitoring, diagnostic or tracking equipment. Invest in good shoes first and don't worry about gadgets. The only one I'd recommend would be a small mobile phone in a back-pocket in case of emergency if you're running cross-country or remote roads.

mtw 10y ago
Agreed. You don't need a fancy Garmin or the latest gadgets. See the kenyans who are running and training without fancy gadgets. A gps sports watch helps though to track progress and also get feedback. It provides that extra bit of motivation that makes a difference

acdha 10y ago

> mine read 215bpm which is at least 25bpm more than my biological max How did you learn that max? One of the things I learned training for some events was that most people thought their max was much lower than it actually was — not just due using those crude age-based formulas but also things like trying to measure it too early or late in a workout, without the right level of warm-up, etc. A fair number of people had been holding back too much because they thought their max was lower than it actually was.

mtw 10y ago
Because I got a chest heart rate monitor after this. I pushed harder, faster and I can't get it past 182bpm. The Apple Watch has problems when you move your wrist above a certain speed.