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

21–30 of 171 posts

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#22

Post by comment_ran »

Assuming it is an aerboic work out, what's the difference if the watch tells you that it's 9.6k, 9.7k, or 9.8k?

The only thing that I need to know the accurate distance is to train a specific event, e.g. mile run, 5k, or 10k.

If I train to run a mile within four minutes, all I need to know is to run 60s for each 400m on track.

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#25

Post by MuffinFlavored »

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.

What % inaccurate is the Apple Watch and what % inaccurate is the Garmin compared to what the map says?

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#28

Post by stefan_ »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #17
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 the dual-band GPS on the Apple Watch Ultra is an attempt to fix these problems? The author said their watch worked fine in the past. It also works fine after a warm up period, which suggests it’s not getting a GPS lock at the start of the workout. It’s a new issue of either a software regression, hardware degradation, or RF interference near their start point.

I thought this was a well known issue with the Apple watches? They only start looking for a GPS fix once you start the workout, which is the worst time since, well, you already started the workout and are running, making getting that fix that much harder.

I think the Ultra watches now have an option to wait for a fix before starting (which is what always happens on the Garmin's).

Re: Analysis of Apple Watch running data

#29

Post by macNchz »

comment_ran wrote: post #22

Assuming it is an aerboic work out, what's the difference if the watch tells you that it's 9.6k, 9.7k, or 9.8k? The only thing that I need to know the accurate distance is to train a specific event, e.g. mile run, 5k, or 10k. If I train to run a mile within four minutes, all I need to know is to run 60s for each 400m on track.

Accurate real time pacing information can be useful during races, when it’s easy to get caught up in the pace of the crowd and lose track of the muscle memory for your race pace.

It’s also nice when you want to do any sort of interval training without actually going to a track.

Having accurate overall distances is less important, but is useful if you’re training for a specific distance and want to run some time trials without using a track or measured course.

Post reply on HN