Why is everyone rattling off their favorite sport watch for this study? That's like Car and Driver comparing sports sedans and including an exotic sports car in the mix. Of course the dedicated sport/activity watch is going to be more accurate - that's all it does because that's what it was designed for. These are all smartwatches being compared with a specific look at HR and calorie accuracy. They already have a baseline for the study so they don't need a specialized and dedicated activity tracker to confuse the results.
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.
Apple Watch Proves Most Accurate at Measuring Heart Rate in New Fitness Tracker Study
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was comparing Apple watch with chest straps. If I understand correctly the study was concerned with optical wrist sensors only. Apple watch has about 5% median error during running. It's actually pretty significant if you need to exercise in a zone close to your max heart rate. Lets say I need to run at 150 bpm. There is a 50% chance that an Apple watch device will report it as either above 157.5 bpm (+5%) or below 142.5 bpm (-5%). This error makes a huge difference for me. I can run "indefinitely" at 140, but 150 bpm will tire me out in 20 min. So, again, Apple watch does great among optical sensors, but the technique itself has limitations.
*****
Funny, I was EXACTLY like you! <grin> I love Apple products, but I don't want something on my wrist; especially when I have an iPhone already... and then this happened:
About 7 months ago I was trying to loose some weight, but because of my age I thought "I better start out slowly then build back up to my 26 mile bike ride every morning" routine. I took 2 years off working out because my roommate had his foot amputated and what would I do if I got hit by a car - no one to come get me or my bike. So I signed up for iTunes Match for my massive music library so I wouldn't have to remember to download music each day and off I went. I walked 4 miles every morning and six miles every night for a month before jumping back on my bike (my friend has his prosthetic by then).
During this month, a few days into it I asked my roommate if I could borrow his AppleWatch. I was just mildly curious just how much work I was doing in fact. I was really surprised to see in just the first 30 minutes of my morning walk the activity circled closed. By night time it had gone around 4 or 5 times. <LOL>. I also started entering in my food intake using LOOSE IT. Again, I was just mildly interested in my calorie intake vs my movement. Interest level on both on a scale of 1-10? I gave it a 2.
Those two things probably would have sealed the deal, then this happened:
I do play by play score calling for the local high school. I do football and basketball, We do as many "away" games as we do home games. I use AppleMaps, because it does a great job steering me around traffic, as some of the away games are 45 minutes in all directions. I forgot to give my roommate back his watch one night, entered in the destination to an away game into my iPhone and off I went. Keep in mind, I know where all these schools are after 20 years, but AppleMaps, along with ADOT (Arizona Dept Of Transportation) does a great job steering me around accidents, heavy traffic and other "live" events. Every time I was to make a turn or merge on to an exit ramp or anything really, the AppleWatch gave 4 strong pulses. That obviously made me look and because my hands are already on the steering wheel I "glanced" (I hate that buzz word). Holy crap. It showed a big ass BLUE ARROW, pointing the direction of the next move (along with aprox. feet - no street name at all) all without talking through my Trucks speakers via bluetooth and stopping my music or conversation in the truck with friends. And as the actual "turn" was to physically happen, again without disturbing the entire truck's participants, 2 more strong pulses. I thought "This is really cool." No more trying to look at my iPhone (which is usually in my pocket anyway). No more trying to hear over everyone talking. No more "2 second mute" during music playback.
OK for sure this would have sold me, then came the text messages:
While driving people would text me. Without trying to get my phone out or worse: my truck trying to record my voice over all the talking in the truck when I hit the "MIC" icon to "text back", I simply clicked the "mic" on the watch sitting right under the message and spoke in a normal voice never taking my hands of the steering wheel, taking to my watch. OK that was weird for sure, but surprisingly 99% accurate. WTF? My iPhone can't even do that without messing things up. seriously? The watch did SIRI better? Go figure.
OK Sold. I went and bought my own watch.
Seriously, I don't know anyway to explain "I am right with you on this one guy - no watch for me"... but these three unrelated things sold me and I'm so glad I did it. Maybe you don't do these things (well I'm sure you at least text), maybe some of these you do, but these were NOT things Apple used to try to sell the watch to my friend when he bought his, so I'm passing them on to you.
Joseph
Actually it isn't... Apple took the dive into the sports arena and should go up against the other sports related watches as well. Picking and choosing just shows how slanted this comparison was.
I have over 25 years' experience training and racing using chest strap based HRMs. I have been waiting for a good wrist based HRM and thought I had it when Apple Watch came along. Every Apple thing I've purchased since my first Mac Plus in 1985 suggested to me it would be great. I got my Series 2 Watch for Christmas 2016. What I found is a device which does most things great except for heart rate monitoring, especially when running. The data output is inconsistent and have had maybe 2 runs in the past 5 months that provided continual, correct data. Any vigorous exercise causes the output to read blank, read in the 90s or 180s when it should be 130-150. I have used the Watch with several different apps and it's the same with each. I just bought a TICKR Run chest strap (do you see the irony here?) and it may solve the HR sampling issue. BUT I'M BACK TO A DAMNED CHEST STRAP!!!! But so far, automating the transfer of the data to other apps has been sketchy. I spent a ton of money for this watch and it isn't ready for prime time if you run. It seems to work just fine for calm exercise such as walking. Even when I do PT, as soon as I transition from a soft exercise to something harder, such as pushups, the readout shows blank for extended periods as though it can't figure out the sudden move from lower beats per minute to higher. Maybe most people don't use an HRM for serious, scientific HRM training so maybe the accuracy isn't that important to many. It is to me.
The Garmin Fenix line is a Smart Watch, like the Apple product. It is not a "dedicated sports/activity watch". I get texts on it, news alerts, stock updates, weather, control my music. It's a smart watch with a heart rate monitor - exactly the subject of the comparison. And at the same price point as the Apple Watch, so certainly not an "exotic". So your "Car and Driver" analogy is very flawed. A dedicated sports watch would be more like a G-shock or some other sports watch not smart phone compatible. You may want to do a little more homework before claiming "that's all it does because that's what it was designed for".
My local news channel said in their report that the Gramin was the least accurate as far as pulse. I don't think the report mentions which model the Garmin is.
http://www.9news.com/features/theme-week/fitness-tracker-is-it-worth-it/400211277
http://www.9news.com/features/theme-week/fitness-tracker-is-it-worth-it/400211277
This is such a true post. Having tried both Series 0 and a Series 2 I finally changed to Garmin Fenix 5 two months ago since my employer has a discount program for them. It is not comparable for fitness workouts. I run and do mainly strength, HIIT work. The wrist HR on the Fenix works better than Apple Watch and doesn't cut out during workouts like the Apple Watch did consistently. And it pairs up beautifully with a Bluetooth and/or ANT+ chest strap HRM (If doing strength training a chest strap is a must as muscle flexion will throw off optical heart rate sensor readings).
With that said, the Apple Watch is a GREAT watch IF Notifications are your primary need and fitness tracking being #2 or #3. Otherwise if you like Fitness Tracking with solid data across mutliple data points (VO2 Max, Cadence, Speed, Training Effect) and then Notifications of a limited basis and an all day running screen, then go with a Garmin or Suunto.
First of all, what a thoughtful response! Thank you!
While I see what you're getting at, I am having a hard time finding the conflict of interest. If Apple directly funded the research, then it should be declared; but, Apple donated funds to the university where the researcher works. Certainly, the indirect link raises suspicions. But, a researcher working in collaboration with Apple, and being funded by Apple, are different.
Now, if the researcher was funded by Apple, and didn't declare it, then that's a big problem.
Please let me know if I am missing something. I enjoy these types of logical debates!
Lastly, yea, the margin of error is certainly higher than anyone would like, I'm sure, but I derived from the article that Apple's error variance was less than everyone else.
I'm happy it works for some people, but I wish it worked for me. My heart rate is often off by more than a factor of 2 when I'm exercising (i.e. heart rate says 61 when it's actually 170). At least I know it's wrong then, but I don't feel like I can trust it.
Do Garmin devices provide CONTINUOUS measurement of HR? It seems from the descriptions on Amazon that the heart rate displays are not continuous.
I think it's more that the report claims that Apple Watch is #1 at a particular featureset, but doesn't actually compare it to everything else that may be in that product category.
The category IIRC wasn't "most accurate heartrate monitor in a < $299 sport watch with X additional features". it was "most accurate fitness tracker heart rate monitor"
that means if you're going to claim something as #1, you need to actualy compare it to everything that fits into that category. The Garmins 100% are Fitness watches with heart rate sensors.
so to claim #1 without actually comparing it to these additional items means it's ONLY the best of what was tested, and cannot actually claim legitimate #1 or BEST in the market
Because they are totally two different categories! These are the so-called "smartwatch"/"smartband". Their main function is to track notifications from your smartphone.
Your question is like "when you compare the photo and video quality (of the smartphones), why aren't the real (DSLR) cameras included?"
On my Fenix 5x it's constantly updating. I think the non-activity HR view may be updated once a second from some very anecdotal experimentation while in activity data is refreshed 'many' times a second - I'm not sure what the # is but it's almost instant. I've seen this for both wrist or chest strap based for activity.
Hang on, the whole point of this article is that the Apple Watch is currently more accurate than other so-called 'true' fitness bands.
Interesting... However, the report shows no mention of Garmin and the video did but did not mention what model of Garmin they were using.
I haven't found a wrist solution that is good. I still use a chest strap.
Something smells funny...
First, no real fitness watches were included by companies like Garmin, Suunto, etc.
Second, one of the criteria states "...commercially available direct to consumer at the time of the study", however, the Basis Peak hasn't been commercially available for almost a year now due to the safety recall. If this study was done in 2017 there is no way the criteria makes sense.
First, no real fitness watches were included by companies like Garmin, Suunto, etc.
Second, one of the criteria states "...commercially available direct to consumer at the time of the study", however, the Basis Peak hasn't been commercially available for almost a year now due to the safety recall. If this study was done in 2017 there is no way the criteria makes sense.
There are a bunch of other comparisons of HR monitoring capabilities (I posted a couple earlier) which may provide more relevant information than this study.
The Apple Watch is fine when compared to some other devices, but this particular study picked older and also somewhat weirdly selected equipment and it did not include some of the better-know brands.
In other EKG comparisons the Apple Watch does not come off as well as it did in this rather limited review.
So I read the article. Apple does something better than the competition. Then, just for laughs, I come here to the forum to read the howling and gnashing of teeth from the haters who want to tear them down.
I'm never disappointed, you guys are so entertaining! (& so full of it.)
Or perhaps just having honest perspective. "Better than the competition" needs to have meaningful context.
This is like trying to determine the best sports sedans on the market and leaving the BMW out.
Yup. Although my AW2 HR reading is dead accurate when sitting next to a medical grade monitor, or when walking, etc.
But doing any hill sprints or other HIIT, etc., my AW2 heart rate reading can jump to some completely weird value 20% to 30% different compared to my (more correct) Wahoo chest strap data. Or the HR just dims out during that portion of a timed run. This is with the watch strap as tight as possible. The AW2 heart rate display also lags the chest strap by 10 to maybe 20 seconds (when it isn't jumping to some random value).
One advantage of the AW2 is that I can get some quick HR readings between doing sets of laps in the pool.
Apple Watch isn't a fitness watch just like Garmin and other fitness watches aren't really smart watches. Yes they overlap but no one considering all of these brands compared in the study is considering fitness watches also. Just like serious athletes aren't considering Apple Watch for real training. Different markets for different customers. Besides, I'm sure any dedicated fitness wearable would trounce Apple and all others compared in HR monitoring. What would that really prove?
[doublepost=1495743578][/doublepost]
When I look at their website, all I see are screens and features for GPS, fitness and activity. I see nothing about texts or emails or maps or even apps. So I might be mistaken but that's only because they're doing a poor marketing job.
[doublepost=1495743768][/doublepost]
Apple Watch has always been about 3 main selling points: fitness, apps and notifications. No one is more important than the other which is why they don't concentrate on only fitness in their ads. Same goes for all the other smart watches in this study. If you add any dedicated fitness wearable to this study, it should and will be better at HR monitoring. So what have you proven by doing that? Nothing.
I get a work discount too (like 40% off of retail!). Trouble is, Garmin.com has been out of stock for like 2 months. I've all but lost interest at this point. REI and Best Buy.com has them all day long.
Oh well Garmin. I tried.