Being totally objective here on AW vs Garmin...

[BenGoren]

Health features? Garmin is miles ahead in many regards. Body Battery, training readiness, making sense of basically any health or training metrics... Garmin is track HR and HRV multiple times per second. Apple is tracking HR every 3 minutes and HRV only every 15 minutes (and thats only if you turn AFib on!). Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong on fitness and health. Sure, you can cobble together an ok experience AWU but its not nearly as comprehensive and it is really annoying to have to use multiple apps to find the scattered data.

Haven't even touched on structured training programs and many other fitness features of Garmin. Just because you don't personally use them, doesn't mean they don't exist and aren't better.

Yes, yes.

We get that.

Honestly?

You’re the amateur auto racer telling the soccer mom that her SUV is crap because the shift points on its automatic transmission are all wrong, and anything less than the latest Hellcat is a waste of her money. Sure, she could chip the SUV, but it’s never going to be better than an ok experience.

The soccer mom cares about whether or not she has enough seats for all the kids, and if the kids have a place to put their drinks without making a disaster of a mess. Can the Hellcat do that? Didn’t think so.

People who care about the things Garmin specializes already own a Garmin, and they’re not likely to be interested in any Apple product.

People who don’t care about what Garmin specializes in … don’t care.

And we do care about all the things that Apple does get right. Which Garmin doesn’t even pretend to do as well as Apple does, just like Apple doesn’t even pretend to do the stuff that Garmin specializes in.

Is there overlap? Yes, of course. A modern entry-level SUV would completely stomp all over anything you could buy off the lot in the ‘70s, and many unremarkable cars today would give actual race cars from that era a run for the money. And most of today’s muscle cars are better road trip cars for a family of three (maybe four) than a ‘70s station wagon.

So could we maybe, just maybe, recognize that not everything has to be the absolute best at everything, and just because something is surprisingly good at something unexpected doesn’t mean it’s a personal existential threat to somebody that that still needs the specialized tool?

Garmin makes great watches. Apple makes great watches. If you care about the features Garmin specializes in, get a Garmin and don’t look back. If you care about the features Apple specializes in, get an Apple and don’t look back. If you care about both, get both. If you don’t care, get whichever appeals to you more and stop worrying.

Okay?

b&

 

[OnlyHereSoIDontGetFined]

Yes, it seems to be the case the sapphire is stronger on the Garmin. I've been using both AWU and Epix2 this last week and will say that the Apple sapphire is much much better at fingerprint resistance than the Garmin. Both the DLC bezel and glass seem to smudge really easily on the Garmin.

 

[OnlyHereSoIDontGetFined]

Yes, yes.

We get that.

Honestly?

You’re the amateur auto racer telling the soccer mom that her SUV is crap because the shift points on its automatic transmission are all wrong, and anything less than the latest Hellcat is a waste of her money. Sure, she could chip the SUV, but it’s never going to be better than an ok experience.

The soccer mom cares about whether or not she has enough seats for all the kids, and if the kids have a place to put their drinks without making a disaster of a mess. Can the Hellcat do that? Didn’t think so.

People who care about the things Garmin specializes already own a Garmin, and they’re not likely to be interested in any Apple product.

People who don’t care about what Garmin specializes in … don’t care.

And we do care about all the things that Apple does get right. Which Garmin doesn’t even pretend to do as well as Apple does, just like Apple doesn’t even pretend to do the stuff that Garmin specializes in.

Is there overlap? Yes, of course. A modern entry-level SUV would completely stomp all over anything you could buy off the lot in the ‘70s, and many unremarkable cars today would give actual race cars from that era a run for the money. And most of today’s muscle cars are better road trip cars for a family of three (maybe four) than a ‘70s station wagon.

So could we maybe, just maybe, recognize that not everything has to be the absolute best at everything, and just because something is surprisingly good at something unexpected doesn’t mean it’s a personal existential threat to somebody that that still needs the specialized tool?

Garmin makes great watches. Apple makes great watches. If you care about the features Garmin specializes in, get a Garmin and don’t look back. If you care about the features Apple specializes in, get an Apple and don’t look back. If you care about both, get both. If you don’t care, get whichever appeals to you more and stop worrying.

Okay?

b&

As I just mentioned in my previous post, I have both (for now). I really like the AWU as the overall watch. What is frustrating for me is that I really don't care whether it is Apple or whether it is Garmin--I just want one watch that can do it all. Apple has the hardware to at least get close enough to what the Garmin does but the software just isn't there for true fitness/health.

I also do not like having to pay for apps to fill in the gaps Apple leaves behind. The AWU is not really an $800 watch; it is an $800 watch + $10/mo cellular + $30/yr for Athlytic (or whatever recovery app you use) + $50/yr for Hole19 + (whatever other apps you end up paying for). Over the course of 2 years, I'm looking at least $1,320 for my AWU compared to $900 for the Garmin. 3 years (how long I've had my FR945), $1,620--that's the cost of 2 Garmins...

 

[cdd543]

Out of interest, as all my friends with Epix watches have to charge them every 2-3 days: you do not do any GPS based workouts and have always on switched off?

The data Garmin and DC Rainmaker published about battery life, puts the Epix and AWU - when not comparing apples and oranges - almost in the same ballpark.

Not so. I recorded at least an hour of gps activity per day with aod on and it was good for five days. Turn off the aod and it lasts double that. DC rainmaker and other fitness influencer tests showed the same.

 

[theotherphil]

Yes. I never said you couldn't on the AW. The point is that the AW is not collecting data at the same rate (or even close to the same) as the Garmin in normal day-to-day (non-fitness) use when you aren't wearing the strap. If you want to know the state of your recovery/nervous system, you need to factor in all activity, including stress. The way these devices do so is by capturing HR and HRV readings. The AW is not even recording HRV in the background unless you force it to by turning on AFib (serious design flaw) and even then it is only recording it every 15 minutes--there have also been numerous reports of errant HRV readings on AW, which would also skew recovery numbers.

1) HRV readings are captured both on the AWU and Epix whilst you are sleeping.
2) HRV readings for “stress” readings on the Epix are captured in a 3 minute test in which you need to wear a chest strap.

3) Garmin’s ”all day stress” is taken from a combination of your overnight HRV and all day pulse rate to “estimate” your level of stress using firstbeat analytics. It is not continuous HRV.

4) The Apple Watch does indeed take readings in the background - it takes HRV readings both overnight and during the day whilst at rest. I do not have to force a reading, but you can by using the breathe app, in much the same way you run the guided 3 minute test on Garmin.

 

[OnlyHereSoIDontGetFined]

1) Yes, but with AFib off, the AWU readings are much less frequent. As I mentioned, AWU also has some (seemingly) random spikes that have been documented by a number of reviewers. I'm assuming that will get fixed with a future update but it is what it is right now.

2/3) No. There is an "HRV stress test," which is different than Garmin stress or body battery. Both stress and body battery are calculated by HRV readings, which are updated throughout the day by the watch w/o a strap. The HRV stress test you do need a strap but you don't need to do HRV stress to get those measurements.

4) Sure. But again, the readings are much less frequent and IMO are not displayed in an easy to read manner or at all. In some cases, you need 3rd party apps to get close to what Garmin offers.

I like both of these watches. I just think Garmin is the better option for serious fitness tracking. Maybe that won't be the case with future updates or if Apple finally gets serious about its fitness/health tracking.

Separately, I just realized last night AWU has to be charged to at least 30% for sleep tracking. I really don't understand that and it means you are basically charging your watch every other day at a minimum. Not a deal breaker but an annoying inconvenience.

 

[svenmany]

...or subjective..you decide

Good post.

If we agree that we're both speaking English, then it's almost entirely subjective. "I like", "I need", "I want", "is important", "I'm not interested..." - none of that is objective.

 

[johnb300m]

On run testers, 1 guy had a bad run with Garmin, 1 had a consistent run. As they mentioned in the video, a strap is ALWAYS better. If you wear a strap while working out, the Garmin is going to give you perfectly fine HR and HRV numbers during normal activities. In fact, there have been plenty of videos on the unreliability of AWU HRV data. I’m not here to bash AWU. I like both AWU and Garmin but both offer different features and the Garmin’s built in metrics and analysis are just far better.

As a Garmin user for almost 8 years, I call BS. At least in my experience with two of their products.
The original Vivofit, and my old Vivoactive 3.
I almost never had reliable HR reading during running or exercise. So many times, I'd be 2min into my run and the HR would still be in the 70s. Or I'd be in my spin class and my HR would wander all over the place from accurate to way over 220bpm.
It never sensed my HR right while weightlifting or doing downward dog poses in Yoga.
Ant+ was always spotty at the gym (yea it would be awesome if AW would get Ant+ support)
The bands were trash and I was always buying replacements. I'm 6mos in to my AW band and it still looks/feels brand new.
Then there's Garmin's absolute trash software side of things. These are what upset me the most. I could usually live with device glitches. But the Connect Ap glitches were maddening. I wanted an AW for years, but like you've beaten to death, Garmin was better for fitness. All till I was ready to make the jump when I saw Watch OS9 launch. That got me to 80% of what my Garmin did.
Garmin Connect would CONSTANTLY lose data on me, or not synch. Not to mention that ridiculous 2-week outage where my/our data was stolen by, who knows! The devices would lose Bluetooth connection to my phone (this was consistent over 3 iPhones mind you)
It was maddening.
Now with my AW, sure I don't get HR or stress readings by the second, but that data was irrelevant at that resolution for the most part. The resolution for me on AW so far in a workout active, seems good enough.
I can do custom workout stuff now OS9, and I got my HR zones back, which was pivotal, since I have unconventional zones.
But so far everything just works!
The battery life yeah, is just not the same. So when I go camping now, I just throw on my old Vivoactive 3. It's still good for the most part. But the life with AW has been so much smoother.
If I was perennial triathlete, which not, I am. Then yea I'd probably suffer and stick with Garmin.

 

[trumptman]

Like many people have already said crap in gives you crap out. Garmin might track your HRV more often but it's not reliable. Run testers had a video (around the 11min mark) on the ultra compared to the Epix and he commented on how the heart rate on the Epix is terrible so bad that it impacted his recovery metric for two weeks after just one run with it.

As someone who owns an Apple Watch and a Garmin Fenix 7X SS I can assure you both are almost exactly the same with regard to heart rate. Several reviewers including the Quantified Scientist got sub-optimal results with the recent Ultra in part because it is a heavier device and second, all the initial units available often had sub-optimal straps like the trail and diving straps.

On both watches I run the trail loop/sport loop and both spit out almost identical results. Garmin does not feature many sports/trail loops on their watches and you’ll notice all the best videos about the Apple Watch use that sort of loop.

So my point is simply that if you want to best HR tracking on either watch, get the most adjustable strap which allows you to give just the right amount of tension and both will do just fine.

I use a chest strap on my Apple Watch. If it didn't have the ability to use one, I wouldn't have bought the watch. I always did the same with my previous Garmin Venu.

People forgive the problems more easily with chest straps but mine always starts too high until I get some sweat on it.

Better sapphire crystal on the Garmins too (it explains me not managing so far to get any scratch on the screen of my Epix 2 despite now almost a year of workouts and wearing it basically non stop - my previous fitness trackers didn't fare so well...):

I waited quite a while for that video to drop. I do not understand how Apple continually manages to use something that tests as sapphire but does not appear as hard as sapphire is supposed to be. I don’t know what Apple is doing but that is not a acceptable.

 

[262Runnr]

I'm primarily a runner with some biking thrown in...I have been wearing Garmin watches since forever. Since getting an Apple watch3 many years ago I started running with both. I currently run with my old Fenix 3HR along with an Apple 6 watch.
I only use basic running metrics but the feature that I love about my old Fenix 3HR is that the battery lasts seemingly forever. I charge it once a week while I charge my Apple Watch 6 every night.
While the old Fenix 3HR does everything I really need, I hate the screen...and I am contemplating getting an Apple Ultra watch.
If the Ultra had a better longer lasting battery like the Epic 2 or Fenix7, I'd buy it in a heartbeat but I'll probably end up getting an Ultra anyway just because of it's beautiful screen and coolness factor...

 

[the future]

I waited quite a while for that video to drop. I do not understand how Apple continually manages to use something that tests as sapphire but does not appear as hard as sapphire is supposed to be. I don’t know what Apple is doing but that is not a acceptable.

This is such a non-issue, though. There are millions of Apple Watches with sapphire screens out there since 2015 and reports of scratches are very few and far between. I personally always had stainless Watches (again, since 2015) and never had a scratch on any of the models. And I certainly didn‘t baby them either.

 

[OnlyHereSoIDontGetFined]

This is such a non-issue, though. There are millions of Apple Watches with sapphire screens out there since 2015 and reports of scratches are very few and far between. I personally always had stainless Watches (again, since 2015) and never had a scratch on any of the models. And I certainly didn‘t baby them either.

One thing I've noticed is that the AWU sapphire appears to be way more resistant to fingerprint smudging than the Epix screen. I'm far from an engineer but I wonder if whatever process Apple uses to resist fingerprints may slightly weaken the sapphire as compared to Garmin. In any event, I imagine anyone would be hard pressed to find a situation where the Apple sapphire scratches and not the Garmin--if you are hitting it THAT hard, you're likely in trouble either way.

As a Garmin user for almost 8 years, I call BS. At least in my experience with two of their products.
The original Vivofit, and my old Vivoactive 3.
I almost never had reliable HR reading during running or exercise. So many times, I'd be 2min into my run and the HR would still be in the 70s. Or I'd be in my spin class and my HR would wander all over the place from accurate to way over 220bpm.
It never sensed my HR right while weightlifting or doing downward dog poses in Yoga.
Ant+ was always spotty at the gym (yea it would be awesome if AW would get Ant+ support)
The bands were trash and I was always buying replacements. I'm 6mos in to my AW band and it still looks/feels brand new.
Then there's Garmin's absolute trash software side of things. These are what upset me the most. I could usually live with device glitches. But the Connect Ap glitches were maddening. I wanted an AW for years, but like you've beaten to death, Garmin was better for fitness. All till I was ready to make the jump when I saw Watch OS9 launch. That got me to 80% of what my Garmin did.
Garmin Connect would CONSTANTLY lose data on me, or not synch. Not to mention that ridiculous 2-week outage where my/our data was stolen by, who knows! The devices would lose Bluetooth connection to my phone (this was consistent over 3 iPhones mind you)
It was maddening.
Now with my AW, sure I don't get HR or stress readings by the second, but that data was irrelevant at that resolution for the most part. The resolution for me on AW so far in a workout active, seems good enough.
I can do custom workout stuff now OS9, and I got my HR zones back, which was pivotal, since I have unconventional zones.
But so far everything just works!
The battery life yeah, is just not the same. So when I go camping now, I just throw on my old Vivoactive 3. It's still good for the most part. But the life with AW has been so much smoother.
If I was perennial triathlete, which not, I am. Then yea I'd probably suffer and stick with Garmin.

I really think most of the HR accuracy/inaccuracy boils down to individual differences in how properly the watch fits, hair, skin, tattoos, etc... Personally, I find the AWU sensor drops my HR quite a bit whereas the Garmin never drops but is not as accurate. If I'm training for HR, I'm always using an HR sensor (polar H10) because no wrist measurement is ever going to match it.

I agree that Garmin's software is not great, but at least it is all there and in one place unlike Apple. Never had Garmin connect lose data in 3 years of Garmin ownership but obviously did have the outage as well.

 

[trumptman]

This is such a non-issue, though. There are millions of Apple Watches with sapphire screens out there since 2015 and reports of scratches are very few and far between. I personally always had stainless Watches (again, since 2015) and never had a scratch on any of the models. And I certainly didn‘t baby them either.

I’m going to disagree. I regularly read about screens shattering on Apple Watches as a norm and there’s a reason Apple changed the design for the Ultra. Perhaps you don’t read about the scratches because they were too busy shattering.

The video in question by JerryRigsEverything does much more than deal with your anecdotal experience. It talks specifically about sapphire, what hardness it should be resistant too and Apple’s history of using subpar sapphire. I don’t know if it less pure than it should be but the point is it scratches at a level that makes it not much different from regular gorilla type glass.

Does that mean there aren’t plenty of people who have managed to use Apple Watches and iPhones and never get a scratch on them even with just that level of scratch resistance? Of course there but that doesn’t mean their sapphire is acceptable. It’s like buying a low quality diamond but paying a high quality price.

 

[Significant1]

I’m going to disagree. I regularly read about screens shattering on Apple Watches as a norm and there’s a reason Apple changed the design for the Ultra. Perhaps you don’t read about the scratches because they were too busy shattering.

Scratch and shatter resistance is opposite. A hard material is more bridle. With S7 Apple made the glass thicker and with Ultra they protect it with a rim.

One thing I've noticed is that the AWU sapphire appears to be way more resistant to fingerprint smudging than the Epix screen.

I don't notice any difference between Epix and Apple Watch s7 titanium.

 

[OnlyHereSoIDontGetFined]

Scratch and shatter resistance is opposite. A hard material is more bridle. With S7 Apple made the glass thicker and with Ultra they protect it with a rim.


I don't notice any difference between Epix and Apple Watch s7 titanium.

How do you like your Epix overall?

 

[the future]

I’m going to disagree. I regularly read about screens shattering on Apple Watches as a norm and there’s a reason Apple changed the design for the Ultra. Perhaps you don’t read about the scratches because they were too busy shattering.

First of all, see below.

Scratch and shatter resistance is opposite. A hard material is more bridle.

Also, it is absolutely common knowledge in these forums as well as the wider internet that the displays of the aluminum Apple Watches (with ionx glass) scratch much, much easier than the displays of the steel Apple Watches (with sapphire crystal), so there is absolutely a difference, and it’s not small. As there are millions upon millions of Apple Watches out in the wild for over seven years now and this is the consensus, I‘ll rate this „anecdotal evidence“ higher than that one youtube video. Maybe another youtube video will convince you that the Ultra sapphire is just fine …

 

[Significant1]

How do you like your Epix overall?

Overall I like it. I miss it, if I don't wear. Where as I don't miss my AW if I don't wear, though I do appreciate its smartiness. But:
- wish it was smaller
- wish the optical sensor was as good as AW. Especially because bad readings invalidates all its recovery magic. I have some workaound ideas because I will not wear cheststrap.
- The display is not as good in sunlight as MIP. Therefore I ended up not sending back FR 955, which will be my summer watch.
- miss some accessibility settings. My eyesight is aging and garmin should at least have scaled the font to compensate the increased pixel density.
- wish it was full titanium. If Marq gen 2 had been available earlier, it I would have serious considered it. Just don't like the weight.
- I can not leave my phone and stay connected. So I "double watch" and use AW as phone, when running outside.

 

[trumptman]

First of all, see below.



Also, it is absolutely common knowledge in these forums as well as the wider internet that the displays of the aluminum Apple Watches (with ionx glass) scratch much, much easier than the displays of the steel Apple Watches (with sapphire crystal), so there is absolutely a difference, and it’s not small. As there are millions upon millions of Apple Watches out in the wild for over seven years now and this is the consensus, I‘ll rate this „anecdotal evidence“ higher than that one youtube video. Maybe another youtube video will convince you that the Ultra sapphire is just fine …

Mohs hardness scale isn't "anecdotal evidence" nor is it just one YouTube video. The pick set he is using is part of how you verify a mineral. You're literally claiming the procedure used to identify a mineral is "anecdotal evidence" and that is ridiculous.

The video also shows the Apple Watch Ultra being effected and scratching up to two whole levels lower than would be expected for sapphire. In short their sapphire glass isn't much better than their normal glass.

 

[OnlyHereSoIDontGetFined]

Overall I like it. I miss it, if I don't wear. Where as I don't miss my AW if I don't wear, though I do appreciate its smartiness. But:
- wish it was smaller
- wish the optical sensor was as good as AW. Especially because bad readings invalidates all its recovery magic. I have some workaound ideas because I will not wear cheststrap.
- The display is not as good in sunlight as MIP. Therefore I ended up not sending back FR 955, which will be my summer watch.
- miss some accessibility settings. My eyesight is aging and garmin should at least have scaled the font to compensate the increased pixel density.
- wish it was full titanium. If Marq gen 2 had been available earlier, it I would have serious considered it. Just don't like the weight.
- I can not leave my phone and stay connected. So I "double watch" and use AW as phone, when running outside.

Agree with you on all accounts (except I think the size is fine and the sensors seem to be a wash for me). If it weren't for cellular on AWU, I would not have even considered switching. Although bringing AWU on the run for the cellular aspect is better than a heavy iPhone, I don't think I can justify two watches that do basically the same thing just for that added connectivity. Oddly, the Epix seems more comfortable--in fact, I even forget that I'm wearing it.

 

[dj1891]

I really wish Apple would up there fitness metrics game, it has all the data just no way to.make sense of it all, that's where Garmin wins. I'm using an Instinct 2, did have an app!e watch but couldn't live without the fitness metrics, id love to go back to Apple though, the hardware is just some much more better looking.

 

[msackey]

I really wish Apple would up there fitness metrics game, it has all the data just no way to.make sense of it all, that's where Garmin wins. I'm using an Instinct 2, did have an app!e watch but couldn't live without the fitness metrics, id love to go back to Apple though, the hardware is just some much more better looking.

Garmin provides a lot of interpretations but do you really believe some of those such as performance condition? And, do you really use those metrics? Some are quite valuable such as pace (for running) and distance, but others are a bit of a suspect. There is something to be said for learning how to read and feel your body rather than depend so much on an external quantification of an experience in which the quantification may not necessarily be accurate.

 

[usmaak]

Garmin provides a lot of interpretations but do you really believe some of those such as performance condition? And, do you really use those metrics? Some are quite valuable such as pace (for running) and distance, but others are a bit of a suspect. There is something to be said for learning how to read and feel your body rather than depend so much on an external quantification of an experience in which the quantification may not necessarily be accurate.

I have a friend who has a Fenix and he lives based on those statistics. He plan his day, or, rather, hog old or bad his day will be based on the GARMIN “body battery” metric, who’s is some calculated, made up number. He doesn’t like his runs if the stats don’t tell him what he wants to see.
The only metrics I find of any use on any of these watches are heart rate, distance measured by the gps, and speed. I much more value how my workouts or hikes feel during and after. This may seem insane but once upon a time we ran without this stuff. We guesstimated our distances based on the path we ran. We felt good or bad after workouts and judged them that way. I am not saying that these devices are not useful in some ways, just that perhaps we have gone too far in relying upon technology that gives us a ton of information that we don’t really understand.

 

[Misheemee]

As a Garmin user for almost 8 years, I call BS. At least in my experience with two of their products.
The original Vivofit, and my old Vivoactive 3.
I almost never had reliable HR reading during running or exercise. So many times, I'd be 2min into my run and the HR would still be in the 70s. Or I'd be in my spin class and my HR would wander all over the place from accurate to way over 220bpm.
It never sensed my HR right while weightlifting or doing downward dog poses in Yoga.
Ant+ was always spotty at the gym (yea it would be awesome if AW would get Ant+ support)
The bands were trash and I was always buying replacements. I'm 6mos in to my AW band and it still looks/feels brand new.
Then there's Garmin's absolute trash software side of things. These are what upset me the most. I could usually live with device glitches. But the Connect Ap glitches were maddening. I wanted an AW for years, but like you've beaten to death, Garmin was better for fitness. All till I was ready to make the jump when I saw Watch OS9 launch. That got me to 80% of what my Garmin did.
Garmin Connect would CONSTANTLY lose data on me, or not synch. Not to mention that ridiculous 2-week outage where my/our data was stolen by, who knows! The devices would lose Bluetooth connection to my phone (this was consistent over 3 iPhones mind you)
It was maddening.
Now with my AW, sure I don't get HR or stress readings by the second, but that data was irrelevant at that resolution for the most part. The resolution for me on AW so far in a workout active, seems good enough.
I can do custom workout stuff now OS9, and I got my HR zones back, which was pivotal, since I have unconventional zones.
But so far everything just works!
The battery life yeah, is just not the same. So when I go camping now, I just throw on my old Vivoactive 3. It's still good for the most part. But the life with AW has been so much smoother.
If I was perennial triathlete, which not, I am. Then yea I'd probably suffer and stick with Garmin.

Sorry - you’re comparing entry level Garmins which were more watches than they were fitness trackers against a new premium Apple Watch. As a long time Garmin lover and owner of a Fenix 6s pro and a Fenix 5s before it (and a long time Garmin user) the accuracy of the HR was incredible and nearly spot on. No connection issues at all - and an incredible amount of fitness and health tracking and stats.

I absolutely love my Apple Watch that does everything really well, but I still have and love my Garmin which can’t be matched for fitness tracking.

 

[msackey]

I have a friend who has a Fenix and he lives based on those statistics. He plan his day, or, rather, hog old or bad his day will be based on the GARMIN “body battery” metric, who’s is some calculated, made up number. He doesn’t like his runs if the stats don’t tell him what he wants to see.
The only metrics I find of any use on any of these watches are heart rate, distance measured by the gps, and speed. I much more value how my workouts or hikes feel during and after. This may seem insane but once upon a time we ran without this stuff. We guesstimated our distances based on the path we ran. We felt good or bad after workouts and judged them that way. I am not saying that these devices are not useful in some ways, just that perhaps we have gone too far in relying upon technology that gives us a ton of information that we don’t really understand.

I agree. I think we may have gone a bit too far in relying on someone else’s external quantification of our experiences to tell us HOW we are feeling rather than learning to hone in on 1) how we are feeling, 2) how to make sense of the experience in relation to one’s feelings and physical body, and 3) how to make sense of the experience (e.g., hike, run, swim) in relation to performance, if performance is what one is aiming for, or other goals.

Indeed, there was a time when all we had was mostly a timer. When I first ran, I had a sports watch that kept track of laps and time, and that was it. Then a bit later I started using a heart rate monitor watch (Polar model) and then sooner upgraded to a watch that did both GPS and used the HRM chest strap to keep track of heart rate. That was about it!

 

[dj1891]

Garmin provides a lot of interpretations but do you really believe some of those such as performance condition? And, do you really use those metrics? Some are quite valuable such as pace (for running) and distance, but others are a bit of a suspect. There is something to be said for learning how to read and feel your body rather than depend so much on an external quantification of an experience in which the quantification may not necessarily be accurate.

Well I use the Training Status metric, I find it useful for telling me what’s lacking.