How to Calibrate Apple Watch for a More Accurate Offline Workout

[laurim]

Actually, it does. Do a google search for the word literally. The definition changed to include the definition for figuratively: "used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true."

As in, "the new definition for literally is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

OMG, seriously? And they use the word "literally" in the example of how it's not literal anymore? Talk about an infinite (il)logic loop. Why even have dictionaries if the meaning of words can be changed by stupid (usually young) people? Still, I think by the first person bolding "literally", that should mean they actually meant LITERALLY in the strict sense and that's not what actually happened so they are WRONG. Literally wrong. The march towards idiocracy continues.

 

[sdallnct2]

I'll give you the cumbersome comment. But at 4.5 ounces for the phone... Heavy???....just seems like you are just making up more excuses as you go along. You had your argument won at cumbersome.

The cumbersome part for me is reading the iPhone while strapped to my upper arm. Or changing a song (yes I've tried the headphones w/the click buttons). Or turning up/down the volume. Or wondering if that "ding" notification of a text is my daughter, if she is just saying hi, or needs my help. So AW does fantastic. I use Nike+ GPS for most of my runs, and AW works well with it.

I've run with my iPhone for years. It is not heavy. And I could argue it is not cumbersome. I've seen many marathon runners use them and even those that run fast times use them. Of all the things people run with (hydration, gels, waist packs, GoPro, etc) it may in fact be the LEAST cumbersome.

I have thought about going true GPS running watch + small iPod. But you lose so much. For one many runners take their phones even if they have a running watch. Why? Safety. I know I wouldn't go for a run more than a couple miles without the ability to call if I needed help. I often run around a lake in my town for long run weekends. It is a nice 9.33 mile loop. Having my phone gives me security if it storms, I twist an ankle, sever cramps or whatever to call an Uber. Haven't needed to yet, knock on wood.

But also runners take them for taking a quick pic. The last half I ran in actually had set up a "selfie area" about 7 miles in. It had props and people to help you take some quick fun pics. Let alone if you are running a scenic race (Hello Big Sur).

Of course with streaming music (hello premium Spotify) it is another reason to take your phone.

Again, I wish AW had GPS. And I'd bet next weeks lunch money that AW 2.0 (or some version of it) will have GPS. But I think it an overstatement to say "your not serious with running if you don't use a GPS running watch". Or that AW is useless as a running watch w/no GPS". Like everything else there are pros and cons and at the end of the day it is just a tool.

 

[mdelvecchio]

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.

nonsense. CNET's testing put it at 97.7% accurate once calibrated:

http://www.cnet.com/news/smartwatch-step-counter-and-distance-tracker-accuracy/

...regardless, the Watch is a generalist device. most of us arent serious runners, thus an exactly accurate tally isn't necessary -- but having it mostly accurate and *consistent* is key, since your runs and improvements are largely relative to yourself.

crisis averted.

 

[sdallnct2]

To me, what is so odd about the "hate" for AW as a running watch is that we runners are super gullible to try whatever is the newest, latest and greatest even if unproven! We are total suckers!

Couple years ago "everyone" ran or tried or wanted barefoot running shoes. Then we went to super cushion platform running shoes. Now it is high tech cushion material on sock like uppers. For a long time people just fueled pre-race with a bagel. Now there are gels, sport beans, and gu's. If Nike or Brooks comes out with a new breathable, sunroof, vented, fitted running shirt for $75, we buy it.

Everyone likes something different. And several major sports/running sites are in the middle of testing AW. Regardless how you feel about it, it is without a doubt a game changer. It will without a doubt put pressure on mono-use running watches. Heck, I would be very hesitant to buy stock in Garmin (tho they have some diversity outside running watches) or Polar or others. Having said that, as these running watches continue to drop in price, maybe I'll grab one. But then, it is really hard for me to justify the very few times it would be truely a requirement. Or even highly useful.

 

[Aragornii]

So does the AW measure distance solely based on the number of steps? That seems like it would be horribly inaccurate. I used to use an old iPod Nano attached to a watch strap to track running distance, but it was so horribly inaccurate I gave up on it after not too long. The problem was my stride length varies considerably based on what kind of a run I'm on (flat/hills, long/short), so sometimes I'd run 8 miles and the watch would tell me I ran 10, which is worthless. Maybe it's good for a treadmill, but I don't run on treadmills.

 

[sdallnct2]

So does the AW measure distance solely based on the number of steps? That seems like it would be horribly inaccurate. I used to use an old iPod Nano attached to a watch strap to track running distance, but it was so horribly inaccurate I gave up on it after not too long. The problem was my stride length varies considerably based on what kind of a run I'm on (flat/hills, long/short), so sometimes I'd run 8 miles and the watch would tell me I ran 10, which is worthless. Maybe it's good for a treadmill, but I don't run on treadmills.

No it doesn't. Am I assuming you are in the camp of refusing to run w/your iPhone? If you did then the watch would get assistance from the GPS in your phone.

Otherwise, you use the iPhone to calibrate your watch, where it can then learn your slide.

Posted just above and the authors experience w/accuracy.

http://www.cnet.com/news/smartwatch-step-counter-and-distance-tracker-accuracy/

 

[Aragornii]

No it doesn't. Am I assuming you are in the camp of refusing to run w/your iPhone? If you did then the watch would get assistance from the GPS in your phone.

Otherwise, you use the iPhone to calibrate your watch, where it can then learn your slide.

Posted just above and the authors experience w/accuracy.

http://www.cnet.com/news/smartwatch-step-counter-and-distance-tracker-accuracy/

I currently run with my iPhone, but I'm looking for a solution that would allow me to run without it. I read the CNET article, but it looks like their testing was done on a treadmill, which probably is not a good representation of the results you'd get running outside.

I used to run with an iPod Nano, which allowed calibration with every run, but I found it to be very inaccurate in real world conditions (basically if you ran the same route you calibrated to at the same pace it was fine, otherwise not so much).

Does the AW have anything that improves the accuracy that the iPod Nano does not do?

 

[rmatthewware]

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

The mobile site runs everything together. On the desktop site this wouldn't be on the main page.

----------

Um, no. They're posted to the main page.

Because you're using the mobile site.

 

[sdallnct2]

I currently run with my iPhone, but I'm looking for a solution that would allow me to run without it. I read the CNET article, but it looks like their testing was done on a treadmill, which probably is not a good representation of the results you'd get running outside.

I used to run with an iPod Nano, which allowed calibration with every run, but I found it to be very inaccurate in real world conditions (basically if you ran the same route you calibrated to at the same pace it was fine, otherwise not so much).

Does the AW have anything that improves the accuracy that the iPod Nano does not do?

You have asked a question with too many variables. So I'm not sure how answer. For one, the AW does more of an automatic calibration. Many articles and Apple itself says a 20 min calibration will due, but if you widely vary speed, it might take more.

I also don't know how accurate you want to be or what your goals are. I also don't know if the hardware in the accelometer is the same, but I'm sure the software is not. You also say the nano only measures steps (I don't believe that to be true).

This article was "underwhelmed" by their non-iPhone run being off by .50 mile
after a five mile run. But mentions more runs w/iPhone may be needed.

http://www.runnersworld.com/electronics/the-runners-world-apple-watch-review

This person had better results,

http://www.zdnet.com/article/running-with-the-apple-watch-yes-you-can-leave-your-iphone-behind/

If your only purpose is to use AW as a running watch w/out the iPhone, I wouldn't buy it. And I love the AW.

I image for me, I'll run 99% of my runs with my phone. But, I just can't even think of a situation where it would not be possible to take my phone AND the run be so important in needing the exact measurement AND I wouldn't be familiar with the route to have a good idea of distance AND I had no other way to find that distance (with the numerous on line maping programs available).

In the 5 years I've been running, the only time I could not run with my iPhone was when I ran just the running portion of a Tri. No headphones allowed due to the bikers (safety for all). But is was a race with well marked distances. And had I thought about it, I could have run with my phone and just not not used headphones and only used it for distance.

 

[C DM]

The mobile site runs everything together. On the desktop site this wouldn't be on the main page.

----------



Because you're using the mobile site.

Which means it's on the main page for many people that use the mobile site.

 

[4jasontv]

The mobile site runs everything together. On the desktop site this wouldn't be on the main page.

----------



Because you're using the mobile site.

interesting. Maybe MacRumors could post a how to on the topic.

 

[ggibson913]

For those of you who are professional runners then maybe the Apple Watch isn't for you. For the rest of us, I love the fitness aspect of the watch. For me who struggles to find the motivation daily to get to the gym after a long tiring day, it is a gentle great motivator to get off my butt and do at least something for at least a half hour. The calorie count or run times matter less then filling the green band every day with at least a half hour of activity and I think that is what Apple had in mind.

 

[KOTULCN]

So if you want to calibrate your AW can you just go walk or run laps on a 1/4 mile track for 20 minutes or so you need to avoid going in a circle covering the same ground?

 

[Benjamin Frost]

For those of you who are professional runners then maybe the Apple Watch isn't for you. For the rest of us, I love the fitness aspect of the watch. For me who struggles to find the motivation daily to get to the gym after a long tiring day, it is a gentle great motivator to get off my butt and do at least something for at least a half hour. The calorie count or run times matter less then filling the green band every day with at least a half hour of activity and I think that is what Apple had in mind.

Like your avatar.

I have a koala teddy with real koala fur. It's very old.

 

[Fthree]

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.

Before i purchased the AW i wore the Garmin Fenix 3. It is a nice watch and mapped my runs to a tee so when i switched to the AW i was a little disappointed it didn't gps the runs BUT I've realized that the GPS really didn't help me much to know (if at all) and being able to run without my phone and with wireless headphones playing music from the watch has won me over completely.