Apple Watch v.s. Vivoactive

[Mad Mac Maniac]

If you used Fitbit, you would see how far behind AW is. In Fitbit, everything syncs magically vertically and horizontally... if you left your device off, or the device does not support an activity, you can manually enter it on the phone app or web app and it will sync across all devices. Fitbit actually has a web app for better presentation and analysis. Fibbit's phone app is way easier to use than Activity or Health. Fitbit has a social network that keeps people engaged. Fitbit lets you manage calorie consumption against activity. Fitbit calculates daily calorie burn far more accurately than AW does. It is lots of little things.

The really funny thing about Fitbit is that you can sign up for a free Fitbit account, and link the phone app to the iPhone 6 mobility chip and use your iPhone as your Fitbit tracker. And that massively smokes Apple's equivalent offering. Fitbit totally supports freely giving its core platform away to Apple phone users.

I like my watch, but it is really, really horrible as an activity tracker.

I cut the AW a little more slack in the fitness tracking tools. I never thought it could replace a Garmin. But I am surprised that Apple missed the mark so much, compared to all of the mature phone apps that have been around for years.

See I have to disagree with you here. I had a fitbit charge for 6 months prior to my Apple Watch.

1) syncing- Apple watch syncs to my iPhone. That's all I'd really want
2) manual activities- You can input "other" with the Apple watch. And as for adding after the fact, I don't think I would ever do that (I know I didn't with my fitbit). a) it's not worth the effort b) what's the point?
3) web interface- This goes into the so what category. There are certainly a lot of ways that apple watch can improve from a presentation/analysis perspective, but honestly I don't think fitbit is objectively superior for that. I never really liked how fitbit displayed info
4) iPhone app- subjective. I never really thought the fitbit app all was all that. Also, I never liked how I had to open the app for it to sync (even though I had syncing set to automatic)
5) social network- I think this could be big(ger), but I never knew many people with a fitbit so that part didn't really do anything for me. I know even fewer with an apple watch, so this is even less relevant/important right now.
6) calorie consumption- This is not somethign I want to touch at all. Some people may like to do it, but counting calories is far too much of an annoyance for me.
7) calorie burn accuracy- Oh really? and how would you know this? Do you have some high tech machine strapped to your body calculating your perpetual calorie burn rate?

I think the Apple watch is a far superior activity tracker for the following reasons:
1) The 3 goal system- with fitbit you could only create one goal of steps, distance, or calories. The idea of having a move, exercise, and stand goal is a much more wholistic view of health/activity
2) Stand reminders. I'm not sure if any of fitbits newer models have this but my charge didn't. Despite the Apple watches occasional inaccuracies, it's still a good thing to be getting frequent reminders to move around.
3) Active calories- Even though I personally don't care about tracking calories (in or out) I do think this provides the best metric for activity. Steps/distance/total calories are what fitbit uses, and there are all awful. Active calories is the best way to merge steps, distance, HR, intensity, etc regardless of how accurately it's done right now. a) it will improve and b) I don't care what the units are, as long as it is a unit that allows me to track my wholistic activity relative to previous days

There are more, but I've spent way too much time on this...

 

[goodyear77]

If you used Fitbit, you would see how far behind AW is. In Fitbit, everything syncs magically vertically and horizontally... if you left your device off, or the device does not support an activity, you can manually enter it on the phone app or web app and it will sync across all devices. Fitbit actually has a web app for better presentation and analysis. Fibbit's phone app is way easier to use than Activity or Health. Fitbit has a social network that keeps people engaged. Fitbit lets you manage calorie consumption against activity. Fitbit calculates daily calorie burn far more accurately than AW does. It is lots of little things.

The really funny thing about Fitbit is that you can sign up for a free Fitbit account, and link the phone app to the iPhone 6 mobility chip and use your iPhone as your Fitbit tracker. And that massively smokes Apple's equivalent offering. Fitbit totally supports freely giving its core platform away to Apple phone users.

I like my watch, but it is really, really horrible as an activity tracker.

I cut the AW a little more slack in the fitness tracking tools. I never thought it could replace a Garmin. But I am surprised that Apple missed the mark so much, compared to all of the mature phone apps that have been around for years.

Sounds like Fitbit doesn't care where it gets its input data from, their strength seems to be the presentation and analysis of the data? Why not use Fitbit together with AW when WOS2 is released? Then you'd get the best of both worlds, an AW for Fitbit data gathering, but that can be more than a fitness tracker, and Fitbit that's better than the native app?

In any case, I'm obsessed with closing the rings each day, and that type of motivation is not provided by any of the running apps I'm using (or was using) on my phone. So maybe less is more as the saying goes.

 

[Night Spring]

AW fail: AW has me at 2,112 calories so far today while FB has me at 1,399 calories. I have been very sedentary and only walking between meetings, so no way I have exceeded 2,000 calories.

Huh. Are you talking resting or active calories? My Fitbit app has me at 700 calories, and Activity app at 160 active + 900 resting for a total of 1060 calories.

 

[exxxviii]

EDIT: Just downloaded the Fitbit app, and I have to say, on first impression, that Fitbit app is "easier to use" is subjective. I'm finding it a bit more confusing than Activity app. With Activity app, it's clear that the metric we are focusing is on calories. You can also get step count and distance traveled, but those are supplementary info. With Fitbit, it lists three goals -- distance, step count, and calorie, and I'm like, wait which one am I supposed to do? All of them? If I do one, do I also automatically hit the other ones?

Apple's three ring goal system is a great innovation. I do like that-- no one else has anything equivalent. Where I prefer FB more is easy access to the major metrics in general. It is the first thing you see in big numbers on the phone app. With the AW phone Activity app, it is a combination of sweeps, touches, and sweeps.

Are you talking resting or active calories? My Fitbit app has me at 700 calories, and Activity app at 160 active + 900 resting for a total of 1060 calories.

Total calories. FB only gives total calories, and AW splits them out. I only care about total calories, because I manage my caloric input according to my day's activity.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

Huh. Are you talking resting or active calories? My Fitbit app has me at 700 calories, and Activity app at 160 active + 900 resting for a total of 1060 calories.

Total calories. FB only gives total calories, and AW splits them out. I only care about total calories, because I manage my caloric input according to my day's activity.

Funny. I only care about active calories. I can see if you care about counting in/out of calories maybe you'll care, but that's not my cup of tea at all, and I'm very very big into health/fitness. Note the quote above, from that one data point it shows that resting calories take up 85% of total calories. I burn X calories a day just for breathing (ets say 1,600 for demonstration purposes), why would I care about those?

Compare these 2 scenarios

Day 1: Calories burned 2,100
Day 2: Calories burned 2,350
Day 3: Calories burned 1,980
Day 4: Calories burned 2,530
Day 5: Calories burned 1,820

Day 1: Calories burned 500
Day 2: Calories burned 750
Day 3: Calories burned 380
Day 4: Calories burned 930
Day 5: Calories burned 220

These are thw exact same numbers but in the first it's total and second it's active. In the first scenario it's harder to differeniate because the relative difference isn't too far off. The second scenario shows how active you actually were and it's much easier to see what a lazy ass you were on day 5 and how you really killed it on day 4

 

[exxxviii]

There are more, but I've spent way too much time on this...

I think you think about health and fitness very differently from me and others I know, so I have difficulty relating to all of your comments. I too am very big into fitness. I run and swim 6 days/week at long distances and high intensities. When I am training for something big, total calorie burn is very important to me. I really do not care what my active calories were for a day's activity, because I need to balance consumption against total burn so I have energy enough for the next day and I am on track for the weight I want to be.

By contrast, if I were not an athlete but weight conscious, I would also want to know total calories, because that tells me what I need to eat in order to lose or maintain weight. I still do not understand the value of knowing active calories out of context of total calories.

 

[sumsingwong]

Wouldn't everyone's resting calories be different depending on you metabolism? How would you know how much resting calories your body burns on an average? You wouldn't unless some medical lab did some extensive testing on you. Which is accurate? The AW or FB?

 

[exxxviii]

Wouldn't everyone's resting calories be different depending on you metabolism? How would you know how much resting calories your body burns on an average? You wouldn't unless some medical lab did some extensive testing on you. Which is accurate? The AW or FB?

Fitbit is more accurate. It is a question of being in the same zip code, not street address. There are a number of generally accepted base metabolic rate calculators out there. Apple matches none of them that I have found. Given how high the AW calculates BMR for many people, it is unlikely its calculation is correct.

 

[Night Spring]

I think you think about health and fitness very differently from me and others I know, so I have difficulty relating to all of your comments. I too am very big into fitness. I run and swim 6 days/week at long distances and high intensities. When I am training for something big, total calorie burn is very important to me. I really do not care what my active calories were for a day's activity, because I need to balance consumption against total burn so I have energy enough for the next day and I am on track for the weight I want to be.

By contrast, if I were not an athlete but weight conscious, I would also want to know total calories, because that tells me what I need to eat in order to lose or maintain weight. I still do not understand the value of knowing active calories out of context of total calories.

I'm not an athlete, and I'm not weight conscious. I never gain weight anyway (was lucky in that my mom insisted on good eating habits, so I never overeat) so I don't need to watch my calorie intake/outtake. I do need to make sure I'm active enough each day instead of just sitting on the couch / in front of my desk all day. So for me, active calories is the most useful metric, as I discovered after I got my Apple watch.

 

[Night Spring]

Fitbit is more accurate. It is a question of being in the same zip code, not street address. There are a number of generally accepted base metabolic rate calculators out there. Apple matches none of them that I have found. Given how high the AW calculates BMR for many people, it is unlikely its calculation is correct.

I googled BMR calculator, and tried one at http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

It gave me a BMR of 1100. Apple watch has been using 1270. Is that not in the same zip code?

 

[exxxviii]

That is totally in the zip code, so the AW is working pretty well for you. In fact, yours is the first post I have ever seen from anyone with an AW BMR below 2,000. There are a few threads with some of the wild AW BMR numbers, and I fit into that category. My BMR is on the order of 1,800 - 2,000, depending on the calculator. (The one in your link calculates me at 1,843.) The AW thinks I am 2,759.

 

[sumsingwong]

That is totally in the zip code, so the AW is working pretty well for you. In fact, yours is the first post I have ever seen from anyone with an AW BMR below 2,000. There are a few threads with some of the wild AW BMR numbers, and I fit into that category. My BMR is on the order of 1,800 - 2,000, depending on the calculator. (The one in your link calculates me at 1,843.) The AW thinks I am 2,759.

Wouldn't muscle mass also contribute to BMR? Someone who weight trains often would have a higher BMR than someone who doesn't.

 

[Aniseedvan]

I've got a Vivoactive and an Apple watch, and for registering runs, and walks of a notable distance, the AW is fairly hopeless. You can't see the HR changes, speed changes during elevation (for example).
I was going to sell my VA after buying the AW, but the proper waterproofing and battery life for longer walks (in my case) has kept me from doing so. I don't use it as an every day watch as the AW is far more convenient (aside from a recent holiday where I left the AW at home for 10 days). I've noticed the step count on the AW is less than the VA for similar days.
You should be able to connect a BT HR strap to the AW, but I can't see the point until the metrics to view are on par with Garmins.

 

[BarracksSi]

My BMR is on the order of 1,800 - 2,000, depending on the calculator. (The one in your link calculates me at 1,843.) The AW thinks I am 2,759.

Where would I find my AW's BMR estimate?

 

[BarracksSi]

You should be able to connect a BT HR strap to the AW, but I can't see the point until the metrics to view are on par with Garmins.

The AW is recording more detailed HR data, but the Workout and Activity apps just don't display it. Other apps can pull the data and use it, though; there's one called Exercise Pulse with a typical graph presentation of HR data. Check the Apps subforum "next door" for the developer's thread.

 

[Julien]

iPhone

Where would I find my AW's BMR estimate?

iPhone Activity App: Move: Total calories - Active calories

 

[Aniseedvan]

The AW is recording more detailed HR data, but the Workout and Activity apps just don't display it. Other apps can pull the data and use it, though; there's one called Exercise Pulse with a typical graph presentation of HR data.

It just graphs the HR - not side by side as to where you are in a walk, for example. Whilst training for a 50k walk I found it interesting to understand whether my max HR was coming down on certain stretches of the training walks I was doing.

 

[Night Spring]

iPhone

iPhone Activity App: Move: Total calories - Active calories

No need to do subtraction, it shows all three numbers.

 

[BarracksSi]

It just graphs the HR - not side by side as to where you are in a walk, for example. Whilst training for a 50k walk I found it interesting to understand whether my max HR was coming down on certain stretches of the training walks I was doing.

Ah, gotcha. A map would help a lot, too, right? That's what Garmin does well.

See, this is an example of different uses which could make the Workout app and resulting data presentation more complicated. I've got no need to train for a long walk (I'm working on my half-mile sprint and ammo can lifts for the next few weeks), so if the stock Apple apps had the extra functionality for both your routine and mine, they'd just be clunkier and less newbie-friendly. Instead, we can each get a different third-party app that gives us what we need.

I'm not saying that Apple's offerings are the most useful, because I think we agree that they're not. What I am saying is that their job is to be a set of general-purpose exercise apps to help people get started. In that sense, I think they do the job very well.

 

[BarracksSi]

iPhone

iPhone Activity App: Move: Total calories - Active calories

Got it. Man, mine is at 2600. Someday, when I'm not going to be very active, I'll wear my Garmin with the HR strap for 24 hours and see what it says.

[edit] Now that I'm doing the math --

When I was using LoseIt to lose weight, it was giving me a calorie budget of around 1900 per day if I didn't work out at all (when I exercised, it added to the budget). It chose that number for a 500 cal/day deficit, roughly, so it would figure about 2400 if I wanted to maintain my weight. So maybe Apple's estimate isn't too far off for me.

 

[Night Spring]

It just graphs the HR - not side by side as to where you are in a walk, for example. Whilst training for a 50k walk I found it interesting to understand whether my max HR was coming down on certain stretches of the training walks I was doing.

Vivioactive has an app that does this?

 

[Aniseedvan]

Vivioactive has an app that does this?

Garmin connect does - the mobile app is good, the full web version moreso.

 

[Night Spring]

Garmin connect does - the mobile app is good, the full web version moreso.

Ah. Any way to see it in action without owning a Garmin device?

 

[Julien]

Got it. Man, mine is at 2600. Someday, when I'm not going to be very active, I'll wear my Garmin with the HR strap for 24 hours and see what it says....

Garmin, like most other App/devices doesn't segregate Active from BMI.

 

[BarracksSi]

Garmin, like most other App/devices doesn't segregate Active from BMI.

Right, which is why I'd have to choose a day when I'm doing nothing but sitting and watching TV.