Health Apple Watch Questions

[theBigD23]

Couple of questions:

1. In the Health app, I have on the dashboard Steps, Walking+Running Distance, Flights Climbed, and Heart Rate. My question is that all of the sections are red, but Heart Rate is grey. Is there a reason for this?
2. Is there a way to get Resting Heart Rate?

 

[Blujelly]

1. In the Health app, I have on the dashboard Steps, Walking+Running Distance, Flights Climbed, and Heart Rate. My question is that all of the sections are red, but Heart Rate is grey. Is there a reason for this?

it's just the color they chose for it, for example sleep is purple.

1. Is there a way to get Resting Heart Rate?

Not a clue, cant remember what the Apple Watch takes. Unless you had a 3rd party device/app that can write data to the health kit app.

 

[exxxviii]

I do not know about Q1 (I rarely use Health).

For Q2, you can find your lowest HR, but it may not be your resting HR. Select Health Data->Vitals->Heart Rate->Show All Data to get to your detail HR data. It will show you the daily highs and lows. But there are at least three potential problems.

First, resting HR is something you want to capture when your body is truly at a restful state. If you do not happen to be wearing your watch at those times, then you will miss the measurement opportunity.

Second, the watch only captures readings every 10 minutes, so it is very likely that it will miss a true resting low point reading.

Third, because it only captures every 10 minutes, the watch and Health do not have sufficient data to filter out anomalous readings. For example, when I click into the detail of my data, I can find a low reading in the low 40s that is book-ended by readings in the high 80s on either side of it. Those other readings are 10 minutes apart, so it is possible that the interim was just an error. Or, I could have been active, rested enough to get to the low, and then regained activity.

Compounding this is that if you do any kind of workout, it dumps so much HR data into the Health App that there is no easy way to find a low and visually inspect it to decide for yourself if it is an accurate reading or an anomaly.

Until the AW is capable of continuous HR readings, I do not think it is a reliable source of resting HR. But, if you just want to know a possible lowest HR, then it is OK.

Example 1: On 3/1, my AW recorded the day's low of 46 BPM at 7:05 AM, about 15 minutes after I put on my watch after finishing my morning routine. My 6:63 AM reading was 67 BPM and my 7:14 AM reading was 92. The 46 BPM reading is unlikely and probably an anomaly.

Example 2: The watch recorded a low of 34 BPM on 1/31 at 4:20 PM. The prior reading at 4:11 was 64, and the following reading at 4:30 was 83. All of the readings on either side were higher. It is unlikely that the 34 BPM reading was accurate.

 

[zhenya]

I use my AW to monitor my resting HR and have found it works pretty reliably. I don't trust its data 100% but in the context of everything else I know I have going on, I can tell whether it seems realistic or not, and can use it as another data point to help me verify how I'm feeling each day, and specifically, whether I'm recovered and rested enough to do my scheduled workouts for the day or if I need to consider altering my plans. After several months of daily monitoring (I wear the watch overnight as I find this gives me the best results) my resting HR is typically the same almost every day, 2-4 beats lower when I am extremely well rested, and 2-6 beats higher when I am tired, sick, or getting sick. It's been an extremely useful tool for me during this training cycle.

Even the new Garmin 235 which now does 'all-day' HR monitoring actually only does it rather periodically, and according to tests I've read, it can be even less frequent than every 10 minutes, sometimes significantly so.

 

[exxxviii]

I wear the watch overnight as I find this gives me the best results...

Even the new Garmin 235 which now does 'all-day' HR monitoring actually only does it rather periodically, and according to tests I've read, it can be even less frequent than every 10 minutes, sometimes significantly so.

The former is the secret sauce to getting good resting HR data: wearing it while sleeping so it is on when you first wake and captures those early readings.

I think the Fitbit does this best. It captures continuous readings, and their app stack has software that analyzes the detail data and finds your likely resting HR data and simply presents it to you. It may not be perfect, but I think it is the best solution out there right now.

 

[zhenya]

The former is the secret sauce to getting good resting HR data: wearing it while sleeping so it is on when you first wake and captures those early readings.

I think the Fitbit does this best. It captures continuous readings, and their app stack has software that analyzes the detail data and finds your likely resting HR data and simply presents it to you. It may not be perfect, but I think it is the best solution out there right now.

The problem with Fitbit is that they pass your HR data through some proprietary algorithm to 'interpret' what your resting HR is which is almost always higher than the individual readings people who have tracked this data before are used to getting. Perhaps it's accurate in its own way (we are really more interested in trends than in the specific numbers) but I'd prefer they just give me the actual numbers to work with.

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/02/understanding-continual-optical.html

 

[exxxviii]

Great article. Maybe Fitbit is not the best. I would still trust it more than the AW, just based on the obvious errors I can find in the AW data and presentation. But, I would prefer the Basis or Garmin numbers to FB. I would still rate AW dead last in terms of reliably getting a resting HR.

On the other hand, maybe FB is smarter than the others. If there is the possibly anomalous readings in all the other devices like with the AW, then maybe Garmin and Basis have a higher risk of erroneous data and presenting readings that are too low. One of DCR's weaknesses in his reviews is that he is not a statistician or data analytic guy. So, that leads him to some false conclusions when he rates something based on an N of 1 when numbers are involved.

 

[BlueMoon63]

I do not know about Q1 (I rarely use Health).

For Q2, you can find your lowest HR, but it may not be your resting HR. Select Health Data->Vitals->Heart Rate->Show All Data to get to your detail HR data. It will show you the daily highs and lows. But there are at least three potential problems.

First, resting HR is something you want to capture when your body is truly at a restful state. If you do not happen to be wearing your watch at those times, then you will miss the measurement opportunity.

Second, the watch only captures readings every 10 minutes, so it is very likely that it will miss a true resting low point reading.

Third, because it only captures every 10 minutes, the watch and Health do not have sufficient data to filter out anomalous readings. For example, when I click into the detail of my data, I can find a low reading in the low 40s that is book-ended by readings in the high 80s on either side of it. Those other readings are 10 minutes apart, so it is possible that the interim was just an error. Or, I could have been active, rested enough to get to the low, and then regained activity.

Compounding this is that if you do any kind of workout, it dumps so much HR data into the Health App that there is no easy way to find a low and visually inspect it to decide for yourself if it is an accurate reading or an anomaly.

Until the AW is capable of continuous HR readings, I do not think it is a reliable source of resting HR. But, if you just want to know a possible lowest HR, then it is OK.

Example 1: On 3/1, my AW recorded the day's low of 46 BPM at 7:05 AM, about 15 minutes after I put on my watch after finishing my morning routine. My 6:63 AM reading was 67 BPM and my 7:14 AM reading was 92. The 46 BPM reading is unlikely and probably an anomaly.

Example 2: The watch recorded a low of 34 BPM on 1/31 at 4:20 PM. The prior reading at 4:11 was 64, and the following reading at 4:30 was 83. All of the readings on either side were higher. It is unlikely that the 34 BPM reading was accurate.

Resting HR of 34? You are one fit dude.

From my experience, if you sit without moving it will read your HR. However, you could have been moving for awhile and sit down and a minute later it reads your pulse. I didn't think it needed you to sit down and stop moving for 10 minutes before it would start. It wants to read every 10 minutes but if you are moving it will take your pulse soon after. Also, check all your sources for heart rate data. Apps like HeartWatch are adding data points. I get readings every few minutes now without the exercise app.

 

[exxxviii]

Resting HR of 34? You are one fit dude.

From my experience, if you sit without moving it will read your HR. However, you could have been moving for awhile and sit down and a minute later it reads your pulse. I didn't think it needed you to sit down and stop moving for 10 minutes before it would start. It wants to read every 10 minutes but if you are moving it will take your pulse soon after. Also, check all your sources for heart rate data. Apps like HeartWatch are adding data points. I get readings every few minutes now without the exercise app.

If I keep exercising, I am convinced that I will achieve a resting HR of 0.

Your analysis of the timing of HR readings is what I have observed as well. The watch will attempt to read HR every 10 minutes, but it might delay if it detects movement. And, the erroneous low readings I have seen are all from the watch. My other HR devices are there in Health, but only for workouts with higher heart rates.

 

[BarracksSi]

Apple Health isn't only an app, it's also a data depository (or 'repository', in coder terms).

Want a different presentation of the data? There's an app for that, then. I think there's a bunch. I'm trying one called Heart Analyzer.

 

[exxxviii]

Yep, "there's an app for that." But, slipping my Apple critic hat back on, I find it a bit insulting to spend $400 for a watch that advertises activity tracking features, yet it is generations behind the market out of the box. Apple didn't just phone in the software. Apple completely abdicated. As a result, I need to search and find micro apps (mix of pay and free) that sort of make up the gaps. But it is really a jumble of junk apps on my watch and phone that kind of piece together what Fitbit, Garmin, Basis, Microsoft, etc. can do out of the box in single, clean, unified app stack. And by "out of the box," I am talking about a $100 product from any of them that vastly out-performs the $400 AW.

This is the crap that I really hope Apple fixes in the future.

So, when someone asks "is there a way to get resting heart rate," I want to scream "no, the AW's supporting software is a total, inexcusable piece of crap. Run away!"

Apple Health is a greasy aborted turd. A big wet mess.

 

[jbachandouris]

Yep, "there's an app for that." But, slipping my Apple critic hat back on, I find it a bit insulting to spend $400 for a watch that advertises activity tracking features, yet it is generations behind the market out of the box. Apple didn't just phone in the software. Apple completely abdicated. As a result, I need to search and find micro apps (mix of pay and free) that sort of make up the gaps. But it is really a jumble of junk apps on my watch and phone that kind of piece together what Fitbit, Garmin, Basis, Microsoft, etc. can do out of the box in single, clean, unified app stack. And by "out of the box," I am talking about a $100 product from any of them that vastly out-performs the $400 AW.

This is the crap that I really hope Apple fixes in the future.

So, when someone asks "is there a way to get resting heart rate," I want to scream "no, the AW's supporting software is a total, inexcusable piece of crap. Run away!"

Apple Health is a greasy aborted turd. A big wet mess.

I'd love to disagree with you, but I can't. I went and bought a Garmin GPS watch since Apple Watch just wasn't cutting it for fitness.

 

[BarracksSi]

Oh, you're welcome, by the way.

 

[BlueMoon63]

Yep, "there's an app for that." But, slipping my Apple critic hat back on, I find it a bit insulting to spend $400 for a watch that advertises activity tracking features, yet it is generations behind the market out of the box. Apple didn't just phone in the software. Apple completely abdicated. As a result, I need to search and find micro apps (mix of pay and free) that sort of make up the gaps. But it is really a jumble of junk apps on my watch and phone that kind of piece together what Fitbit, Garmin, Basis, Microsoft, etc. can do out of the box in single, clean, unified app stack. And by "out of the box," I am talking about a $100 product from any of them that vastly out-performs the $400 AW.

This is the crap that I really hope Apple fixes in the future.

So, when someone asks "is there a way to get resting heart rate," I want to scream "no, the AW's supporting software is a total, inexcusable piece of crap. Run away!"

Apple Health is a greasy aborted turd. A big wet mess.

I love your posts and mostly try to defend Apple but you are right way too much.

Apple had so many press releases of all these fitness hires they made and if the product they have now is the result of those hires, we are in trouble. Maybe gen 2 will be better at converting the fitness first group.

I will defend and say this is gen 1 and it is generations behind dedicated fitness devices. Are their better devices that do everything the Apple Watch does? Samsung, Motorola, etc. I don't know.

I want one device that does it all and at least "ok". The Apple Watch just looks good and meets my above average fitness needs. I just love running with only the watch and Bluetooth headphones.

 

[exxxviii]

I want one device that does it all and at least "ok". The Apple Watch just looks good and meets my above average fitness needs. I just love running with only the watch and Bluetooth headphones.

My world is kind of a mess. But I like it...

• I run with the AW and my Garmin because I want credit in my Activity rings.
• On long runs I carry my phone along with the AW and Garmin so can be trackable or make a phone call if I have an injury.
• I still have my Fitbit and use that for social connections and challenges.
  
• I sync my Garmin into my Fitbit to ensure I get full step credit there.
• I ride my bike outside with my Garmin, AW, and a bike computer. And I also carry my phone for emergencies or mapping.
• I ride indoors with an iPhone app that connects to my trainer, and my Garmin, and the AW.
• I sync everything I can into Strava for analysis and fitness social connections and challenges.
• I swim with just my lonely Garmin.

 

[BlueMoon63]

My world is kind of a mess. But I like it...

• I run with the AW and my Garmin because I want credit in my Activity rings.
• On long runs I carry my phone along with the AW and Garmin so can be trackable or make a phone call if I have an injury.
• I still have my Fitbit and use that for social connections and challenges.
  
• I sync my Garmin into my Fitbit to ensure I get full step credit there.
• I ride my bike outside with my Garmin, AW, and a bike computer. And I also carry my phone for emergencies or mapping.
• I ride indoors with an iPhone app that connects to my trainer, and my Garmin, and the AW.
• I sync everything I can into Strava for analysis and fitness social connections and challenges.
• I swim with just my lonely Garmin.

I'm tired just reading that and this comes from a pretty fit guy. Maybe one day Apple will be good enough to replace your Garmin but I doubt it. You are not a mess. Obsessive fitness people succeed.

 

[iRondi]

I am pending Apple Watch, but I want to clarify something in this thread. Is there a way to get a heart rate in real time, as in like a manual test rather than a 10 minute compilation? Unsure if I am asking this question right. I have SVT (will eventually have heart ablation to correct) and sometimes need to know my actual heart rate in the moment. Right now, I use an app on my iPhone. The highest my iPhone has ever measured is something like 190 but a few times I've had to go to hospital to get adenosine to get heart rate normal and hospital monitors say 230, so I don't know how accurate the iPhone heart rate apps are (plus, it's hard to hold finger over camera whilst I am actively trying to lower heart rate via yoga poses, ice water plunges, etc...which sometimes prevents trip to ER).

I can buy a $15 fingertip device. I was actually looking to do this about a month ago when I started thinking about getting a fitness type device which measures heart rate -- and then I started thinking if I am going to pay $150-200 for something like that, I might as well pay a bit more for Apple Watch. From $15 to Apple Watch.

 

[exxxviii]

Yes. There is a Heart Rate "glance" app that will show you your heart rate in real-time when you open the app. It takes about 10 seconds to get a reading , and then it will keep the display up for another 15 seconds or so and give you your HR updates during that time. It also records those readings in Apple Health.

So, if you were wearing the watch and wanted to know your HR, you raise your wrist, swipe up to get to the glances, and select the HR glance. Then, just watch the screen for a few seconds until your HR pops up.

 

[coffeemadmanUK]

I love your posts and mostly try to defend Apple but you are right way too much.

Apple had so many press releases of all these fitness hires they made and if the product they have now is the result of those hires, we are in trouble. Maybe gen 2 will be better at converting the fitness first group.

I will defend and say this is gen 1 and it is generations behind dedicated fitness devices. Are their better devices that do everything the Apple Watch does? Samsung, Motorola, etc. I don't know.

I want one device that does it all and at least "ok". The Apple Watch just looks good and meets my above average fitness needs. I just love running with only the watch and Bluetooth headphones.

For me the main issue actually has nothing to do with the hardware. I'll accept that will change and might not be perfect at first.

For me its a software thing. Apple Health should be a useable app that can reasonably display and interpret the data it holds. Particularly when I'm paying nearly £400 for a product like the Apple Watch. Generation 1 has nothing to do with this. The hardware can track all that I currently want or need. But it just spews it into a graph that means nothing to me.

If they have a tonne of fitness hires then please stick a couple of app developers with them and come up with some information on what it actually means - give me hints, reminders, nudge me in certain areas to improve my health and wellbeing. Be my "personal trainer".

 

[BarracksSi]

If they have a tonne of fitness hires then please stick a couple of app developers with them and come up with some information on what it actually means - give me hints, reminders, nudge me in certain areas to improve my health and wellbeing. Be my "personal trainer".

So, the next question would be: What do you want to do better? Run longer? Sprint faster? Lift more? If you want to build muscle, are you going for power or aesthetics? Do you just need to slim down? Are you at risk of diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc?

These are all different goals, and the paths to achieve them are different, too.

This gets into deciding how complicated the Health, Workout, and Activity apps should be. I started a thread asking this question, and at the time, we figured it was best to let other developers write specialized apps focusing on whichever areas they choose.

Don't forget, too, that the Health app exists mainly to manage a huge variety of data. It's up to the developers to create more uses.

 

[coffeemadmanUK]

So, the next question would be: What do you want to do better? Run longer? Sprint faster? Lift more? If you want to build muscle, are you going for power or aesthetics? Do you just need to slim down? Are you at risk of diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc?

These are all different goals, and the paths to achieve them are different, too.

This gets into deciding how complicated the Health, Workout, and Activity apps should be. I started a thread asking this question, and at the time, we figured it was best to let other developers write specialized apps focusing on whichever areas they choose.

Don't forget, too, that the Health app exists mainly to manage a huge variety of data. It's up to the developers to create more uses.

I know why the Health App exists I'm saying it should exist to do more now that they have a health/fitness device. Microsoft did the same thing when they released the Microsoft Band.

With regards to your first point - plenty of fitness and health apps (and by plenty I mean literally all other fitness apps) manage to provide tips, advice, pointers etc on a whole range of common issues - making sure you walk the right amount, exercise the right amount, have a normal heart rate, eating enough calories, lowering sugar consumption, having a higher fibre intake etc.

I cannot believe that it is beyond the realms of possibility for Apple to do this too.

 

[BarracksSi]

So, then --

Why should Apple have to do it -- and make their app more complicated, and potentially intimidating for beginners -- when so many third parties take care of the rest?

 

[exxxviii]

Why should Apple have to do it -- and make their app more complicated, and potentially intimidating for beginners -- when so many third parties take care of the rest?

Because these missing features are table stakes and essential to a complete product. Fitbit, Microsoft, Nike, Garmin, Jawbone, and others figured out a way to develop complete software solutions that are intuitive and not intimidating to beginners. Apple simply abdicated here.

 

[zhenya]

Because these missing features are table stakes and essential to a complete product. Fitbit, Microsoft, Nike, Garmin, Jawbone, and others figured out a way to develop complete software solutions that are intuitive and not intimidating to beginners. Apple simply abdicated here.

None of those companies have a platform on which 3rd parties can (or would be willing to) build upon though. They have no choice but to build a complete software environment because without it they have no product. The AW is different in that it comes with the biggest software development platform in the world built-in. Yes, Apple should definitely do more, but this is 100% typical Apple. Release a product with the foundation in place but the overall product feeling somewhat incomplete in order to remain relatively simple enough to use. The gaps will continue to be filled in by both Apple and 3rd parties.

 

[exxxviii]

None of those companies have a platform on which 3rd parties can (or would be willing to) build upon though. They have no choice but to build a complete software environment because without it they have no product. The AW is different in that it comes with the biggest software development platform in the world built-in. Yes, Apple should definitely do more, but this is 100% typical Apple. Release a product with the foundation in place but the overall product feeling somewhat incomplete in order to remain relatively simple enough to use. The gaps will continue to be filled in by both Apple and 3rd parties.

I see this as analogous to if Apple had released the iPhone without a contact database or without an email app. Any defense of Apple back then saying that "someone will build it" would have looked pretty silly. The product would simply have been judged incomplete and not ready for the market. Similarly, the current AW software is lacking a number of core activity tracker features that are necessary for a fully functional product.

The "there will be an app for that" defense is espousing one of the most complex and inefficient environments I could possibly imagine-- a collection of about a dozen point apps, one for each missing AW feature (resting hear rate, sleep tracking, calorie consumption relative to intake, activity trending and analysis, weight trending, etc.). Every one of these app developers wants money, so the apps would either be pay apps, burdened with pop-ups, or limited unless pay a subscription to get their "premium" features.

My former employer offered activity trackers to employees something like 7 or 8 years ago as part of reducing health insurance costs. They were physically crude compared to today's devices, and they had a USB port on the side to sync. But the supporting software was far more robust than what Apple offers today for the AW. We loved them. The supporting software for activity tracking devices is mature and Apple just chose to short its AW customers by abdicating any effort to provide state-of-the-market features.

Doesn't it strike you as just a little bit crazy that every other activity tracker maker treats their device and supporting software as a holistic package, and you can get it it all with a $100 product (or less). Meanwhile, Apple's $400 watch is missing most of this and some people defend the gaps as being a good thing?