I was hoping Apple would grant Nike an exception given their close relationship. Plus the Nike+ Watch App show HR reading on the Apple App page. However it didn't happen.
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.
Compare HRM to a chest strap.
- Thread starter 8CoreWhore
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was hoping Apple would grant Nike an exception given their close relationship. Plus the Nike+ Watch App show HR reading on the Apple App page. However it didn't happen.
I tried to make the TomTom work, I tried hard. And now it sits on the shelf =( I wish I had waited and got a Fenix 3 but what can you do...
This is exactly NOT what I wanted to hear. I really want to move to the Apple Watch (when it arrives) from my Garmin 620, as I hate wearing the HRM strap and I definitely want to track my calorie burn for the full day. But I also train for one or two marathons a year, so the distance/pace needs to be spot on.Just completed a 12 mile run with my Garmin 620 andWatch The HR monitor is fantastically accurate and was usually no more than 4 beats off of my 620. The only exception was when I stopped at a street crossing and HR lowered. Then when I went back to running the
One other slight problem. When first started I was getting extremely high readings. After a mile I stopped and tightened the strap 1 notch and it fixed the problem. Strange since I thought if too loose it would NOT read.
Now if only Apple offered a way to graph your HR data.
Another oddity (or actually 2) was how inaccurate the distance and calorie burn readings were. This is where I thought Apple would excel and had been working hard on. My
Image
Image
Image
Will likely wear both watches at first and then come up with a plan maybe wear the Garmin on my running belt.
Mainly being spot on with professionally timed races. The pace info I received from the Apple Watch today was just not correct.
I don't have time to read all the above comments but I'll respond to the original post:
This morning I did a comparison while wearing my Watch and my Wahoo Bluetooth chest strap. At resting rates it was spot on, at higher intensity it varied at one point by 2 BPM but routinely spot on or 1 BPM off from the chest strap (when different, the watch was always 1 beat lower rather than higher, which could be a coincidence but who knows). For my money that disparity is due to the how long it takes to get a reading on the watch. I don't know if there is something in the workout app that keeps an up to date pulse and be more specific as I haven't used that app yet, only used the heart rate glance.
Hope this is helpful...
This morning I did a comparison while wearing my Watch and my Wahoo Bluetooth chest strap. At resting rates it was spot on, at higher intensity it varied at one point by 2 BPM but routinely spot on or 1 BPM off from the chest strap (when different, the watch was always 1 beat lower rather than higher, which could be a coincidence but who knows). For my money that disparity is due to the how long it takes to get a reading on the watch. I don't know if there is something in the workout app that keeps an up to date pulse and be more specific as I haven't used that app yet, only used the heart rate glance.
Hope this is helpful...
I generally find my Garmin 620 accurate. I usually come in 0.2 to 0.4 miles over in a marathon, but that has more to do with my running the course inefficiently than it does the GPS measurements.
Update:
I found the "more detailed" data from the Apple Watch.
Heart rate:
Average HR was spot on to the HRM strap (164 vs 165).
Calories:
Meaningless but if you must know, Garmin says 769 and Apple says 592 + 105 resting = 697 (no clue if Garmin has a resting cal factor or not)
Pace:
Average pace was off, 8:57 Garmin vs 9:33 Apple
Is there any way to extract the run data and really compare specific points?
Overall decent for someone that isn't looking to go in to the details.
Basically wait for DC Rainmaker to do a real test.
I found the "more detailed" data from the Apple Watch.
Heart rate:
Average HR was spot on to the HRM strap (164 vs 165).
Calories:
Meaningless but if you must know, Garmin says 769 and Apple says 592 + 105 resting = 697 (no clue if Garmin has a resting cal factor or not)
Pace:
Average pace was off, 8:57 Garmin vs 9:33 Apple
Is there any way to extract the run data and really compare specific points?
Overall decent for someone that isn't looking to go in to the details.
Basically wait for DC Rainmaker to do a real test.
I've always assumed Garmin estimated calories too high, based on the online calculators I've used that factor in distance, time and weight.
I have a Garmin, but would like to get rid of having to put on the chest strap before every walk/run/workout. So I'm hoping that the Apple Watch behavior is just a early first generation software shortfall, and the WWDC OS updates will improve both the built-in health app, plus what 3rd party apps can do with the raw data. Maybe the HR sample rate will even improve after Apple gets a better handle on battery usage by typical sport customers.
Just completed a 12 mile run with my Garmin 620 and
One other slight problem. When first started I was getting extremely high readings. After a mile I stopped and tightened the strap 1 notch and it fixed the problem. Strange since I thought if too loose it would NOT read.
Now if only Apple offered a way to graph your HR data.
Another oddity (or actually 2) was how inaccurate the distance and calorie burn readings were. This is where I thought Apple would excel and had been working hard on. My
Small world, I also did 12 miles today with the AW and a Garmin 620 w/ HRM run.
Heart rate was surprisingly close as you indicated. This hasn't been the case with other wrist based HRM's I've used, i.e. Fitbit and MS Band. I believe any bluetooth HRM can be paired with the AW, but that may be unnecessary.
The AW gave me 1233 active calories and a couple of hundred resting calories, while the Garmin gave me 1117 calories.
Mileage was identical from both.
I also did go for a run today.
The HR monitor ist pretty solid. Data is very similar to my Bluetooth HR Chest Strap.
The distance was a little bit short. It's a 10km run but the watch only showed me 9.4km. I took an iPhone with me for GPS.
Active Calories is also a little bit low. Runtastic always showed me around 700-800kcal burned during my run. Activity App only shows 460 active calories and 109 resting (569 in total).
Think they will fix some of this issues shortly. It's way better to have all the data on your watch than on your smartphone during a run. So I will continue using the Workout app.
The HR monitor ist pretty solid. Data is very similar to my Bluetooth HR Chest Strap.
The distance was a little bit short. It's a 10km run but the watch only showed me 9.4km. I took an iPhone with me for GPS.
Active Calories is also a little bit low. Runtastic always showed me around 700-800kcal burned during my run. Activity App only shows 460 active calories and 109 resting (569 in total).
Think they will fix some of this issues shortly. It's way better to have all the data on your watch than on your smartphone during a run. So I will continue using the Workout app.
Not really since accurate HR info is basically irrelevant in weight training anyway. I just use my
Watch set to Workout: Other and get Exercise and Move credit.Not really since accurate HR info is basically irrelevant in weight training anyway. I just use my
Why is it irrelevant?
Isn't heart rate still best way you measure calorie output for weightlifting
No for at least 2 reasons:
1) Weight training is largely anaerobic and anaerobic energy/calorie use can't be measured through HR.
2) HR measurements are done by counting heart beats over time to average, this is only accurate with a fairly consistent HR. In weight training your HR fluctuates and is very dynamic going up and down in a few seconds. Therefor you can't get an accurate real time measurement of your HR.
A HR strap is far more accurate than optical because optical suffered from constriction of the arteries and muscles that makes reading difficult.
However the way measuring HR works is you count number of beats for an amount of time. For instance count number of beats for 20 seconds and then multiply by 3 to get the average HR. In weight training your HR can be going up or down during the 'counting' period so it is not accurate.
Again, even if you use an EKG (which doesn't have to average) and know your HR, it is meaningless to the caloric algorithms or for any personal training reasons (unless you have a medical condition).
Why would chest strap monitors have to average?
They can count every heatt beat continuously.
Furthermore, while it wouldn't be accurate for weight training, it would still be better than no information or Apple watch only information.
Because IT IS counting beats and counting takes time. One heart beat is meaningless in knowing your HR since HR is how many beats your heart does in one minute. You have to count heart beats over time and average them to get your average HR per minute.
Go for the HR strap if you want. Remember the only thing that really matters is if you are happy with the product and results.
Because IT IS counting beats and counting takes time. One heart beat is meaningless in knowing your HR since HR is how many beats your heart does in one minute. You have to count heart beats over time and average them to get your average HR per minute.
Go for the HR strap if you want. Remember the only thing that really matters is if you are happy with the product and results.
Of course that's true, but you can calculate moment to moment change in heart rate by just calculating the time between each beat, thereby getting heart rate over shorter periods of time, not once per 20 sec.
I use a Wahoo TICKR chest strap with the Polar App. I found the polar app accurately gives me my net calories burned as it factors in sex, weight age and height. I used my Apple watch to track two cardio workouts on multiple days. I used it for Elliptical and treadmill runs. I found the Apple watch to be low on the elliptical workout as far as calories burned, by about 30 in a 15 minute workout, compared to the Chest Strap. I did a 30 minute treadmill run and the Apple watch as about 50-60 calories higher than the chest strap on the run. The average hear rate was very close on both of them, within a few beats.
I use a few websites to convert avg hear rate, duration, age, sex, weight and height into the average net calories burned for my exercises just to make sure I am as accurate as possbile
I use a few websites to convert avg hear rate, duration, age, sex, weight and height into the average net calories burned for my exercises just to make sure I am as accurate as possbile
Just some additional input...
I think comparing AVG HR between 2 devices hides the real story. By averaging it you might not see the bad data points, and that's my biggest issue with the AW. When it says my HR is in the 200's, or it's not changing quickly enough to show me which zone I'm in based on my exertion level, it's a bit frustrating. With my Garmin or Polar, a quick glance shows me my pace / hr so I can see how I'm faring. With the AW I have to think if I changed my pace recently I need to wait a minute or wonder if the HR is accurate so I'll watch that for a minute to see if it's not changing much. All while trying to swipe through screens to see different things with the glare of the sun, sweaty hands, watching for traffic, on and on.
So while the "Average HR" might be close to a chest strap device, there is more to the story depending upon what you want to use that HR information for. I don't think the AW is going to replace any dedicated Garmin / Polar at this point, and I don't think Apple really even cares about that market. Does anyone at apple even exercise?? I thought they were all too busy...
I think comparing AVG HR between 2 devices hides the real story. By averaging it you might not see the bad data points, and that's my biggest issue with the AW. When it says my HR is in the 200's, or it's not changing quickly enough to show me which zone I'm in based on my exertion level, it's a bit frustrating. With my Garmin or Polar, a quick glance shows me my pace / hr so I can see how I'm faring. With the AW I have to think if I changed my pace recently I need to wait a minute or wonder if the HR is accurate so I'll watch that for a minute to see if it's not changing much. All while trying to swipe through screens to see different things with the glare of the sun, sweaty hands, watching for traffic, on and on.
So while the "Average HR" might be close to a chest strap device, there is more to the story depending upon what you want to use that HR information for. I don't think the AW is going to replace any dedicated Garmin / Polar at this point, and I don't think Apple really even cares about that market. Does anyone at apple even exercise?? I thought they were all too busy...
Actually, if you use one of the Bluetooth LE testing apps in the iOS App Store and know how to decode the raw BLE packet data, you will find that many newer Bluetooth chest strap HRMs measure and report the interval between every heart beat or two to a fraction of a second, and use those measurements to compute and update their HR output nearly continuously and much more accurately than a person simply counting beats over 6, 10 or 15 seconds.
The is extremely valuable when doing exercises such as rapid repeats in HIT or interval training up to some precise percentage of maximal effort.
The Apple Watch will display these heart rate results when in the Workout app with one of these HRMs paired to the Watch via Bluetooth, and update the heart rate display much faster with much less delay than either using the built-in optical sensor, or trying to count beats over several seconds.