Apple Watch tops Stanford study amid 'Series 3' rumors

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited May 2017
A new study from Stanford University found Apple Watch to carry the most accurate heart rate monitor out of seven popular fitness trackers. The results come amidst rumors of a "Series 3" device that could launch later this year.








For more reviews, news, tips, features and more, subscribe to AppleInsider on YouTube. We're also interested in your questions about Apple Watch. Chime in on our forums, and we'll address it.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,717member
    Waiting for the CNET story that focuses on the negative element of this story--the poor calorie counting of Watch. Ignoring the fact that all the others did poorly in that category as well. Because that's just how they roll. 
    edited May 2017 caliwatto_cobrachia
  • Reply 2 of 8
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,291member
    Waiting for the CNET story that focuses on the negative element of this story--the poor calorie counting of Watch. Ignoring the fact that all the others did poorly in that category as well. Because that's just how they roll. 
    The kind of people who focus on a tiny bit shortcoming of otherwise perfect device - and then magnify it a hundred times to make it sounds worse than the actual. Yeah, seen that many times everywhere. I am still using my AW first gen everyday, as well as in the gym. The heartrate is normally consistently the same as the chest strap on cardio machine.
    magman1979Soliwatto_cobrachiaStrangeDaysSpamSandwich
  • Reply 3 of 8
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,762member
    What happens to the Beddit data? Is it possible to keep readings private? Everyone wants to own our data.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 4 of 8
    LeBart1968LeBart1968 Posts: 16unconfirmed, member
    Pfff, best of the worst. A shame that they didn't put a Garmin Fenix 5, Garmin Vivoactive, Polar m600 in the scale ...
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 5 of 8
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Pfff, best of the worst. A shame that they didn't put a Garmin Fenix 5, Garmin Vivoactive, Polar m600 in the scale ...
    True!   Those are quality exercise trackers used by serious athletes -- quality on par with the Apple Watch.   But, in this study, the Apple Watch was compared to a field of junk wrist bands and watches.  No surprise that it came out on top...
  • Reply 6 of 8
    Pfff, best of the worst. A shame that they didn't put a Garmin Fenix 5, Garmin Vivoactive, Polar m600 in the scale ...

    They used "commonly used" devices, the ones that most casual exercisers use.  The purpose of the study seems to be an attempt to find out if the devices most people are using are actually going to be beneficial, or if they're a waste of money, or even worse, show erroneous data that leads to poor health decisions, e.g. "My heart monitor shows that my heartbeat only goes up a few beats per second when I'm running, so I must be in pretty good shape.  I guess I can eat that cake after all."

    The higher end devices are, from reports I've seen, still more accurate, but they're used by a smaller subset of the people who are actually exercising, so don't have the same impact on heath decisions as do the cheaper devices.

    StrangeDays
  • Reply 7 of 8
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,319member
    kevin kee said:
    Waiting for the CNET story that focuses on the negative element of this story--the poor calorie counting of Watch. Ignoring the fact that all the others did poorly in that category as well. Because that's just how they roll. 
    The kind of people who focus on a tiny bit shortcoming of otherwise perfect device - and then magnify it a hundred times to make it sounds worse than the actual. Yeah, seen that many times everywhere. I am still using my AW first gen everyday, as well as in the gym. The heartrate is normally consistently the same as the chest strap on cardio machine.
    Likewise. And I've likewise compared to the gym equipment and find them to be very near each other. Surely they're reporting numbers that are good enough for us non-professional-athletes who still want to have a good idea of where we are. 
  • Reply 8 of 8
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    kevin kee said:
    Waiting for the CNET story that focuses on the negative element of this story--the poor calorie counting of Watch. Ignoring the fact that all the others did poorly in that category as well. Because that's just how they roll. 
    The kind of people who focus on a tiny bit shortcoming of otherwise perfect device - and then magnify it a hundred times to make it sounds worse than the actual. Yeah, seen that many times everywhere. I am still using my AW first gen everyday, as well as in the gym. The heartrate is normally consistently the same as the chest strap on cardio machine.
    Likewise. And I've likewise compared to the gym equipment and find them to be very near each other. Surely they're reporting numbers that are good enough for us non-professional-athletes who still want to have a good idea of where we are. 
    As I understand it, the study said that heart rate was fairly accurate (except for the Samsung).  But that calorie expenditure was very inaccurate.  Which makes sense:  a wrist based monitor simply doesn't have the data it needs to accurately calculate calories burned -- so it is extrapolated from limited information. 

    But, I suspect even more importantly:  they want their customers to feel good about themselves -- so they over estimate the calorie burn.  The fact is:   I have never heard anybody complain that their device underestimated their calorie burn.  Instead it tends to be wildly optimistic.   When I first started exercising and was doing long, easy bike rides, I had days when, according to the app on my IPhone, I was in negative territory for the day where I burned more calories than I consumed.
Sign In or Register to comment.