Reply to: Apple Watch or Fitbit

[pink]

Is it just me or there is a certain tension whenever I comment somewhere? Can you please tell me what the problem is?

[woohoo]

Bit like your rubber gimp suit....

Thanks for reminding me, i want it back!

[northernladuk]

It's a quality piece of hardware, robust, difficult to scratch and feels nice to wear. .

Bit like your rubber gimp suit....

[cojak]

No, I have no questions for now. Your answer was very thorough, thank you!

And provided you stay out of the Professional Forums you will be welcomed here.

[pink]

No, I have no questions for now. Your answer was very thorough, thank you!

[woohoo]

And how is it compared to Fitbit now when you've used both? I've read that the iWatch has better notification and app integration but the fitness aspect is good on both, or actually a bit better on iWatch. To be honest, I was thinking of buying Fitbit or Misfit Phase since they fit perfectly into my budget range. But if Apple's watch is that good I don't mind spending a bit more, what do you think?

I really like the Apple Watch and not just for fitness. It's a quality piece of hardware, robust, difficult to scratch and feels nice to wear.

I'm not an amateur athlete so my needs may be different from others. I'm interested in improving my fitness, recording gym session, improving walking speed (I walk the dogs for two hours a day) and monitoring my heart rate. I also use a home bike.

I work from home and sit in front of a PC most of the day so I want to increase my activity. The Apple Watch takes a different approach from fitbit, fitbit is focused on increasing activity by monitoring steps.
Apple has a focus on activity, so if you walk it counts as activity, if you cycle is counts towards activity. You can also see a break down between calories burnt through activity and what you would normally use by just existing.

With the fitbit I was too focused on winning challenges and increasing steps. Cycling did not count towards steps, same for weight lifting. So I think Apple give you a more rounded view of your activity.

The Apple app is pretty good but you can't view your stats on a website. You can export the information if you want but it's not something that you get out of the box.

The heart rate monitor and gps are fine. The heart rate information is presented really well and it's useful to see how exercise over time impacts this. I also record my weight using wifi scales and manually record my blood pressure. Using the health app again you can see the correlation between exercise, bp, heart rate etc.

I’m writing war and peace, so if there is anything specific you want to know then let me know.

Apple Watch is better than Fitbit in my opinion.

[pink]

I did go for the watch 3 in the end. It's actually a really good piece of kit.

Some of the third party weight lifting apps are a bit of a faff but everything else is spot on. The stats arent too bad and the option to export them is something I will look into.

And how is it compared to Fitbit now when you've used both? I've read that the iWatch has better notification and app integration but the fitness aspect is good on both, or actually a bit better on iWatch. To be honest, I was thinking of buying Fitbit or Misfit Phase since they fit perfectly into my budget range. But if Apple's watch is that good I don't mind spending a bit more, what do you think?

[Hobosapien]

I have a TomTom sports watch and even with their household name in GPS it is sometimes way off in calculating the ascent of a run route. It says a local beach run I occasionally do (when the tide is out) has more ascent than a proper hilly woodland trail I do. It must think I'm running up the cliff edge despite never getting within 20-30 metres of the cliffs in case of falling rocks.

If paying much more than the £150 I did then I'd expect the accuracy to be better as they are getting into pro territory where it matters more.

As it is I'm only in it for the fitness and enjoyment (never been to a gym, it's free outside ) so I laugh at some of the stats it shows when I have a look afterwards (heart rate, cadence, calories burned, ...). I do like to log the runs afterwards out of interest to see progress over months for the same route or distance but don't get caught up in all the PB competitive stuff, spoils the enjoyment factor of just doing my own thing at my own pace.

[rogerfederer]

GPS works fine for me, if it undercounts a bit then you'd just have to run/walk further, good for you!

There is small version of the watch which is smaller.

Is it expensive? Fancy sapphire versions are, but at the end of the day the most important thing is whether you'd actually end up using it, as in - exercising.

Maybe 935 is better, but either way iWatch is tulip when it comes to battery life - where as my Garmin is good for 3 weeks (if not using GPS activities), pretty good feeling to recharge once a week or so when using GPS!

It can over read or under read. By 10 to 20% in some circumstances. That is a big deal!

If you are a casual sports user I would question the value of spending £600 plus on a logging watch.

For a training plan, be it triathlon or British Cycling then accurate data is important. This is the reason power data sources in professional cycling are important from a hardware point of view. Some hardware is junk, which means you could end up basing your training on junk. Don't do it. It may seem harmless initially, but after years of data logging you will soon regret those early misrecorded rides due to tulip logging hardware.

[rogerfederer]

I am an ex professional athlete. Over the years I have tried Apple, FitBit, and Garmin watches. My sport of choice resulted in Suunto and others being unsuitable and very expensive for the information they log.

You need data to be logged accurately with quality sensors. Garmin watches are, for the most part, rubbish hardware with worse software.

Tractorboy has this sewn up, the Garmin 935 is the watch to choose. It provides the most reliable GPS logging combined with good functionality and android or iphone integration for alerts, calendar entries, or whatever features you plan to use the most. It is the best multisport watch Garmin have produced in their company history. In my cycling and triathlon club this is the watch of choice.

A friend received the fenix 5 through a sponsorship deal and handed it off to me two months ago. It looks incredibly good. The sensors are junk and I laughed at the inaccuracy of the pace data. The metal parts that look good are what ruin the radio signal capability. The 935 is the fenix in a plastic case, which is the reason it operates as the best in the range. Plastic doesn't interfere with GPS, bluetooth, ANT+ and whatever third party equipment you try to pair. I may be retired from sport but the 935 is worth spending your own money on. I am sad to report I rarely get free kit these days!

[SlipTheJab]

I have the Fitbit Ionic, GPS for runs (leave phone at home), app on phone to display the route details and de, stats galore, can store music on the watch or sync Deezer playlists. And 4/5 days normal use per charge.

[contractorinatractor]

GPS works fine for me, if it undercounts a bit then you'd just have to run/walk further, good for you!

There is small version of the watch which is smaller.

Is it expensive? Fancy sapphire versions are, but at the end of the day the most important thing is whether you'd actually end up using it, as in - exercising.

Maybe 935 is better, but either way iWatch is tulip when it comes to battery life - where as my Garmin is good for 3 weeks (if not using GPS activities), pretty good feeling to recharge once a week or so when using GPS!

My main issue with half marathons using the fenix 5S and 5 was they kept losing bluetooth connection, which also happened on my road bike, then overestimated the run by 2 miles. At the premium price it just wasn't right for me. The metal antenna seems to cause issues with ant+, bluetooth and GPS. Seems to be dry climate, high static electricity, polyester clothing and other random factors.

A mate just bought the 935 for £385 from wiggle using discounts and special week deal, which I would say is a bargain!

[AtW]

That watch is heavy if you are average UK height. The GPS tracks are, at times, questionable when compared to the forerunner series, due to the metal antenna. If you prefer it for swimming, navigation and coordinates it does the job fine, but the UK cost is expensive. The 935 performs the exact same functionality - and better - for a couple of hundred pounds less.

GPS works fine for me, if it undercounts a bit then you'd just have to run/walk further, good for you!

There is small version of the watch which is smaller.

Is it expensive? Fancy sapphire versions are, but at the end of the day the most important thing is whether you'd actually end up using it, as in - exercising.

Maybe 935 is better, but either way iWatch is tulip when it comes to battery life - where as my Garmin is good for 3 weeks (if not using GPS activities), pretty good feeling to recharge once a week or so when using GPS!

[northernladuk]

I've got a Garmin vivoactive 3 - loving it, although it was a bit dodgy on tracking my open water swim.

Did it show you only went 6 feet in to the water and quickly exited using the same route? [emoji12]

[mudskipper]

I've got a Garmin vivoactive 3 - loving it, although it was a bit dodgy on tracking my open water swim.