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

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#151

Post by workbytaylor »

oezi wrote: post #11
cianmm wrote: post #5

I’m part of a running group with a mix of Garmin and Apple Watches and the Apple Watches always have pretty different distant readings according to Strava, maybe 2%-5%. The Garmin devices are generally much closer together. I wonder if the dual-band GPS on the Apple Watch Ultra is an attempt to fix these problems? I would guess that it’s software, with the author, if for no other reason than I’d be surprised if Garmi…

I wonder if author really got a GPS fix before starting to run. I have clocked 100 runs on watch os 8 exactely along one identical path and usually it is within 3-5 meters where I get the 1km announcement.

Which app do you use to record runs on Apple watch? I've found Strava's own little app to be much more accurate than Apple's workout app.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#152

Post by mbreese »

qwertox wrote: post #113
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…

Couldn't the watch request the list of satellites locked to the phone and pretend to be locked to them as well, instead of building the list by itself?

That’s possible and I k ow the watch will do this. I run with both my phone and Apple Watch. For long runs 20-26 miles, I use the phone for music to my AirPods. I run slow enough for the watch battery to be drained after a marathon of I try to have my watch do it all.

I’ve had a few instances where the running track gets all wonky when I go through something like a long underpass tunnel. It’s long enough to miss a GPS signal for many minutes. Instead, it guesses where I am based on distance to cell towers (I think). Or at least, that’s what the running trace seemed like to me. Everytime I went under a tunnel, I found out later that I ran a 3 minute mile — on miles 16, 20, and 22 (that’s not possible).

Now I just disable Bluetooth on my watch entirely while doing long runs. I’ve found the watch by itself to be more accurate, in general.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#153

Post by r00fus »

scott_w wrote: post #125

This sounds like my experience of the Apple Watch Series 3—absolute garbage for exercise. I think the problem is the GPS hasn’t locked on when you start the run but there’s no way to know this in the UI. The only solution I’ve found is to “start” early, immediately pause, then wait a bit for GPS to locate you before unpausing. Most sports watches solve this problem by explicitly telling you your GPS status when you a…

Honestly, Apple Watch series 4 was the real "1.0". So many flaws and shortcomings went away when I upgraded years ago from my series0.

Like the M1 Air, that version was a huge upgrade from the previous one you could consider almost an LTS release.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#154

Post by etrautmann »

icebergonfire wrote: post #68
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…

As someone who went through the same process, including using a Huawei watch previously, I encourage you to try Autosleep. It has much better sleep detection magic and exposes a few knobs that enable you to fine-tune the autodetection and also manually correct the sleep records in sensible ways. It integrates with Health, so it has the bonus of tidying up the sleep data all across the board. Not related to the develo…

+1 for AutoSleep, it’s amazing abs basically perfect even with intermittent or broken sleep.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#155

Post by rconti »

zx10rse wrote: post #120
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…

For anyone interested in heart rate accuracy and sleep tracking accuracy I will recommend to check The Quantified Scientist reviews . From his latest reviews of the new apple watches, heart rate is pretty much on par with chest strap and sleep tracking is also far better than anything he tested. Apple Watch : Scientific Sleep Test - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPqtfC70QTU

Second this; I found it particularly interesting that even the best device (AW) was a bit worse than I would have expected, which means my issues with my own device (Garmin) make a lot more sense.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#156

Post by Bud »

icebergonfire wrote: post #68
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…

As someone who went through the same process, including using a Huawei watch previously, I encourage you to try Autosleep. It has much better sleep detection magic and exposes a few knobs that enable you to fine-tune the autodetection and also manually correct the sleep records in sensible ways. It integrates with Health, so it has the bonus of tidying up the sleep data all across the board. Not related to the develo…

Doesn't seem to be needed since the OP already got the message, but just in case...yet another +1 for AutoSleep, which I use religiously. Great design, just complex enough to give you lots of detailed info, but still simple enough to be easy to parse and use the data. And although I'm asleep when it's in use, near as I can tell, it does a great job of tracking my sleep, including fitful periods and naps. And its percentage "sleep quality" rating seems to correlate very well with my own impression of how good my sleep was and how refreshed I am.

One really valuable thing it has highlighted for me is how much of a negative impact alcohol has on my sleep quality. Very eye-opening. And I would have never known this without AutoSleep.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#157

Post by scott_w »

sanderjd wrote: post #131
scott_w wrote: post #125

This sounds like my experience of the Apple Watch Series 3—absolute garbage for exercise. I think the problem is the GPS hasn’t locked on when you start the run but there’s no way to know this in the UI. The only solution I’ve found is to “start” early, immediately pause, then wait a bit for GPS to locate you before unpausing. Most sports watches solve this problem by explicitly telling you your GPS status when you a…

What's the best gps exercise watch you've used?

I’ve only used the Garmin and it’s pretty good. The 735XT (old model) is still serving me well, though the battery is dying. I did get a 935 but something was wrong causing it to keep restarting. Apart from that it was fine, though.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#159

Post by fomine3 »

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.

I suspect that's why AW sleep tracking isn't improved well as GP said.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#160

Post by lifeinthevoid »

jerlam wrote: post #100
lifeinthevoid wrote: post #19

aside: My girlfriend tracks her runs with Strava through her Iphone 12 mini. Upon zooming in, the "straight" parts never look straight and look a lot more like a triangle wave. She consistently tracks around 10% larger distance than my Garmin watch. I've checked on the map, and the Garmin distance is the accurate one of the 2.

This would also depend on how she's carrying the iPhone. While putting the GPS receiver on your wrist isn't optimal, putting the iPhone in a pocket or somewhere closer and lower on the body where it sees even less of the sky is worse.

She wears it around her waist, might explain a lot. Thanks for the pointer!
Post reply on HN