Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Heart rate updates after 1.01

The Doctor11 said:
I don't see how people can say Apple made this change for accuracy. Workouts take your pulse the entire time and you're likely moving your arm the entire time.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the specifics, but I think that normally it is the red LED sensor that is used and it isn't as accurate (thus maybe movement makes it unsatisfactory sometimes). Then with an activity, it uses the green LED sensor - but that one also uses more battery so something they don't want to use all the time.

I'm not sure about all that, but it is just my summary from various things I've seen posted. If so, then it explains the issue of accuracy between the two situations.
 
My big concern over the lack of heart rate monitoring is that the activity tracking when not specifically using the Workout App would be less reliable. I want a fitness tracker I can slap on and forget about it. The Workout App should give me extras like GPS/distance, timers, etc. But the calories burned and exercise minutes should be more or less equivalent with and without the workout app for this to be a true fitness tracker. Otherwise the data is pretty much bogus and you can't believe it. If you can't believe it, it's not going to inspire you to work out more. Even if it's not 100% accurate, it should at least be consistent with itself so you can measure and compare your personal activity on it.

So I decided to run some tests on this to see how it performs with and without the Workout App.

Elliptical Machine
  • 28 minute workout without Workout App - 86 calories, 2 minutes on exercise ring
  • 28 minute workout using Workout App (elliptical workout) - 301 calories and quite a few minutes on exercise ring (can't remember exactly but 20+ mins)
Golf
  • ~2.5 hours on driving range without Workout App - 180 calories, 4 minutes on exercise ring
  • 1 hour 47 minutes on driving range using Workout App (other workout) - 727 calories, 112 minutes on exercise ring
Walking (1.0.1)
  • 25 minute walk without Workout app - Total Calories: 147, Exercise minutes: 26 (Note - I glanced at my heart rate after this 25 minute section and saw it hadn't read my heart rate in over 7 hours. So heart rate had nothing to do with this.)
  • 25 minute walk with Workout app enabled (outdoor walk) - Total Calories: 181, Exercise minutes: 24

I also had my wife with me during this walk and she has an Apple Watch with the 1.0.0 software still. Here are her results:

Walking (1.0.0)
  • 25 minute walk without Workout app - Total Calories: 108, Exercise minutes: 24
  • 25 minute walk with Workout app enabled - Total Calories: 100, Exercise minutes: 24

My conclusion is that Apple has done a decent job figuring out calories when steps are the thing it is looking at. But when not taking steps (i.e. elliptical, gardening, golf, or just about any other non-step type workout) it is absolutely horrible at figuring out calorie and exercise count. I mean look at how different the golf and elliptical readings are depending on whether I'm engaging the workout app or not! It's ridiculous!

I would presume that a functioning heart rate monitor would improve on this by increasing your calorie burn and exercise minute count when it notices an elevated heart rate. As is, this is just a fancy pedometer right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: susan12369, Smurphy Gherkin and Night Spring
After 1.0.1, 40 minute walk with heart rate in target range recorded on workout app (Outdoor Walk). Excise credit was 16 minutes. I don't find using Outdoor Walk reliable at all when I look at the credit on my exercise ring.
 
Last edited:
dabigkahuna said:
I'm not sure of the specifics, but I think that normally it is the red LED sensor that is used and it isn't as accurate (thus maybe movement makes it unsatisfactory sometimes). Then with an activity, it uses the green LED sensor - but that one also uses more battery so something they don't want to use all the time.

I'm not sure about all that, but it is just my summary from various things I've seen posted. If so, then it explains the issue of accuracy between the two situations.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I've never seen a red LED on my watch though. Next time I'm still for a while I'll try and take my heart rate and see if it's red.
 
The Doctor11 said:
That's interesting. I've never seen a red LED on my watch though. Next time I'm still for a while I'll try and take my heart rate and see if it's red.
Click to expand...

Looks like my basic point was correct, but wrong in the details (not a red LED):


"Blood is red because it reflects red light and absorbs green light. Apple Watch uses green LED lights paired with light‑sensitive photodiodes to detect the amount of blood flowing through your wrist at any given moment. When your heart beats, the blood flow in your wrist — and the green light absorption — is greater. Between beats, it's less. By flashing its LED lights hundreds of times per second, Apple Watch can calculate the number of times the heart beats each minute — your heart rate.

"The heart rate sensor can also use infrared light. This mode is what Apple Watch uses when it measures your heart rate every 10 minutes. However, if the infrared system isn't providing an adequate reading, Apple Watch switches to the green LEDs. In addition, the heart rate sensor is designed to compensate for low signal levels by increasing both LED brightness and sampling rate."
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Doctor11
millerrh said:
I also had my wife with me during this walk and she has an Apple Watch with the 1.0.0 software still. Here are her results:

Walking (1.0.0)
  • 25 minute walk without Workout app - Total Calories: 108, Exercise minutes: 24
  • 25 minute walk with Workout app enabled - Total Calories: 100, Exercise minutes: 24
Click to expand...

It'd be interesting to see how your wifes watch fared with golf/elliptical just to get a really useful point of comparison. Very interesting results from your watch though, thanks!
 
The watch is measuring movemebt continuously already. It needs to un order to count steps and to show you the time when you raise your wrist. They only need to check whether you've had a HR measurement in the last 10 minutes to trigger another. Battery should be exactly the same as 1.0 checking every 10 minutes if not better.

dabigkahuna said:
Hard to say for sure which is the best approach. If movement is first, you are constantly checking for movement until a time check qualifies - then go right back to constant movement checks. Would certainly work, but could affect the battery more.

If you check time first (and obviously the watch has to keep the time anyway), you avoid any battery drain from measuring movement for 10 minutes at least. At that point, once it shows no movement, it would skip 10 more minutes.

Of course, I have no idea how much battery may be affected by these things, but I think the time check first at least has potential to reduce battery drain.

Regardless of the approach taken, it sure looks like something that should be easy to fix.
Click to expand...
 
millerrh said:
I also had my wife with me during this walk and she has an Apple Watch with the 1.0.0 software still. Here are her results:
Click to expand...

Unless you and your wife have the same physical attributes, you're introducing too many variables for a meaningful comparison with your results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexcue
This new approach from Apple is absolutely BS!
They say that "fitness is not just about running" but every activity counts, like "walking the dog" or "playing with the kids" (see http://www.apple.com/watch/health-and-fitness/). How on earth can these activities can count since 1.0.1 if the heart rate won't be recorded if the arm is in motion. The definition of "activity" is "motion" and when I e.g. play with the kids, my arms are in motion (unless I play chess with them).
 
dabigkahuna said:
I'm not sure of the specifics, but I think that normally it is the red LED sensor that is used and it isn't as accurate (thus maybe movement makes it unsatisfactory sometimes). Then with an activity, it uses the green LED sensor - but that one also uses more battery so something they don't want to use all the time.

I'm not sure about all that, but it is just my summary from various things I've seen posted. If so, then it explains the issue of accuracy between the two situations.
Click to expand...

Do you think it uses the IR all them time to check wrist detection? I wondered how it knew when it was and wasn't on your wrist.
 
Phily said:
This new approach from Apple is absolutely BS!
They say that "fitness is not just about running" but every activity counts, like "walking the dog" or "playing with the kids" (see http://www.apple.com/watch/health-and-fitness/). How on earth can these activities can count since 1.0.1 if the heart rate won't be recorded if the arm is in motion. The definition of "activity" is "motion" and when I e.g. play with the kids, my arms are in motion (unless I play chess with them).
Click to expand...
Gyroscope and accelerometer, it doesn't have to use the HR monitor
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexcue
stoomc said:
Do you think it uses the IR all them time to check wrist detection? I wondered how it knew when it was and wasn't on your wrist.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how it does wrist detection. The info I saw was just about how it checked the heart rate.
 
DarkAether said:
Unless you and your wife have the same physical attributes, you're introducing too many variables for a meaningful comparison with your results.
Click to expand...

No, you're missing the point of what I was doing. I was not comparing my wife's calorie count to mine. I was only comparing her watch to her watch with and without the workout app. So the only variables are whether the workout app was on or not and what OS version each watch was on.
 
SR22pilot said:
After 1.01., 40 minute walk with heart rate in target range recorded on workout app (Outdoor Walk). Excise credit was 16 minutes. I don't find using Outdoor Walk reliable at all when I look at the credit on my exercise ring.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's so frustrating especially since it was working just fine before the update.
 
millerrh said:
My big concern over the lack of heart rate monitoring is that the activity tracking when not specifically using the Workout App would be less reliable. I want a fitness tracker I can slap on and forget about it. The Workout App should give me extras like GPS/distance, timers, etc. But the calories burned and exercise minutes should be more or less equivalent with and without the workout app for this to be a true fitness tracker. Otherwise the data is pretty much bogus and you can't believe it. If you can't believe it, it's not going to inspire you to work out more. Even if it's not 100% accurate, it should at least be consistent with itself so you can measure and compare your personal activity on it.

So I decided to run some tests on this to see how it performs with and without the Workout App.
Click to expand...
Millerrh, I could not agree with your assessment more. I play hockey--something that is not well registered on any of the workout devices because skating doesn't register as steps when gliding unless you put the thing on your skate (where it is likely to get damaged or destroyed with sticks and pucks involved). Before the update, I did not have to use the workout app at all and it would register an appropriate amount of exercise time and move calories. Now, if I don't use the workout app and use other, it literally registers 10 minutes of exercise time and a minimal amount of move calories. Our games are at least an hour and a half with our skating at least half of that time. I hope Apple fixes this.

On a side note, my Apple Watch did recognize that I wasn't "moving" enough in light of the new update and decreased my active calorie goal!!! LOL.
 
Today AW me as having an average HR of 86BPM whilst doing a 1000m row (4mins, Rower mode). Terrible reliability following OS 1.01 and I completely feel like I can't trust what it's telling me.
 
millerrh said:
Their theory is total BS. Any testing like that would be done with prototype software behind the closed doors of Apples testing labs. No way they would release it to the public to test a new algorithm.
Click to expand...

I agree. It would be very unlike Apple to do that. Then again, the whole HR situation is one big head scratcher.
 
This change also renders the HR average in the Health App as useless. It's basically your heart rate when at rest at various times of the day, plus any manual readings or workouts, so you'll never see a realistic average.
 
millerrh said:
My big concern over the lack of heart rate monitoring is that the activity tracking when not specifically using the Workout App would be less reliable. I want a fitness tracker I can slap on and forget about it. The Workout App should give me extras like GPS/distance, timers, etc. But the calories burned and exercise minutes should be more or less equivalent with and without the workout app for this to be a true fitness tracker. Otherwise the data is pretty much bogus and you can't believe it. If you can't believe it, it's not going to inspire you to work out more. Even if it's not 100% accurate, it should at least be consistent with itself so you can measure and compare your personal activity on it.

So I decided to run some tests on this to see how it performs with and without the Workout App.

Elliptical Machine
  • 28 minute workout without Workout App - 86 calories, 2 minutes on exercise ring
  • 28 minute workout using Workout App (elliptical workout) - 301 calories and quite a few minutes on exercise ring (can't remember exactly but 20+ mins)
Golf
  • ~2.5 hours on driving range without Workout App - 180 calories, 4 minutes on exercise ring
  • 1 hour 47 minutes on driving range using Workout App (other workout) - 727 calories, 112 minutes on exercise ring
Walking (1.0.1)
  • 25 minute walk without Workout app - Total Calories: 147, Exercise minutes: 26 (Note - I glanced at my heart rate after this 25 minute section and saw it hadn't read my heart rate in over 7 hours. So heart rate had nothing to do with this.)
  • 25 minute walk with Workout app enabled (outdoor walk) - Total Calories: 181, Exercise minutes: 24

I also had my wife with me during this walk and she has an Apple Watch with the 1.0.0 software still. Here are her results:

Walking (1.0.0)
  • 25 minute walk without Workout app - Total Calories: 108, Exercise minutes: 24
  • 25 minute walk with Workout app enabled - Total Calories: 100, Exercise minutes: 24

My conclusion is that Apple has done a decent job figuring out calories when steps are the thing it is looking at. But when not taking steps (i.e. elliptical, gardening, golf, or just about any other non-step type workout) it is absolutely horrible at figuring out calorie and exercise count. I mean look at how different the golf and elliptical readings are depending on whether I'm engaging the workout app or not! It's ridiculous!

I would presume that a functioning heart rate monitor would improve on this by increasing your calorie burn and exercise minute count when it notices an elevated heart rate. As is, this is just a fancy pedometer right now.
Click to expand...

This. Totally this. If we have to use the Workout app to register any "exercise", then it's not doing its job correctly IMHO. If there are battery-saving benefits to what they've done, give us the option of doing it the old way or the new way. For me, it worked much better before the update.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuppe
I have to say this "updated" functionality of taking a reading every 10 minutes UNLESS your arm is in motion is utter bs.

I am deeply disappointed. I can't actually think of the last time an OS update on any apple device intentionally did away with one of the devices USPs and called it, in fact, a bug. Ridiculous.

In addition, the battery life savings brought about by this change is marginal at best. Maybe an extra hour or two? Definitely nothing notable -- not like it's doubling the battery life. You're still going to be charging every night.
 
fanta88 said:
In addition, the battery life savings brought about by this change is marginal at best. Maybe an extra hour or two? Definitely nothing notable -- not like it's doubling the battery life. You're still going to be charging every night.
Click to expand...

Quite a few of us have seen a decrease in battery life since the update, so I doubt the HR change is improving battery life at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuppe and fanta88
To be fair, I too have seen a decrease in battery life. But I know a lot of folks have seen a slight increase, so I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

In both cases, if the objective was to save battery life I'd say the trade off wasn't worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuppe
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back