Haven't worn mine in weeks...

[exxxviii]

My thought is by putting GPS in the watch and making it more "waterproof", Apple is making an attempt to be a serious sport watch. GPS is a big feature for running/cycling activities and more waterproofing should make it better for swimmers. With these hardware features, my hope is the software will improve enough to make the watch a better option for fitness.

I am very curious about this as well. There are a crapton of GPS-enabled, 5 ATM sport watches that MSRP from $140 to well over $1K. The hardware is pretty much a commodity-- everyone has been doing the same things for years at the hardware level. The leader-maker is the software and integration. Garmin absolutely owns this space. Timex used to, but then Garmin took over and has not let off the gas. I am eager to see what Apple can bring to the table to raise the bar...

 

[kilcher]

I carry my phone when I run too so it wouldn't make a difference to me either. My thought is by putting GPS in the watch and making it more "waterproof", Apple is making an attempt to be a serious sport watch. GPS is a big feature for running/cycling activities and more waterproofing should make it better for swimmers. With these hardware features, my hope is the software will improve enough to make the watch a better option for fitness.

I would hope so but unfortunately if that were the case I think we'd see some articles about Apple "poaching" employees from Fitbit, Garmin, etc. Who knows though...

 

[r0k]

Well my AW is gone! I've given it to my daughter. I hope she can get more use out of it than I did.

The first thing she wanted to try was fitness tracking and I let her know she really needs her phone with her too as the AW has no GPS. I don't think fitness apps are a priority for her so I do expect her to enjoy it.

AW really is a fine product and if I didn't need a dedicated running watch, I'd still be wearing my AW. Under the circumstances it makes more sense to pass it along to someone who can use it than to let it continue to collect dust and go to waste on my nightstand.

Will I buy an AW2 or AW3 when it comes out? I doubt it. While it doesn't have to be "better" or even "as good" as a dedicated running watch to win me back, it at least has to be reliable enough to get me through long practice runs and marathons. For instance, there is the 3 day 10 person, 270+ mile Great Lakes Relay that I know my Garmin could handle but based on my experience, an AW would die during the first 27 mile leg.

 

[BarracksSi]

Well my AW is gone! I've given it to my daughter. I hope she can get more use out of it than I did.

Enjoy (both her and the AW, and you and the Garmin), and I'm not speaking from bitterness or snark.

I've got both an AW and a Garmin 410, and I'm thinking of getting rid of the Garmin for fundamentally the same reason you gave away your AW -- I'm just not making use of its features.

It doesn't have BT, but it's got ANT+, which means I could use it with HR straps, bicycle speed sensors and power meters, running cadence sensors, etc etc. But I never got very deep into cycling or running data, so I never used more than half of its abilities.

I also tried to wear it daily as a regular watch, but it's just too bulky and uncomfortable.

Anyway, I guess my point is, if a gadget doesn't meet one's usage pattern, there's no reason to keep using it. Can't force a square peg into a USB port, after all.

 

[AppleRobert]

My niece runs marathons in three hours, she has an AW and doesn't use anything when running them so ....

 

[exxxviii]

You want to test it? In Garmin Connect, in User Settings, change your NORMAL BED and WAKE times. Set some silly times. Then use your 735XT. See if it is still accurate.

So, to clarify, you are saying that if you throw bad data into an app, that you are disappointed when it gives you bad results? Kind of a funky argument.

That said, you made me curious, so I have been testing it since this post. I have been varying my wake and sleep times in GC by a few hours to see how the app reacts. In most cases it seems to be fine. I am curious what specifically you saw that leads you to believe that the Garmin sleep tracking is uniquely bad in the industry (and how you quantifiably compared it to other devices and apps). The one exception I observed is that GC may use the normal bedtime and wake time as a helper to bound sleep times better (I could not find an explanation from Garmin). For example, if I spend a couple hours on the couch reading before going to bed, the apps have to figure out if this is actually sleep time or something else. With the "hint" of my bedtime it totally nails my actual bedtime every time. I would be pretty freaking impressed if another app could match that without a hint. The Garmin only struggled once with this so far, and that was with the bedtime set much later than my real "normal" bedtime. I suspect that the Garmin would have been perfect every time with every "bad data" test if I were more active up until bedtime.

This test actually made me more impressed with the Garmin's activity features and more frustrated with the AW's limitations.

If the AW2 and wOS3 come through with better activity tracking, specifically better RHR analysis and sleep tracking, I will definitely upgrade. The weeks with the Garmin have definitely proved the value to me. If the AW2 does does not improve in these areas, then I will not upgrade and I will buy either a Garmin or Fitbit tracker to wear alongside my AW during the day.

 

[Thai]

So, to clarify, you are saying that if you throw bad data into an app, that you are disappointed when it gives you bad results? Kind of a funky argument.

That said, you made me curious, so I have been testing it since this post. I have been varying my wake and sleep times in GC by a few hours to see how the app reacts. In most cases it seems to be fine. I am curious what specifically you saw that leads you to believe that the Garmin sleep tracking is uniquely bad in the industry (and how you quantifiably compared it to other devices and apps). The one exception I observed is that GC may use the normal bedtime and wake time as a helper to bound sleep times better (I could not find an explanation from Garmin). For example, if I spend a couple hours on the couch reading before going to bed, the apps have to figure out if this is actually sleep time or something else. With the "hint" of my bedtime it totally nails my actual bedtime every time. I would be pretty freaking impressed if another app could match that without a hint. The Garmin only struggled once with this so far, and that was with the bedtime set much later than my real "normal" bedtime. I suspect that the Garmin would have been perfect every time with every "bad data" test if I were more active up until bedtime.

This test actually made me more impressed with the Garmin's activity features and more frustrated with the AW's limitations.

If the AW2 and wOS3 come through with better activity tracking, specifically better RHR analysis and sleep tracking, I will definitely upgrade. The weeks with the Garmin have definitely proved the value to me. If the AW2 does does not improve in these areas, then I will not upgrade and I will buy either a Garmin or Fitbit tracker to wear alongside my AW during the day.

Yeah, as stated above, these sleep analysis on ALL devices are pretty junky...and based mostly on arm movement. Some may use heart rate analysis to guess when you're sleeping, but none are really that accurate to date from my experience. IMHO, the future will need info: heart rate, arm movement, breathing cycle, and oxygen level to really monitor sleep. Breathing cycle is gonna be hard without extra equipment.

RHR analysis...have you tried Cardiogram or HeartWatch app? They do an excellent job for me. Cardiogram is rumored to come out with sleep analysis in near future...and they are university-based study/effort.

And if you really want detailed heart rhythm analysis...there is Alivecor Apple Watch band that is coming out later this year.

But, it seems like you love Garmin so much and not AW...sell it dude. Why torture yourself with the Apple Watch? Let some other person enjoy your AW. I have had Garmin for a few years...just never cared much about it...but everyone's different with different needs. I sold mine. My kids have it for activity tracker...which is all i want for them.

 

[exxxviii]

Yeah, as stated above, these sleep analysis on ALL devices are pretty junky...and based mostly on arm movement.

This is not what I stated above, and it was not my observation through some testing. Garmin sleep tracking is pretty darn good.

RHR analysis...have you tried Cardiogram or HeartWatch app? They do an excellent job for me.

I have not experimented with any Apple Watch apps yet for RHR or sleep. I am waiting for what Apple will come up with in AW2/wOS3 (or AW3/WOS4). In general, I do not like a lot of (cr)apps on the watch to do stuff that should be unified in a single interface. I have deleted the 3rd party workout apps I tested, because they were generally unstable and no better than Workout.

But, it seems like you love Garmin so much and not AW...sell it dude. Why torture yourself with the Apple Watch?

I like my AW for what it is. Except for this experiment and another earlier period, the AW is my daily wear watch. But, I am also critical of what the Apple Watch is not, and I answer pretty honestly and bluntly (supported with data when available) when someone genuinely asks or comments about how things are. And, when I see claims that contradict other information we can verify, I will point that out as well (such as your off-topic, blanket statement that "Garmin sleep analysis is not good.")

 

[Thai]

This is not what I stated above, and it was not my observation through some testing. Garmin sleep tracking is pretty darn good.

I have not experimented with any Apple Watch apps yet for RHR or sleep. I am waiting for what Apple will come up with in AW2/wOS3 (or AW3/WOS4). In general, I do not like a lot of (cr)apps on the watch to do stuff that should be unified in a single interface. I have deleted the 3rd party workout apps I tested, because they were generally unstable and no better than Workout.

I like my AW for what it is. Except for this experiment and another earlier period, the AW is my daily wear watch. But, I am also critical of what the Apple Watch is not, and I answer pretty honestly and bluntly (supported with data when available) when someone genuinely asks or comments about how things are. And, when I see claims that contradict other information we can verify, I will point that out as well (such as your off-topic, blanket statement that "Garmin sleep analysis is not good.")

If you're waiting for OS3, then i can tell you that sleep analysis is not included in any of the betas so far.

For me, Garmin interface stinks...esp that horrible Connect app!! Who the hell design that app?! Hard to understand and follow. For me, Garmin sleep analysis is like any other sleep analysis...not very analytical nor useful. I have hopes with Cardiogram since that is a large university-driven study/app.

Why are you making blanket statements on all Watch apps if you have not tried specific ones? You seem to do the same thing that you accuse me of. LOL

OK...so, Garmin sucks at what AW is good at...AW sucks at what Garmin is good at. And? Rarely do you find a product that satisfy 100% of its consumer, whether it be automobile, chainsaws, phones, etc..

 

[exxxviii]

OK...so, Garmin sucks at what AW is good at...AW sucks at what Garmin is good at.

For me, Garmin interface stinks...esp that horrible Connect app!! For me, Garmin sleep analysis is like any other sleep analysis...not very analytical nor useful.

So, you can have last post rights after this one... But, your comments above do not seem to follow the prior conversation points. I did not make a blanket statement about all apps by saying that I have not yet experimented with them. It is simply not in the same vein as stating that "Garmin sleep tracking is not good," and then failing to back that statement with any kind of data. I legitimately responded to your post and tried to test your claim. That ought to be just a little bit flattering. And, how did a defense of Garmin's sleep tracking devolve to a conclusion that "Garmin sucks at what AW is good at" and vise versa? I like both. And they have a significant amount of overlap.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Garmin Connect UI sucks. Another friend and I lament that frequently. However, that is totally off topic and somewhat of a diversion. The UI stinks; but the Garmin UI presents data that are very good. The Apple iPhone Activity app UI is even worse. And, the Apple Activity app does not present much useful activity data compared to the Garmin. But that is neither here nor there, and has nothing to do with Garmin's and Apple's performance at sleep tracking (and RHR analysis).

Edit: As a totally unrelated aside, I vehemently agree with you in the other thread about healthcare systems and following doctor advice versus Internet advice for medical care.

 

[Thai]

So, you can have last post rights after this one... But, your comments above do not seem to follow the prior conversation points. I did not make a blanket statement about all apps by saying that I have not yet experimented with them. It is simply not in the same vein as stating that "Garmin sleep tracking is not good," and then failing to back that statement with any kind of data. I legitimately responded to your post and tried to test your claim. That ought to be just a little bit flattering. And, how did a defense of Garmin's sleep tracking devolve to a conclusion that "Garmin sucks at what AW is good at" and vise versa? I like both. And they have a significant amount of overlap.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Garmin Connect UI sucks. Another friend and I lament that frequently. However, that is totally off topic and somewhat of a diversion. The UI stinks; but the Garmin UI presents data that are very good. The Apple iPhone Activity app UI is even worse. And, the Apple Activity app does not present much useful activity data compared to the Garmin. But that is neither here nor there, and has nothing to do with Garmin's and Apple's performance at sleep tracking (and RHR analysis).

And yet, you dismiss my REAL-WORLD data that Garmin sleep tracking sucks. I have used (and still using) Garmin products for past 3 years. Yet, you claim that i do not have data to back it up. WTF?!

Flattering because you "tested" what i wrote? Dude, you have a complex. You are a random internet guy (aka nobody). I am the same random internet guy. LOL...me flattered?! That's pretty darn funny...you got issues!

For me, Activity and Health app are good...far easier to read and use than Garmin Connect. Yet, my opinion does not count? Yours does? Because how again?

 

[username:]

This is a weird thread title... "Haven't worn mine in weeks" seems like clickbait, but then the thread is just a sensible guy talking about all the marathons he runs. Should have called it "AW not working for marathon training" or something to be more helpful.

 

[MrMoonUK]

The Apple watch isn't even accurate on the distances, with and without the phone, I ran a IAAF Bronze 10km race recently (being IAAF i know it was a measured 10km course). The apple watch recorded 11.4KM, the Garmin came in at 10.01KM, thats absolutely rubbish from Apple. Oh and before any fanboys jump on this, yes the apple watch has been calibrated many times and it doesn't fix the crappy distance.

If you're a runner or serious about fitness Garmin is 1000x better than AW, its ok in the gym but if you want any kind of data just give up on AW.

 

[Julien]

The Apple watch isn't even accurate on the distances, with and without the phone, I ran a IAAF Bronze 10km race recently (being IAAF i know it was a measured 10km course). The apple watch recorded 11.4KM, the Garmin came in at 10.01KM, thats absolutely rubbish from Apple. Oh and before any fanboys jump on this, yes the apple watch has been calibrated many times and it doesn't fix the crappy distance.

If you're a runner or serious about fitness Garmin is 1000x better than AW, its ok in the gym but if you want any kind of data just give up on AW.

Not being fanboyish but with the iPhone the distance can be very accurate. Here is a recent 10K and a 5K as proof.

 

[wx4olf]

Not being fanboyish but with the iPhone the distance can be very accurate. Here is a recent 10K and a 5K as proof.

Same here - no issues with the distance when the watch is using the iPhones GPS.

Unrelated side note - Looks like that was the Peachtree Road Race. I just happen to live near the finish in midtown myself.

 

[Julien]

...Unrelated side note - Looks like that was the Peachtree Road Race. I just happen to live near the finish in midtown myself.

Yes, me and my closest 60,000 friends. My 12th year in a row and 11 in time group A. Also have made my qualifying time (in the Vining's 5K shown also) for time group A again for next year. They have increased the qualifying standards so much so not sure about 2018 but wasn't sure about next year until I did it.

Do you run it?

 

[PatrickNSF]

Not being fanboyish but with the iPhone the distance can be very accurate. Here is a recent 10K and a 5K as proof.

It seems that at that some point during the firmware updates, the Watch started using the phone's GPS for all (most?) runs. Last year when I was finding significant inaccuracies, I believe the Watch only used the phone's GPS for initial calibration, and then estimated distance based on these calibrations...even when the phone was present.

For the few times I ran with the Watch (using the watchOS 3 beta) and my Garmin the distances were close enough for my needs, though I get better pacing information using the Garmin.

 

[exxxviii]

It seems that at that some point during the firmware updates, the Watch started using the phone's GPS for all (most?) runs. Last year when I was finding significant inaccuracies, I believe the Watch only used the phone's GPS for initial calibration, and then estimated distance based on these calibrations...even when the phone was present.

For the few times I ran with the Watch (using the watchOS 3 beta) and my Garmin the distances were close enough for my needs, though I get better pacing information using the Garmin.

Yes, I specifically remember the change as well. I think it was 2.0 or 2.1. It has been a while, though. If you run with your iPhone, the AW will be within a couple tenths of a GPS watch. I think the standard deviation is still around a tenth of a mile on the AW, while a GPS watch is within 0.01 miles. I looked at statistically last year or early this year, but memory has faded since then.

 

[wx4olf]

Yes, me and my closest 60,000 friends. My 12th year in a row and 11 in time group A. Also have made my qualifying time (in the Vining's 5K shown also) for time group A again for next year. They have increased the qualifying standards so much so not sure about 2018 but wasn't sure about next year until I did it.

Do you run it?

Afraid not. Strained my left MCL in the spring with some overzealous marathon training (thread related - used the Apple Watch for all the training runs) and was just able to start back running in late June. Looking forward to running it next year through. With any luck I should be able to pick up the A group standard later this year as my fitness starts coming back around.

 

[r0k]

Well my AW is gone! I've given it to my daughter. I hope she can get more use out of it than I did.

Enjoy (both her and the AW, and you and the Garmin), and I'm not speaking from bitterness or snark.

I've got both an AW and a Garmin 410, and I'm thinking of getting rid of the Garmin for fundamentally the same reason you gave away your AW -- I'm just not making use of its features.

It doesn't have BT, but it's got ANT+, which means I could use it with HR straps, bicycle speed sensors and power meters, running cadence sensors, etc etc. But I never got very deep into cycling or running data, so I never used more than half of its abilities.

I also tried to wear it daily as a regular watch, but it's just too bulky and uncomfortable.

Anyway, I guess my point is, if a gadget doesn't meet one's usage pattern, there's no reason to keep using it. Can't force a square peg into a USB port, after all.

Actually ANT is one of the things that upsets me about my Garmin. It auto-pairs with whatever foot pod it sees and my cadence is often pretty messed up in larger races. For instance, this past weekend running with a group of 10,000+ runners in a 10 mile race, I didn't get the usual interruption saying "foot pod connected" just because I ran too close to some guy wearing foot pods. This is normally something that happens in larger races. It's an annoyance but I live with it. I spoke with Garmin support on this issue and they seemed to indicate this is the way it's supposed to work. To make it "easy", the watch accepts input from whatever ANT device it happens to pick up.

As for bulky and uncomfortable, I'm with you on that one. My FR 235 is big. It's bigger than my AW was and it's not that much easier to see except that the display is always on and I don't have to do a "wrist raise" gesture to get the thing to light up. I should add that my Garmin's backlight rarely comes on while the AW is useless unless its backlight comes on. Also, to be fair, I have not bothered with Watch OS 3 beta. For all I know it could be a LOT better than what I was dealing with on AWOS 2. For me the "AW is useless for my main needs" ship had sailed long before AWOS 3 became available. I think the last nail in the coffin was that third party app that claimed to be able to mine my heart rate data out of health and export it to a CSV file. It provided a jumbled list of random measurements for me to go off and do my own math. No thanks. If I picked a range longer than a few days the app hung as it couldn't cope with such a "huge amount of data." No thanks squared.

Now that my daughter has my AW, I'm not finding I miss it. There are some things I'm glad to be rid of...
1) confusing haptics - I never quite got used to the haptics and I would bump my wrist during the day and mistake that for one of the haptics
2) wrist raise, shake, raise again, shake again, tap, TAP, TAPPITY-EFF-ING TAP to get the display to light up.
3) battery life - one day is not enough
4) special charger - Garmin has this issue as well but I can get by for 3 or 4 days without charging so it's not in my face as much as it is with AW

There are some things I will miss...
1) ability to see caller id on my watch (Garmin can do this but I have it switched off to avoid being distracted during runs)
2) ability to reply to texts from the watch either by picking from canned responses or using Siri
3) the SWEET weather app clock hours display of rain percentages (dark sky has something as useful but I must dig for my phone to use it)
4) Ability to see data "at a glance" via watch-face complications, Garmin has watch faces available but I haven't bothered downloading any of them.

My niece runs marathons in three hours, she has an AW and doesn't use anything when running them so ....

I wish I could run a marathon in three hours! I would still need some other missing features before I could go back to using AW for running even if battery life wasn't an issue. For instance, when the AW battery died, why didn't the running app on the phone save the run?!? I'm sure if I spent some time on this issue, I could come up with a solution that resulted in keeping my data after long runs.

But there are other important missing features...
1) Hardware stop start button
2) Hardware lap button
3) Lock the screen during a useful running app (not just Apple's workout app)
4) Export to Garmin Connect and the ability to export to other services without resorting to third party software

That last point is a huge missed opportunity for Apple. Apple could get data from AW to iPhone seamlessly but they don't make that data easily available on the web. Garmin is clunky getting data over to my phone but once the data hits the phone, it's on the web and a few seconds after that my coach can see it. Garmin has all sort of clunkly limitations. They won't let you create an interval workout either on your watch or on your phone but only on the web. I'm sure Apple could figure out how to get around this sort of limitation but alas Apple doesn't appear to even be thinking about competing in this area. To Apple it seems to be enough to be able to throw around the words "fitness" and "health" and leave the heavy lifting to their competitors.

 

[liquidsuns]

I noticed something interesting yesterday. I wasn't wearing my watch while lifting weights but I was using Gymaholic on my phone. The app records the calories and exercise time into Health. The watch then displayed those metrics in the Activity app and it counted toward the rings.

So I'm guessing this means you can use any device (such as a more specialized running watch) and as long as it throws its metrics into the health app, the watch will read that data and apply it towards activity rings.

Edit: I'm running iOS 10 and watchOS 3.

 

[exxxviii]

I wasn't wearing my watch while lifting weights but I was using Gymaholic on my phone. The app records the calories and exercise time into Health. The watch then displayed those metrics in the Activity app and it counted toward the rings...I'm running iOS 10 and watchOS 3.

Yeah, it looks like iOS10/wOS3 give bi-directional activity data movement from the phone to watch.

 

[PatrickNSF]

I noticed something interesting yesterday. I wasn't wearing my watch while lifting weights but I was using Gymaholic on my phone. The app records the calories and exercise time into Health. The watch then displayed those metrics in the Activity app and it counted toward the rings.

So I'm guessing this means you can use any device (such as a more specialized running watch) and as long as it throws its metrics into the health app, the watch will read that data and apply it towards activity rings.

Edit: I'm running iOS 10 and watchOS 3.

I've had Garmin activity effect the Exercise ring, but not the Move (calories) ring using the watchOS and iOS betas.

 

[tejaykay]

I've had Garmin activity effect the Exercise ring, but not the Move (calories) ring using the watchOS and iOS betas.

I've been quietly watching this thread for a while - thanks chaps. I'm a triathlete with an emphasis on cycling (e.g. sprints, Olympic distances and long bike rides). I use a Garmin Edge 800 on the bike, and a 735xt on the wrist. I've been toying with purchasing the AW2. My ideal use case would be seamless data integration between the AW and 735xt. Nothing can replace a cycling head unit.

I admit the Garmin Connect app is truly a UI and functionality disaster, but the data it collects and long term trends it displays during training periods is excellent. My one gripe is that I still find the 735xt a little unsexy, despite it being a huge improvement on the 920xt. It still does not look right in a work setting (City of London). The AW has just about become acceptable with a suit, but I'm only willing to go there if the data captured is well integrated with my Garmin data, e.g. all day HR and steps at a minimum. How do you find this to be, existing Garmin and AW users?

As a final footnote, I'd love to be able to go away on short breaks with just the AW if it has a GPS and pool length tracking (I can always pop it in a swim hat for open water swims for accurate distances). Here's to hoping!

What do you athletes prefer to wear as an 'all day' watch?

 

[Julien]

...What do you athletes prefer to wear as an 'all day' watch?

I wear my Watch all day as a general health and fitness tracker. I wear my Garmin also when doing any cardio. I keep the data segregated and Garmin is for all cardio workout data only.