Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Analysis of Apple Watch running data

applewatchrunner.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 171 posts

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#101

Post by sebasvisser »

jupp0r wrote: post #93
kodisha wrote: post #58

Semi related iWatch Rant - if you think running data is bad, try tracking your sleep. It just doesn't work. - Sleep for 3h - wake up for 1, sleep for 5 more: records 3h only. - (being a parent of a small baby) do not sleep at all during the night, sleep 4+3 hours during the day: 0 hours recorded - sleep trough the night but wake up every 90-100 minutes (baby again): 0 hours recorded Damn, this is a $500+ device, and…

Regarding sleep: the most important reason why these devices suck for tracking sleep is that you have to recharge them every 24h. That's either not being able to use them during the day for some period or do overnight charging.

It might be hard to imagine, but your charging habits will change.

I wear my watch 23/7. It charges in the morning when I’m in the shower.

Only after an extra sporty day with a lot of sports tracking will I need to let it charge an extra 30 minutes or so extra during that day.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#102

Post by fuzzy2 »

jerlam wrote: post #60
fuzzy2 wrote: post #15

I wonder if cycling is also affected. Theoretically, the watch should be in an almost ideal position on flat handlebars, if less so on drop bars.

You move a lot faster cycling, so GPS errors are less significant because there is a longer distance between readings. But also, cyclists are less concerned about specific speeds.

Well, maybe not specific speeds, but… :-D

What you're saying makes sense, of course. I found some hundreds of meters of discrepancies in some rides (Apple Watch 4 vs. Karoo 2). Less than 1% of the total distance, of course.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#105

Post by sirsinsalot »

Maursault wrote: post #79
mrosett wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you’re describing is a fantastic way to injure yourself.

Comment is vague, but apparently what you are suggesting is that physical fitness isn't safe without using a computer. Our bodies evolved to run, and it is, actually, possible to recognize and react to what the body reports to the brain through sensation without any intermediary electronic device gathering and reporting false data. Many are capable of sensing injury or illness before overt symptoms appear, and react…

No, what they're saying is that exercise as you've described, will lead to injury and goes against ALL the traning advice of seasoned long-distance runners.

But hey, go ahead.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#106

Post by matsemann »

Related: DC Rainmaker just released his walk through of the new ultra https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/09/apple-watch-ultra-in-dep...

Dc is the gold standard in fitness guides. My interpretation is that if you (like me) want a sports watch, buy a sports watch and not a smart watch with sports features. At least too many deal breakers for me. But they're getting better.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#107

Post by matsemann »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #16

> After about a kilometer I have to cross a busy street, I need to pause there regularly. Pausing always fixes erratic mode. Given that the “erratic mode” only impacts the beginning of the run and disappears suddenly at known locations, this sounds like an issue of delayed GPS lock. And given that the problem didn’t exist in the past, it could be a software issue due to upgrades. Or it could be a hardware issue that…

It's a common issue with how the Apple Watch forces you to start the activity before it attempts acquiring gps lock. For many that may work fine, but also for many that gives erratic behavior in the start where they live. All other brands behave the opposite.

Based on this article they've fixed it for Ultra, at least https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/09/apple-watch-ultra-in-dep...

> Assuming you’re ready to go, then you’ve got two choices with Apple Watch Ultra. You could go the ‘normal’ route for all Apple Watches up till now, and wait for the 3-second countdown. Once that countdown completes, it’s at that point that the watch goes off and gets GPS signal and HR acquisition – not before. However, the Ultra edition includes a new ‘Precision Start’ feature, that lets you first open the workout up, then see the signal status before you begin

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#108

Post by sirsinsalot »

Maursault wrote: post #67

I question the validity of the application. Apple seems to be promoting physical health while simultaneously leveraging mental illness to increase revenue. I grant that this is an actual business space, accessorizing and promoting fitness, but these computerized accessories fundamentally distract from the individual's primary goal of getting in shape, leading to reliance on computerized devices that are unnecessary t…

I don't often say this, but you're wrong and what you're saying shows a massive misunderstanding of fitness, metabolic process and goes in the face of everything we know about our physical makeup:

"Run. Run hard. Run fast. Run until you can't run any longer, and discover and accept physical limitations and push against them if your drive is unsatisfied"

This is just daft. Eliud Kipchoge, and most other runners very rarely hit their absolute physical limit (during training) and usually only hit it during a race if they did something wrong.

Your VO2 limit is not something you want to slam up against very often and doesn't represent anything other than how fast you can process oxygen directly (at the max point). Much more important to fitness is glycogen use efficiency and cell respiration. You don't improve these elements of your fitness (and they're the ones that count) by "Running fast until you can't run any longer". The opposite infact, you train them by doing long-duration low HR/VO2 activities.

In short, you don't know what you're banging on about, so are hardly in a position to be critical of how other people use digital devices when you don't know the first thing about human physiology in exercise.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#109

Post by sirsinsalot »

Maursault wrote: post #96
macintux wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make absolutely zero apologies for the fact that the rings on my Watch helped me lose 40 pounds last year. Sure, I’m gaming myself, but good grief.

Good for you and congratulations, but it was most likely due to your own hard work along with dietary adjustment, so you need not diminish your accomplishment by giving a device as much credit as you give yourself. The Watch really didn't do anything but keep time; you yourself did everything and filled the time.

That guy who is really organised, isn't degrading his organisational skills by using a calendar.

Get a grip jeez.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#110

Post by organsnyder »

sebasvisser wrote: post #101
jupp0r wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding sleep: the most important reason why these devices suck for tracking sleep is that you have to recharge them every 24h. That's either not being able to use them during the day for some period or do overnight charging.

It might be hard to imagine, but your charging habits will change. I wear my watch 23/7. It charges in the morning when I’m in the shower. Only after an extra sporty day with a lot of sports tracking will I need to let it charge an extra 30 minutes or so extra during that day.

I recharged my Pebbles while I was in the shower, since they usually took less than 15 minutes to top up after ~24 hours of usage. I've found my Apple Watch (it is an older model, though) to need too much time to recharge, however, so rather than building a different habit around it I recharge it overnight.
Post reply on HN