Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,249
16,090



Apple Watch tracks your movement and heart rate. It uses that information in conjunction with your gender, height, age, and weight to estimate how many calories you burn during daily movement, including light strolls and dedicated workouts.

However, Apple Watch needs proper calibration to get the most accurate reading of your movement and heart rate, which is used to help determine distance and pace measurements when you are walking or running without your iPhone, or while using a treadmill.

Screenshot-281-800x460.png
Calibration is fairly easy and takes about 20 minutes of exercise. For this purpose, you will need both your iPhone and your Apple Watch. After calibrating, you won't need to bring your iPhone on walks or runs anymore.


Click here to read more...

Article Link: How to Calibrate Apple Watch for a More Accurate Offline Workout
 

Sethp

macrumors member
Apr 3, 2010
70
6
I did an outdoor walk this weekend and was surprised that you could calibrate it and then run without the phone.

No I haven't read any manuals :)
 
Comment

DavidTheExpert

macrumors regular
Apr 20, 2012
199
349
Could you please write an article on how to tell the time? I'm a little bit confused what all the numbers mean.
 
Comment

Costino1

macrumors 6502a
Oct 1, 2012
728
620
What's a manual? Apple products come with instruction books now?

-tongue in cheek
 
Comment

Benjamin Frost

Suspended
May 9, 2015
2,405
5,000
London, England
I use Walkmeter on my iPhone, which shows my route on a map using different colours for my pace and speed. It's useful to see where I was faster and slower.

Can the Apple Watch do this? Didn't think so.

In addition, a phone in a trouser pocket will be more accurate for steps than a watch on the arm, as the arm will record many more false steps due to the difficulty of interpreting arm movements. Our hips are much more stable, and are therefore that much easier to interpret a step with.
 
Comment

abuskeletor

macrumors regular
Apr 20, 2015
102
0
United States
I use Walkmeter on my iPhone, which shows my route on a map using different colours for my pace and speed. It's useful to see where I was faster and slower.

Can the Apple Watch do this? Didn't think so.

In addition, a phone in a trouser pocket will be more accurate for steps than a watch on the arm, as the arm will record many more false steps due to the difficulty of interpreting arm movements. Our hips are much more stable, and are therefore that much easier to interpret a step with.

Your hips don't lie?
 
Comment

alangrehan

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2008
172
12
As a runner I have to say that this is a waste of time. If you want to track your running buy a low end Garmin Forerunner for a third of the price. Far more accurate tracking. Battery life better. Syncs to Garmin connect or strava which in turn syncs with Aples health app.

If running is a secondary concern then consider the Apple watch. If you're anyway serious about running then look at a Garmin until there is a GPS chip in a future version of the Apple watch.
 
Comment

inscrewtable

macrumors 68000
Oct 9, 2010
1,637
392
I use Walkmeter on my iPhone, which shows my route on a map using different colours for my pace and speed. It's useful to see where I was faster and slower.

Can the Apple Watch do this? Didn't think so.

In addition, a phone in a trouser pocket will be more accurate for steps than a watch on the arm, as the arm will record many more false steps due to the difficulty of interpreting arm movements. Our hips are much more stable, and are therefore that much easier to interpret a step with.

Love that you answer your own rhetorical question. The watch is not a phone but for sure it will become more capable in future gens. As for your second para, that's what algorithms are for and you have no idea one way or t'other how clever is the programming.
 
Comment

craig1410

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2007
1,126
896
Scotland
As a runner I have to say that this is a waste of time. If you want to track your running buy a low end Garmin Forerunner for a third of the price. Far more accurate tracking. Battery life better. Syncs to Garmin connect or strava which in turn syncs with Aples health app.

If running is a secondary concern then consider the Apple watch. If you're anyway serious about running then look at a Garmin until there is a GPS chip in a future version of the Apple watch.

Or alternatively just carry your iPhone in an armband and enjoy the GPS accuracy from that. Battery life of 18hrs is probably more than enough for all but the most hard core of runners I'd have thought.

Comparison here shows Apple Watch holding its own against both TomTom Runner and Garmin Vivo Fit devices. In fact it beat the Garmin but I understand that model doesn't have GPS so no surprise.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1877806/
 
Comment

FelixAng

macrumors regular
Jul 11, 2013
224
9
Hong Kong
I used to visit MR almost every hour, but now just once a day, if at all. The repeated Apple Watch How-tos belong in forums---they're not rumors, they're instructions. Slow days at MR, I guess, until WWDC, but maybe by then I'll be following the Verge or Ars Technica for news.
 
Comment

alangrehan

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2008
172
12
Or alternatively just carry your iPhone in an armband and enjoy the GPS accuracy from that. Battery life of 18hrs is probably more than enough for all but the most hard core of runners I'd have thought.

Comparison here shows Apple Watch holding its own against both TomTom Runner and Garmin Vivo Fit devices. In fact it beat the Garmin but I understand that model doesn't have GPS so no surprise.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1877806/

You're missing the point. Competitive runners wear a Garmin precisely so they don't have to have a phone strapped to their arm. It's heavy, cumbersome and uncomfortable in a race situation. Plus in races longer than 4 hours in length a GPS based app drains the battery and you'd be lucky to have the phone last that long. Garmin devices can be used for up to 12 hour activities. I'm sure when paired with the phone the GPS is fine but if you want the watch solely for running, it is a poor choice. Pop down to any running or triathlon club and the Apple watch is the last piece of kit anyone is talking about.
 
Comment

ApfelKuchen

macrumors 601
Aug 28, 2012
4,080
2,665
Between the coasts
I use Walkmeter on my iPhone, which shows my route on a map using different colours for my pace and speed. It's useful to see where I was faster and slower.

Can the Apple Watch do this? Didn't think so.

In addition, a phone in a trouser pocket will be more accurate for steps than a watch on the arm, as the arm will record many more false steps due to the difficulty of interpreting arm movements. Our hips are much more stable, and are therefore that much easier to interpret a step with.

Then why does Apple recommend
5. Hold your iPhone in your hand, or attach it to your body with an armband (preferably) or waistband.
The key thing here isn't which location is potentially more accurate overall, but that both devices interpret the motion in the same way. Since the watch will be on the arm, the iPhone should also be on the arm.

Since the data collected by the watch will be merged with data collected by the iPhone, consistency of measurement between those two devices is the critical requirement. If both are to be inaccurate (which is inevitable), they should be equally inaccurate.

If "waistband" is Apple's third choice, than surely a pocket, within which the iPhone may slip and slide (spurious motion), would be their last choice?

And what's the point, for the sake of this particular discussion, of comparing the display provided by Walkmeter to the display provided by Apple? That's not a function of calibration/accuracy, but of feature set. As it is, Walkmeter does include a Watch app - have you been able to check it out?
 
Comment

sdallnct2

macrumors regular
May 3, 2015
198
19
You're missing the point. Competitive runners wear a Garmin precisely so they don't have to have a phone strapped to their arm. It's heavy, cumbersome and uncomfortable in a race situation. Plus in races longer than 4 hours in length a GPS based app drains the battery and you'd be lucky to have the phone last that long. Garmin devices can be used for up to 12 hour activities. I'm sure when paired with the phone the GPS is fine but if you want the watch solely for running, it is a poor choice. Pop down to any running or triathlon club and the Apple watch is the last piece of kit anyone is talking about.

Totally agree with you. If your are competitive to the point of winning a race (or your age) or want to make money on running, get a dedicated running watch.

If not, I'd say there are pro's and con's to both.

I took up running 5 years ago. Always used my phone, mostly with the Nike+ GPS app. Mostly 3-4 mile runs.

Last summer, I decided to increase distances and get a dedicated GPS running watch. As I read more about AW, I decided to hold off and get it instead. I have not regretted it all.

I'm competitive to the point of wanting to improve for myself. Not to win anything. As any runner will tell you, a Garmin, Smartphone, AW or whatever are just tools to improve. You still have to put the work in and many do improve with no such tracking devises or just with a simple stop watch.

Perhaps the biggest reason for me in getting the AW was for the Fitness aspects. Perhaps the biggest reason for not getting a dedicated running GPS running watch was the lack of value. Even tho I've moved to half marathon distances (and when I meet my half marathon goal at the end of the year, I'll move to full marathons) I typically run 5-7 hours per week. Not much value when a Garmin 220 runs $250ish for less than one day's wear per week.

And since I have kids I love seeing who is texting me on my long runs. Even easy to give a quick reply if really needed. And of course with AW, I'm wearing and using it every day, all day.

I certainly wish the AW had GPS. But I don't think it the end all be all. On my long runs I find myself running the same, known trails/routes around town. And as I'm sure you know, races don't even use GPS to measure the official courses. So it is very, very, unlikely your GPS reading even from something like a Garmin 620 would match, exactly the course.

And as for your comment about what you "others use", I've run in enough half marathons (all of which had fulls with them) and I see many, MANY marathoners using iPhones (or other smartphones). As for seeing AW, it is way to soon to say. You can't even walk in a store an buy one yet. I'd be careful in casting stones. I'd bet when available, running stores will absolutely carry and sell the AW. I doubt will be as popular with your tri club as it is not warranty for waterproofing. V1.0 anyway.

AW will help you as a Garmin fan. As I'm sure you know, Garmin stock has taken a hit and sales significantly down as AW became available. Garmin will have to change, adapt and improve to remain the powerhouse they are. And I hope they do. The in turn will push Apple and be better for all of us.
 
Last edited:
Comment

groovyd

Suspended
Jun 24, 2013
1,227
621
Atlanta
seems the best place for tracking running would be in your shoes... does anyone make a gps module that somehow goes into the sole or is mounted atop a specialized shoe for this purpose?
 
Comment

rmatthewware

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2009
493
126
Could you please write an article on how to tell the time? I'm a little bit confused what all the numbers mean.

I like these little guides. They're off the main page, so not intrusive, and they're nice and simple if there's a function I want to use that I haven't figured out yet.
 
Comment

alangrehan

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2008
172
12
AW will help you as a Garmin fan. As I'm sure you know, Garmin stock has taken a hit and sales significantly down as AW became available. Garmin will have to change, adapt and improve to remain the powerhouse they are. And I hope they do. The in turn will push Apple and be better for all of us.

I agree with most of what you have said. But for the same money as an AW you can get the Fenix 3 which has most of the features of an Apple watch including notifications and day to day fitness aspects. You do see lots of people at marathons with phones strapped to their arms but a lot of the time they are doing it because they do not wish to spend extra money on a watch that will do something their phone can do anyway. This is a valid choice for alot of people.

I follow Apple news and I also follow fitness tech reviews. Garmin stock may have fallen but in my opinion it is more to do with people abandoning Sat Nav than buying the AW, and speculators responding to the unbelievably unbalanced and heavy media attention that Apple products command these days.

I'd recommend a site called http://www.dcrainmaker.com. He's an athlete who has reviewed possible every piece of fitness tech on the market. There are reviews of watches from Tom Tom, Garmin, Epson, Sunto and many more. For dedicated running watches this is where it is at.

The AW has a place for the person into tech who wants to do a bit of running in combination with day to day activities and exercise. If you want a serious running watch that is accurate (as accurate as GPS can be of course!) and has extra functions like interval training and altitude measurement then you would be better suited with a dedicated device.
 
Comment

4jasontv

macrumors 601
Jul 31, 2011
4,787
5,685
I like these little guides. They're off the main page, so not intrusive, and they're nice and simple if there's a function I want to use that I haven't figured out yet.

I must be incorrectly accessing macrumors because the article appears to be on my main page.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    448.2 KB · Views: 134
Comment

profets

macrumors 601
Mar 18, 2009
4,826
5,372
As a runner I have to say that this is a waste of time. If you want to track your running buy a low end Garmin Forerunner for a third of the price. Far more accurate tracking. Battery life better. Syncs to Garmin connect or strava which in turn syncs with Aples health app.

If running is a secondary concern then consider the Apple watch. If you're anyway serious about running then look at a Garmin until there is a GPS chip in a future version of the Apple watch.

Absolutely agree.

Or alternatively just carry your iPhone in an armband and enjoy the GPS accuracy from that. Battery life of 18hrs is probably more than enough for all but the most hard core of runners I'd have thought.

Comparison here shows Apple Watch holding its own against both TomTom Runner and Garmin Vivo Fit devices. In fact it beat the Garmin but I understand that model doesn't have GPS so no surprise.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1877806/

The tough thing is that when you carry the iPhone as well, it doesn't seem to be using GPS. I've done dozens of runs (I primarily use a TomTom or Garmin watch for running), and the pace/distance on the Apple Watch has been relatively inaccurate for running. I've done many with the iPhone on me for calibration, and several without. Doesn't really bother me, as I wasn't expecting it to replace a dedicated running watch at this point, just hoping in the future that we get GPS built in.

----------

Totally agree with you. If your are competitive to the point of winning a race (or your age) or want to make money on running, get a dedicated running watch.

If not, I'd say there are pro's and con's to both.

I took up running 5 years ago. Always used my phone, mostly with the Nike+ GPS app. Mostly 3-4 mile runs.

Last summer, I decided to increase distances and get a dedicated GPS running watch. As I read more about AW, I decided to hold off and get it instead. I have not regretted it all.

I'm competitive to the point of wanting to improve for myself. Not to win anything. As any runner will tell you, a Garmin, Smartphone, AW or whatever are just tools to improve. You still have to put the work in and many do improve with no such tracking devises or just with a simple stop watch.

Perhaps the biggest reason for me in getting the AW was for the Fitness aspects. Perhaps the biggest reason for not getting a dedicated running GPS running watch was the lack of value. Even tho I've moved to half marathon distances (and when I meet my half marathon goal at the end of the year, I'll move to full marathons) I typically run 5-7 hours per week. Not much value when a Garmin 220 runs $250ish for less than one day's wear per week.

And since I have kids I love seeing who is texting me on my long runs. Even easy to give a quick reply if really needed. And of course with AW, I'm wearing and using it every day, all day.

I certainly wish the AW had GPS. But I don't think it the end all be all. On my long runs I find myself running the same, known trails/routes around town. And as I'm sure you know, races don't even use GPS to measure the official courses. So it is very, very, unlikely your GPS reading even from something like a Garmin 620 would match, exactly the course.

And as for your comment about what you "others use", I've run in enough half marathons (all of which had fulls with them) and I see many, MANY marathoners using iPhones (or other smartphones). As for seeing AW, it is way to soon to say. You can't even walk in a store an buy one yet. I'd be careful in casting stones. I'd bet when available, running stores will absolutely carry and sell the AW. I doubt will be as popular with your tri club as it is not warranty for waterproofing. V1.0 anyway.

AW will help you as a Garmin fan. As I'm sure you know, Garmin stock has taken a hit and sales significantly down as AW became available. Garmin will have to change, adapt and improve to remain the powerhouse they are. And I hope they do. The in turn will push Apple and be better for all of us.

It feels almost like the original iPhone when GPS units for cars were popular. You don't really see those anymore now that smartphones have really taken over. If/when future versions of Apple Watch can run native 3rd party apps and have GPS built in, maybe Garmin will adapt by making an app for the watch.
 
Comment

darwen

macrumors 6502a
Apr 12, 2005
668
12
California, US
Um, no. They're posted to the main page.

On a mobile device it will show at the top of the list, on a desktop it is off to the side. That being said, it seems like now is a good time for them to rethink the way the site works on mobile.

MacRumors, I understand you guys are trying to get better SEO with all these guides, but they are really irrelevant for a lot of your users. Currently, on a mobile device, the top 3 articles are "how to" watch guides. You are starting to alienate some of the long time readers.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.