3 ms·

"it's significantly more accurate than any other fitness tracker's" More precisely, according to one study, compared to other devices including Fitbit's 2014 m

"it's significantly more accurate than any other fitness tracker's" More precisely, according to one study, compared to other devices including Fitbit's 2014 model, Surge, Apple Watch in workout mode was found to be more accurate. You know Apple Watch was in workout mode for the study because outside of workout mode Apple Watch only measures heart rate when you're still, according to https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666 ... note that in workout mode Apple Watch battery life is "up to 8 hours" according to https://www.apple.com/watch/battery.html https://www.apple.com/watch/battery.html The study did not examine more recent Fitbit models (Blaze, Charge 2, Alta HR) and did not examine Apple Watch outside of workout mode. Disclaimer: I work for Fitbit but don't speak for Fitbit.

giobox 9y ago
I'd also take the results of that study with a pinch of salt - even if it is "the best" among the very small number of watches tested, most athlete focused reviews of the Apple Watch's HR performance show it being noticeably worse than a dedicated Bluetooth or ANT+ chest strap monitor, like the kind many cyclists and runners use. Speaking from my own experiences, the collection of ANT+ HR straps I've amassed over the years all work better than my Apple Watch's optical system does - way less odd outlier values etc. This seems to be true of most wrist worn optical heart rate measurement systems. If you are really keen to use heart rate as a training tool, the Apple Watch arguably shouldn't be your first choice. "What’s notable to start with is that it took almost 2 minutes after pressing the start button for the Apple Watch to decide on a heart rate. At which point that heart rate was incorrect by 40 beats. It wasn’t until 7 minutes into the run that it agreed with everyone else." https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/02/apple-watch-series2-nike-edition-review.html#optical-hr-gps-accuracy https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/02/apple-watch-series2-nike...

giobox 9y ago

I'd also take the results of that study with a pinch of salt - even if it is "the best" among the very small number of watches tested, most athlete focused reviews of the Apple Watch's HR performance show it being noticeably worse than a dedicated Bluetooth or ANT+ chest strap monitor, like the kind many cyclists and runners use. Speaking from my own experiences, the collection of ANT+ HR straps I've amassed over the years all work better than my Apple Watch's optical system does - way less odd outlier values etc. This seems to be true of most wrist worn optical heart rate measurement systems. If you are really keen to use heart rate as a training tool, the Apple Watch arguably shouldn't be your first choice. "What’s notable to start with is that it took almost 2 minutes after pressing the start button for the Apple Watch to decide on a heart rate. At which point that heart rate was incorrect by 40 beats. It wasn’t until 7 minutes into the run that it agreed with everyone else." https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/02/apple-watch-series2-nike-edition-review.html#optical-hr-gps-accuracy https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/02/apple-watch-series2-nike...