Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Any reviews mention heart rate and fitness tracking?

P

PoppaKap

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 26, 2010
126
389
The watch's utility as a HR monitor and fitness tracker are a big deal to me. The only mention in reviews I've seen was in the Verge review and it wasn't good. Please link any others.

___
It’s definitely nice to have these presets built in, but again, it’s all pretty much table stakes. There’s nothing that captures lifting weights, yoga, or other exercises that don’t either crank up your heart rate or trip the accelerometer with movement. You can use the “other” preset, which will always give you credit for a brisk walk even if the other sensors aren’t returning a ton of data, but it’s definitely not perfect. And I found that the heart rate sensor struggled during my workouts, especially when I was really sweaty; it consistently measured about half my correct heart rate instead of my full 148bpm.

Again, Apple will surely improve all of this with software updates; it’s hard not to see them adding more workout types over time. But out of the box right now, the Apple Watch is a very expensive, barebones fitness tracker. It’s much nicer than its competitors — I used it with the white sport band and thought it was really quite striking — but it’s certainly not more full-featured.
 
From recode:

https://recode.net/2015/04/08/a-week-on-the-wrist-the-apple-watch-review/

"The most interesting observation from my workouts so far is that the heart-rate readings I’m getting from the Apple Watch during indoor cycling are very close to the readings I’ve gotten from a chest monitor. I haven’t yet seen the kind of wildly-erratic readings that I’ve experienced with other health watches that measure heart rate through the wrist."

They have a bit more on the fitness aspects in their review and say they will doing a full article on AW fitness next week.
 
I came here to make a similar post!
One of my primary interests in the watch is fitness tracking. Right now my two spectrum ends are Fitbit Surge (painfully inaccurate) and Polar Watch (accurate, but requires chest strap). I'm really hoping the pulse sensor in the Apple watch gets close to Polar's accuracy

Just read the Men's Journal review: :(
 
OllyW said:
The Men's Journal review looks at the heart rate monitor and fitness tracking features.
Click to expand...

Look where that idiot is wearing the watch. If you want accurate heartrate you have to wear it snug, a little further up the arm, about an inch or 2 to the left of where he has it. He literally has it sitting like on top of his bones haha.
 
Andy0568 said:
I came here to make a similar post! :)

One of my primary interests in the watch is fitness tracking. Right now my two spectrum ends are Fitbit Surge (painfully inaccurate) and Polar Watch (accurate, but requires chest strap). I'm really hoping the pulse sensor in the Apple watch gets close to Polar's accuracy
Click to expand...

I'm debating between a Garmin Fenix 3 and the Apple Watch. I'd rather have the Apple Watch but it can't be worthless for HR and fitness tracking.
 
Andy0568 said:
I came here to make a similar post! :)

One of my primary interests in the watch is fitness tracking. Right now my two spectrum ends are Fitbit Surge (painfully inaccurate) and Polar Watch (accurate, but requires chest strap). I'm really hoping the pulse sensor in the Apple watch gets close to Polar's accuracy
Click to expand...

This is my primary interest in the watch. Trying to put together the little snippets here it seems like the AW heart rate tracking will do ok with exercises that ramp up like running or steady elliptical but struggle with interval and weight type of workouts.

I had a fitbit surge HR. It was ok with ramp up HR workouts but terrible with interval and weights. I am guessing the AW will be better than the fitbit but as good as I hoped for interval and weight training.

I plan to order it and give it a try but will return it if the fitness monitory is not accurate enough.

----------
Multiverse223 said:
Look where that idiot is wearing the watch. If you want accurate heartrate you have to wear it snug, a little further up the arm, about an inch or 2 to the left of where he has it. He literally has it sitting like on top of his bones haha.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is key. I have tried most of the wrist activity monitors. I have certainly experienced where tightening up the strap for a workout and moving it up the wrist a bit will make a big difference in accuracy on other fitness watches.

I will need to try it out for myself.
 
Multiverse223 said:
Look where that idiot is wearing the watch. If you want accurate heartrate you have to wear it snug, a little further up the arm, about an inch or 2 to the left of where he has it. He literally has it sitting like on top of his bones haha.
Click to expand...

He's a she. :p

It looks to be worn exactly where a watch should be worn, on the wrist.
 
A couple of the reviews also said that HR monitoring is done all day long, every 10 seconds. I was not expecting all day HR monitory so this is a pleasant surprise.

(When the workout app is active the HR sampling is much more often but not sure what the sampling rate is)
 
BD1 said:
This is my primary interest in the watch. Trying to put together the little snippets here it seems like the AW heart rate tracking will do ok with exercises that ramp up like running or steady elliptical but struggle with interval and weight type of workouts.

I had a fitbit surge HR. It was ok with ramp up HR workouts but terrible with interval and weights. I am guessing the AW will be better than the fitbit but as good as I hoped for interval and weight training.

I plan to order it and give it a try but will return it if the fitness monitory is not accurate enough.

----------



Yes, this is key. I have tried most of the wrist activity monitors. I have certainly experienced where tightening up the strap for a workout and moving it up the wrist a bit will make a big difference in accuracy on other fitness watches.

I will need to try it out for myself.
Click to expand...

It never going to be as accurate as a chest strap. The technology is not there yet. There is too many factor that can influence optical reader like how tight the watch is to your wrist. At this moment in time, we have to consider any optical reader has a novelty or for very casual user.

If you are really into fitness, you need to buy a real fitness watch like the Fenix 3 or the Ambit3. It's not only just about the strap but it also about the whole back end of the data. Suunto /Garmin have their own backend that contains a lot more information. It's not only about how the data gets gathered but how that data gets presented afterward.

Things will get better but for the first generation, I think we all know from other product on the market the downside of using optical heart rate monitor.
 
OllyW said:
He's a she. :p

It looks to be worn exactly where a watch should be worn, on the wrist.
Click to expand...

No, it's far too high. It's basically on the hand. If you read Pebble's guide for heartrate it states that it is more accurate to place it further up your arm, but where she is wearing it is where it would fall down because you don't have it snug on your wrist.

----------
BD1 said:
A couple of the reviews also said that HR monitoring is done all day long, every 10 seconds. I was not expecting all day HR monitory so this is a pleasant surprise.

(When the workout app is active the HR sampling is much more often but not sure what the sampling rate is)
Click to expand...

That's awesome
 
From the wsj review. You need to use the sport band to get the most accurate readings:

“At the end of three workouts, both the Polar and the watch reported similar average beats per minute. That’s far more accurate than the Fitbit Charge HR and Microsoft’s Band. Apple’s sport band isn’t the most stylish, but it is the one you want for working out. With the looser steel Milanese Loop band, the watch struggled to lock in on my heart rate.”
 
Multiverse223 said:
No, it's far too high. It's basically on the hand. If you read Pebble's guide for heartrate it states that it is more accurate to place it further up your arm, but where she is wearing it is where it would fall down because you don't have it snug on your wrist.
Click to expand...

That will kill it for me then. Wearing it snug and further up the arm would give problems with arm pump when I'm mountain biking on rough terrain. :(
 
Symtex said:
It never going to be as accurate as a chest strap. The technology is not there yet. There is too many factor that can influence optical reader like how tight the watch is to your wrist.
Click to expand...

Actually, recent wrist optical HR monitors are just as accurate as a chest strap.

I'm looking forward to reading DCRainmaker's review of the Apple Watch, but here is the review of the Mio Link (worn on the wrist for $99) and the accuracy is really good compared to a chest strap.
 
bjdraw said:
Actually, recent wrist optical HR monitors are just as accurate as a chest strap.

I'm looking forward to reading DCRainmaker's review of the Apple Watch, but here is the review of the Mio Link (worn on the wrist for $99) and the accuracy is really good compared to a chest strap.
Click to expand...

This was my personal experience with the Mio Fuse (different Mio product). It was very accurate on my wrist compared with my chest HR monitor. Accuracy was improved by making sure it was tight during workouts. I would expect the same with the AW, it will be more accurate by tightening the band during a workout and one of today's reviews said this.
 
As far as I've seen, none of the "all day" heart rate monitors make good exercise monitors and vice versa. It is certainly possible the  Watch is the first one, but based on the Men's health reviews, it is not.

I personally use the Mio Link while I cycle, and while I have never worn a chest strap at the same time to compare the accuracy, I'm happy with the Mio Link -- except the charger, it sucks.
 
bjdraw said:
Actually, recent wrist optical HR monitors are just as accurate as a chest strap.

I'm looking forward to reading DCRainmaker's review of the Apple Watch, but here is the review of the Mio Link (worn on the wrist for $99) and the accuracy is really good compared to a chest strap.
Click to expand...

I have read many DCRainamaker review on optical reader and it always come to the same conclusion : There is a lag and often the reader can't cope with higher heart rate and sweat level on the wrist. . This is specially true during interval training where the reader was often inaccurate during HR spikes.
 
I've read it takes the HR every 10 minutes and every 10 seconds. I'm not sure which is right. I imagine every 10 minutes is what's correct.
 
PoppaKap said:
Thanks for the links. The Mens Journal review was discouraging.
Click to expand...
But at least it was their honest opinion and it's important that Apple hear that. Remember that it's only version one. The good news is generation two will be much better. That's an Apple tradition and why I'm happy to wait.

I can easily afford to buy now, but I can't and won't put up with the lost time and frustration of all the bugs it's bound to have, based on how buggy my iPhone 6 is. Before Apple's decline in quality every iPhone I bought was excellent. Apple is the best when they try to be.
 
I found this tidbit from the CNet review interesting:

the Apple Watch allows you to pair a Bluetooth heart rate monitor accessory, like a chest strap. For more accurate heart rate readings? Well, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Seems to indicate that you'd want to use a dedicated heart rate monitor while working out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back