Agree completely - also all non-native apps have been a big on the slow/buggy/not-always-on-display side of things so really don’t want that to crash on me on kilometre 15 of a half marathon 😬
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.
Being totally objective here on AW vs Garmin...
- Thread starter zerozoneice
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL. I had a recent experience with that. I bought YouRace a long time ago but never really used it. It has some interesting features, particularly adjusting mileage on the go to meet the distant markers of races. I haven't yet used it for that purpose but was recently trying it out for a regular run and oh boy did it crash twice in the middle of a tempo run I was doing. Oh well....
I do like to stick to native apps as much as possible.
Link to the app: https://yourace.web.app (I think the developer is on MacRumors?)
Look at https://www.watchletic.com/
You can program intervals/fartlek on the web, scan a qr code and voila, the workout is o your watch.
You can program intervals/fartlek on the web, scan a qr code and voila, the workout is o your watch.
There is a way to pause your run using just buttons so that it stops recording. And when you are able to use the touchscreen, you can stop the workout totally.
For non-Ultra Watches: press both the Digital Crown and the side button at the same time
For Ultra Watches: press both the Action and side button at the same time (I don't know if pressing Crown and side button works, but I suppose it would).
I gather that during water activity, you can use the same method to mark intervals and pause workouts.
Hope this helps.
See: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210385
I can’t figure out how to do the multi-reply to you and the user above (happy to see so many runners on this forum) but yes, I think it’s way too big. I can’t imagine showing up to the start line of a race with that on my wrist - heck, I basically never see runners of my ilk wearing Apple Watches at all! But the Ultra is far too massive for me to want to wear for training, let alone racing.
It’s fantastic that it’s working for you. It’s really a great app.
Oh, thank you! I stick to the default Workouts app, when I use it (and I’ll also add - I’ve had the Apple Watch as my only running watch before, so it’s not like it’s impossible. Just that it’s inferior, IMO). One concern is more practical - when you’re taking standing rest, auto pause fires (so you need to remember to turn that off, and as far as I know, you can’t do that mid-run. Additionally, trying to take splits when you’re running fast, with the touchscreen, is basically unusable - a usual marathon workout for me is 25 x 400 on 90s (aka, run the 400s in ~70-72, and you get ~20 seconds rest). I would dare anyone to hit the double-tap split function 50 times (before and after each rep), with sweaty hands, any not get frustrated. It’s genuinely impossible! Of course, these are hyper niche workouts, and I love the Watch overall. Just saying - it’s not perfect.
I also wore the Series 7 in a 10-mile race last year - a rare win for me! - and the Watch just failed to record. It said it was running, I checked my splits along the way, with GPS supposedly found, and when I finished the run…. empty. No GPS track, no data. Had to pull the run from Stryd.
And to address the poster below you, I agree with the HRM accuracy of the Apple Watch over others. I’m wear-testing the Pace 3 (I do running shoe and gear reviews as a hobby - might as well, right?!) and found the Apple Watch to be considerably more accurate in my head-to-head. Need more runs to be certain, but it does seem like Apple is still the most accurate sensor around.
when doing custom interval workouts auto pause is disabled.
I never use auto pause whether when I was using Garmin or Apple. For the way I train, even when I was competitive, it was totally unnecessary. Not only that, it was inaccurate. The GPS doesn't instantaneously detect when you stop and when you start. Better to pause manually for training purposes.
Ah, to each their own.
If I were to be competitive and compete again, I'd use the Ultra. I see no issues with size there insofar as whether its physical dimensions and weight is a hindrance.
I never used it on my Garmin devices for the reasons you wrote.
On Apple I love it, it is working really well. Try it!
And standing seconds rest can be a part of the interval setup? Just gonna smash the overall split times but not the important part here I guess
Not sure if I fully understand what you write here.
Sure you can define rest intervals time based and when you stand in these intervals, the clock ticks further.
If you define your rest interval distance based, of course standing lengthens your time in the rest interval.
What @James.K.Polk wrote:
"One concern is more practical - when you’re taking standing rest, auto pause fires (so you need to remember to turn that off, and as far as I know, you can’t do that mid-run. "
Assuming you have a time based rest interval and auto pause enabled (which is not the case in practice as Apple switches it off in interval workouts). You would stand in a time based rest interval and your watch would detect: "this guy is not moving, I pause the workout". You would end up with an infinite rest interval or at least as long as you desire to not move (which is ofter longer than what my interval workout wants from me ;-)).
If you are not clear how long the rest interval is, you could either manually pause the workout during the rest interval or define an "open" rest interval and progress manually to the next interval.
Hope that clears what I meant?
Yes. Typically, I have a delay between having stopped and auto pause kicking in of about 1-2 seconds which is fine for me. Of course, it can never be as precise as manually pausing.
And the big advantage for me is that I do not have to think about manually unpausing (is this even a word?) when running again.
We could now start the big philosophical debate whether to pause "is allowed" during the recording of a workout or if this distorts the reality of the workout but I don't think it is a good idea to do so.
Yeah I just meant the time based rest can be standing/walking or jogging and the time will tick, but it can do the job
So I did a tempo run (really a race against myself using race route on Apple Watch) early this morning. Various thoughts just ran through my head, especially the comment about being the Ultra is too big even for some elite runners.
It made me think: how old are these elite runners that we're talking about? ;-) I was mentally noting that because if you're old enough (and I'm not that old!) you'll recall that GPS watches were much bigger than the Ultra when they first became popular around the mid-2000s.
Let's go through some exhibits, shall we?
Exhibit A: Garmin Forerunner 205 ( https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/348 ). This was my first GPS which I bought around 2006 or 2007 and this is what it looked like. It's way bigger than the Ultra and it also wraps half way around your wrist. The rationale was because the antenna is on the part of the housing that wraps around halfway your wrist, and when you run the anterior of your wrist is facing up towards the sky where satellite signal detection would be best. I wore this (and the Forerunner 305 which has the exact same shape) for years and I was competitive then and even thinner at between 119lbs and 125lbs at 5'8" although my wrist size hasn't changed. LOL.
Exhibit B: Garmin Forerunner 201 ( https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/230 ). I never used this, but someone I know who was an elite runner (faster than me) wore it around 2003/2004 and was the first time I ever heard of GPS watches. It's shaped a little different but it is definitely long and looks almost like wearing a dashboard GPS on your wrist.
While I don't know it for a fact, it feels to me that within the running community at least in the U.S., Garmin was one of the first to introduce GPS watches and there were certainly some elite runners using these.
You can look at the Wikipedia entry for the various versions of Garmin Forerunners and marvel at the large sizes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garmin_Forerunner#Release_history
I guess what I'm also trying to say is don't think the size of the Ultra is too big for an elite runner, because we have certainly seen way larger GPS watches on elite runners couple decades ago ;-) Certainly though, it can be a personal thing, but the size of the Ultra doesn't make it not suitable for elite runners, necessarily.
It made me think: how old are these elite runners that we're talking about? ;-) I was mentally noting that because if you're old enough (and I'm not that old!) you'll recall that GPS watches were much bigger than the Ultra when they first became popular around the mid-2000s.
Let's go through some exhibits, shall we?
Exhibit A: Garmin Forerunner 205 ( https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/348 ). This was my first GPS which I bought around 2006 or 2007 and this is what it looked like. It's way bigger than the Ultra and it also wraps half way around your wrist. The rationale was because the antenna is on the part of the housing that wraps around halfway your wrist, and when you run the anterior of your wrist is facing up towards the sky where satellite signal detection would be best. I wore this (and the Forerunner 305 which has the exact same shape) for years and I was competitive then and even thinner at between 119lbs and 125lbs at 5'8" although my wrist size hasn't changed. LOL.
Exhibit B: Garmin Forerunner 201 ( https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/230 ). I never used this, but someone I know who was an elite runner (faster than me) wore it around 2003/2004 and was the first time I ever heard of GPS watches. It's shaped a little different but it is definitely long and looks almost like wearing a dashboard GPS on your wrist.
While I don't know it for a fact, it feels to me that within the running community at least in the U.S., Garmin was one of the first to introduce GPS watches and there were certainly some elite runners using these.
You can look at the Wikipedia entry for the various versions of Garmin Forerunners and marvel at the large sizes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garmin_Forerunner#Release_history
I guess what I'm also trying to say is don't think the size of the Ultra is too big for an elite runner, because we have certainly seen way larger GPS watches on elite runners couple decades ago ;-) Certainly though, it can be a personal thing, but the size of the Ultra doesn't make it not suitable for elite runners, necessarily.
Last edited:
I guess the round shape is to mimic what analog watches (and therefore "real" watches) look like? (I'll say that Garmin watches have always looked cheap to me (definitely not cheap in terms of cost). The front often looked ok, but turn to the underside and it looks like a child's play watch. LOL.)Great, @msackey! My first Garmin was a 910XT. Also very big. Loved it.
And also a sports watch with a rectangular screen. No idea why Garmin came up with this stupid idea that sports watches need round displays. To waste a lot of space, maybe.
Yes, and to make it 24/7 "compatible". Well, they still look awful when wearing a business suite but at least everybody can see how sporty you are.
I once found the "auto-pause" feature unreliable on the Garmin until I enabled the following:
-Enable logging every second
-Use multi-band for highest accuracy possible (only available on units with the latest GPS chip)
-Enable 3D speed and distance
It's not perfect but it's decades better that before.
-Enable logging every second
-Use multi-band for highest accuracy possible (only available on units with the latest GPS chip)
-Enable 3D speed and distance
It's not perfect but it's decades better that before.
Good to hear.
Garmin devices (and Apple too) always process GPS data every second. The optimized setting on Garmin (forgot the name) just controls if the location is stored in the workout or not.
Edit: to be precise: there is also this ultra mode with reduced accuracy where GPS data is acquired in much longer intervals.