The Ref Stop

Fitness Watch Tat

The Ref Stop
It's a bit of a non story as they tested distance indoor on a treadmill. So obviously not using GPS and rather trying to calculate based on steps taken and that is at best going to be a rough guess. Someone training for a marathon isn't going to be doing it on a treadmill, they'll be out on the streets.
 
I'm not saying they are lying, rather anyone thinking they had covered a certain distance based on their watch calculating it depending on the number of steps is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Three things are accurate, especially on the higher end watches, and that is GPS, step count and heart rate. I've used Garmin, Polar and now Apple watches and they all do these things well, when I run round a track it comes out almost bang on 400m and the displayed heart rate matches the value if I check my pulse.

What they are talking about in these reports is how they take the step count and use it to calculate distance. That is always going to be a guesstimate as not everyone has the same stride patterns, that is just common sense. Likewise how they take heart rate during exercise to calculate calories burned is also going to be something of an educated guess as metabolism differs between people. Yes, they can take the person's weight, height, age and max heart rate to make a calculation, but people would be naïve to go and scoff a chocolate éclair because their watch told them they burned 500 calories when walking the dog.

People need to take the data from the watch and use that in conjunction with what they know about their own bodies. My maximum heart rate is much higher than the theoretical maximum of 174, if I really go flat out it can still go over 190. Therefore if I put my max into the watch as 174 it would say I'd burned more calories than it would if I entered the real value in.
 
The GPS on my Garmin Felix 5S is not particularly accurate (3 or 4% out)
The light off the wrist based HRM gives me a rash and completely false readings are common
Most of the rest of the functionality (thermometer, barometer, steps, sleep, weather alerts, bio-metrics blah blah blah) is gimmicky and inaccurate
The Which review for this watch is poor considering the cost
However, like me, the watch is sleek and is pleasing on the eye, which is all that matters ;)
 
Last edited:
Many people quote distance covered in games, it’s become a thing! Point being, spending loads doesn’t seem to add more accurately!
 
Big Cat said:
The light off the wrist based HRM gives me a rash
Click to expand...

That usually means you're wearing it too tight.

Sheffields Finest said:
Point being, spending loads doesn’t seem to add more accurately!
Click to expand...

That may be so, but it depends on how the person is using it.

For example, I'm aware that my watch won't be spot on, even if I have GPS etc, but it will give me a rough estimate of my distance covered and I can still use that data to identify if I'm moving more or less over the season. The data is still of use.

I think if you want full/better accuracy on somethings then you need to go for the right tech. For example, if I want more accurate heart rate tracking then my watch is no good, I need a genuine chest heart rate sensor, which is made specifically for that purpose. But for an all in one gadget, the watches do enough for their general purposes imo.
 
Curiously, the Garmin Forerunner 630 gets the highest score, yet my Garmin cost twice as much :(
 
RobOda said:
That usually means you're wearing it too tight
Click to expand...
Any slack and HRM gives false readings
Wrist based HRMs are notoriously problematic and frequently cause irritation from what I've read. Keep in mind, the watch is meant to be worn all the time and you have this bright light and heat on the skin
 
GPS is a fascinating science when you consider the movement of the earth's surface with respect to the planet's center. The earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09053 seconds, called the sidereal period, and its circumference is roughly 40,075 kilometers. Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second--or roughly 1,000 miles per hour. Just saying!!!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Many people quote distance covered in games, it’s become a thing! Point being, spending loads doesn’t seem to add more accurately!
Click to expand...
Distance will be calculated by GPS, not by steps as in the daily mail article. The GPS on my watch is pretty accurate as it is bang on when walking the dog.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
GPS is a fascinating science when you consider the movement of the earth's surface with respect to the planet's center. The earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09053 seconds, called the sidereal period, and its circumference is roughly 40,075 kilometers. Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second--or roughly 1,000 miles per hour. Just saying!!!
Click to expand...
You should include references with your posts :flip:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/
 
JH said:
Distance will be calculated by GPS, not by steps as in the daily mail article. The GPS on my watch is pretty accurate as it is bang on when walking the dog.
Click to expand...

More accurate on straight distances than jagged ones, so we should expect some level of error on distance in our games. Shrug. I would be curious on an estimate of the error range, but it certainly serves as a general indicator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
A boxer friend of mine summed up fitness technology nicely. Technology is just another way of programming yourself when to stop. Run as far as you can and then next time run a bit further. Run as fast as you can and then next time run a bit faster.

Obviously there's huge flaws in his argument but the sentiment is far more important than expensive watches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top