Analysis of Apple Watch running data(applewatchrunner.substack.com)
applewatchrunner.substack.com
Analysis of Apple Watch running data
https://applewatchrunner.substack.com/p/apple-watch-running-review
170 コメント
It's a common issue with how the Apple Watch forces you to start the activity before it attempts acquiring gps lock. For many that may work fine, but also for many that gives erratic behavior in the start where they live. All other brands behave the opposite.
Based on this article they've fixed it for Ultra, at least https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/09/apple-watch-ultra-in-dep...
> Assuming you’re ready to go, then you’ve got two choices with Apple Watch Ultra. You could go the ‘normal’ route for all Apple Watches up till now, and wait for the 3-second countdown. Once that countdown completes, it’s at that point that the watch goes off and gets GPS signal and HR acquisition – not before. However, the Ultra edition includes a new ‘Precision Start’ feature, that lets you first open the workout up, then see the signal status before you begin
Based on this article they've fixed it for Ultra, at least https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/09/apple-watch-ultra-in-dep...
> Assuming you’re ready to go, then you’ve got two choices with Apple Watch Ultra. You could go the ‘normal’ route for all Apple Watches up till now, and wait for the 3-second countdown. Once that countdown completes, it’s at that point that the watch goes off and gets GPS signal and HR acquisition – not before. However, the Ultra edition includes a new ‘Precision Start’ feature, that lets you first open the workout up, then see the signal status before you begin
That was my theory too, so I started opening Apple Maps and viewing my location on my watch before starting my run, and anecdotally it increased the initial accuracy by a great amount
Sadly, the guy didn't publish the tools they used to produce this. I would have been interested in seeing if I see a similar erratic mode in my own data.
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.
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.
Plenty of people, including the author and me, don't carry a phone any more, just a watch. Anyway the watch really needs its own fix as the phone will be displaced from the watch and have a different orientation even if you have it close by.
If the phone is available the watch will just ask the phone for its location and not waste its own small battery.
The issue seems definitely related to GPS.
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 it cant even get basic sleep data correctly. Also, it takes anywhere from 1min to couple of hours for data to appear in the Health app.
OTOH my wife has ~3 year old Huawei Fit watch, which was about $120, and that thing records every 10-15min or longer nap. Without a mistake.
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 it cant even get basic sleep data correctly. Also, it takes anywhere from 1min to couple of hours for data to appear in the Health app.
OTOH my wife has ~3 year old Huawei Fit watch, which was about $120, and that thing records every 10-15min or longer nap. Without a mistake.
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 developer in any way, just a very happy user.
It integrates with Health, so it has the bonus of tidying up the sleep data all across the board.
Not related to the developer in any way, just a very happy user.
+1 for AutoSleep.
I've been using it since before WatchOS 7 introduced sleep tracking, and it's scarily accurate even at tracking when I doze off for a short while in bed.
I've been using it since before WatchOS 7 introduced sleep tracking, and it's scarily accurate even at tracking when I doze off for a short while in bed.
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.
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.
Autosleep is great. I've had none of the issues the OP mentions and I've used Autosleep since I first got my watch.
+1 for AutoSleep, it’s amazing abs basically perfect even with intermittent or broken sleep.
OMG thanks!
Installing it right away!
Installing it right away!
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
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.
This was great. Thanks for sharing.
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.
It might be hard to imagine, but your charging habits will change.
I wear my watch 23/7. It charges in the morning when I’m in the shower.
Only after an extra sporty day with a lot of sports tracking will I need to let it charge an extra 30 minutes or so extra during that day.
I wear my watch 23/7. It charges in the morning when I’m in the shower.
Only after an extra sporty day with a lot of sports tracking will I need to let it charge an extra 30 minutes or so extra during that day.
I recharged my Pebbles while I was in the shower, since they usually took less than 15 minutes to top up after ~24 hours of usage. I've found my Apple Watch (it is an older model, though) to need too much time to recharge, however, so rather than building a different habit around it I recharge it overnight.
I tried for years, didn't work for me (Apple Watch 2). I mow have a Garmin Fenix 7 which lasts 18 days without recharge, buy has much more limited features (which is fine for me).
I suspect that's why AW sleep tracking isn't improved well as GP said.
You probably want to checkout Sleep++ or Autosleep for sleep tracking. The third-party apps go beyond the basic, built-in feature.
The Huawei Fit performed significantly worse compared to the Apple Watch in this sleep test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPqtfC70QTU
As the other poster suggested, AutoSleep is amazing.
I've found if my watch is too loose it won't record sleep well.
It's also a known problem that Apple watches "backup" bugs (which I've experienced twice now). If the problem still continues, I'd recommend you fully unpair/reset your watch and setup it up as a new watch (do not restore from backup).
I've found if my watch is too loose it won't record sleep well.
It's also a known problem that Apple watches "backup" bugs (which I've experienced twice now). If the problem still continues, I'd recommend you fully unpair/reset your watch and setup it up as a new watch (do not restore from backup).
I used Garmin Fenix 5 for sleep tracking and it has similar issues. In fact, if I sleep during the day, it doesn’t recognise it as a sleep! I checked the garmin support forums and some other users reported the same thing but garmin didn’t care to fix.
Most sleep trackers have similar issues. For example, most won't detect biphasic or polyphasic sleep correctly - it's assumed that sleep happens in one unbroken period once per day. If you get up in the middle of the night for a snack and then go back to sleep, it's a coin flip whether it will be detected as the "end" of sleep, or as a long "awake" period in the middle.
When I hit the snooze button on my phone and go back to sleep for another hour, both my Garmin and Oura are inconsistent whether that extra hour counts as sleep or not.
Garmin's even weirder than most as it asks you for your normal sleep hours when setting up the watch, which suggests that it's not as smart as it should be.
Garmin, to its credit, is slowly moving away from pure sleep tracking and using other metrics like HRV, stress, and yesterday's activity levels to calculate readiness for today's workout.
When I hit the snooze button on my phone and go back to sleep for another hour, both my Garmin and Oura are inconsistent whether that extra hour counts as sleep or not.
Garmin's even weirder than most as it asks you for your normal sleep hours when setting up the watch, which suggests that it's not as smart as it should be.
Garmin, to its credit, is slowly moving away from pure sleep tracking and using other metrics like HRV, stress, and yesterday's activity levels to calculate readiness for today's workout.
Ditch the built-in sleep tracking and use Autosleep.
Sleep tracking always seemed like nonsense to me. You either know you are getting restful sleep or know you are not, and if you are not time is probably better spent taking a proactive approach to establishing healthier lifestyle habits that will lead to more restful sleep. How much is it worth really, to wake up and know exactly how much time you were tossing around not getting rest? I’d imagine you would feel it, statistics or not.
> You either know you are getting restful sleep or know you are not
Not true. A lot of people with chronic sleep problems (e.g. sleep apnea) feel tired during the day but have no idea why, and don't wake up during the night or have any other direct symptoms that would lead them to have a strong hypothesis for "bad sleep" being the root cause.
Not true. A lot of people with chronic sleep problems (e.g. sleep apnea) feel tired during the day but have no idea why, and don't wake up during the night or have any other direct symptoms that would lead them to have a strong hypothesis for "bad sleep" being the root cause.
I had an Oura ring for a while and found it to be quite accurate. Using it, I found myself adjusting my routine to prioritize sleep.
> You either know you are getting restful sleep or know you are not...I’d imagine you would feel it, statistics or not.
How I feel doesn't always correlate with good sleep. It's just one variable. Knowing whether my sleep is good lets me know that I should be looking at other problems.
Or, in some cases, I am in bed for eight hours, but the quality of my sleep by the numbers is bad. It's not that I'm not getting enough sleep, it's that something is affecting my sleep. Spicy food too late in the evening? Too much caffeine? Not enough hydration throughout the day? It's hard to be mindful of the things that make my sleep worse unless I actually know when my sleep wasn't great.
> You either know you are getting restful sleep or know you are not...I’d imagine you would feel it, statistics or not.
How I feel doesn't always correlate with good sleep. It's just one variable. Knowing whether my sleep is good lets me know that I should be looking at other problems.
Or, in some cases, I am in bed for eight hours, but the quality of my sleep by the numbers is bad. It's not that I'm not getting enough sleep, it's that something is affecting my sleep. Spicy food too late in the evening? Too much caffeine? Not enough hydration throughout the day? It's hard to be mindful of the things that make my sleep worse unless I actually know when my sleep wasn't great.
It's very useful information when you are never rested and constantly are trying to tweak variables to observe the impacts to your sleep. I've long since stopped relying on trackers, however, as nothing seemed to display any accuracy whatsoever. I manually record my perception of sleep every night.
Datapoints for each night can help you isolate the causes of poor sleep in your life. An objective measure, even a flawed one, can help a lot in that process.
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 Garmin were all that much better at putting GPS in a tiny housing than Apple.
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 Garmin were all that much better at putting GPS in a tiny housing than Apple.
> I’d be surprised if Garmin were all that much better at putting GPS in a tiny housing than Apple.
Given Garmin’s long, long history as a manufacturer of (often very small) GPS devices, I personally wouldn’t be.
(I also know for a fact they do mapping better. This summer I was in the South of Italy and only Garmin accurately distinguished between small public roads and long private driveways while both Google and Apple royally messed this up.)
Given Garmin’s long, long history as a manufacturer of (often very small) GPS devices, I personally wouldn’t be.
(I also know for a fact they do mapping better. This summer I was in the South of Italy and only Garmin accurately distinguished between small public roads and long private driveways while both Google and Apple royally messed this up.)
I used to use a FitBit Ionic (GPS enabled watch) and now use a Garmin watch and fortunately it shows a more accurate and better exercise results. In terms of running I saw a difference of ~10-20% in the distance measured in some terrains. I have not precisely compared everything.
BTW the Fitbit Ionic GPS stopped working and now (if it didn't expire) I will go for the health (battery) recall: https://help.fitbit.com/en_US/ionic.htm and give them to another person. This will be the second replacement since this model stopped working after 1 yr of use and Fitbit sent me a new one.
BTW the Fitbit Ionic GPS stopped working and now (if it didn't expire) I will go for the health (battery) recall: https://help.fitbit.com/en_US/ionic.htm and give them to another person. This will be the second replacement since this model stopped working after 1 yr of use and Fitbit sent me a new one.
[deleted]
> 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.
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 have just started using an Apple Watch Ultra for running and it does seem more accurate to me. My old Series 6 would underreport distance, e.g. a 5k park run would be measured as 4.9km. I also noticed with the Series 6 that if I did a u-turn that my pace would drop considerably as the watch was presumably missing some of the distance I had travelled whereas the Ultra seems much better in this regard.
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).
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).
Apple Watch uses the iPhone’s gps when the phone is close by.
The point of the watch is not needing to bring you phone...
Dual band GPS on my Garmin is certainly amazing. It is mind blowing seeing accuracy down to which side of the street I was on during a run.
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.
> I would guess that it’s software, with the author, if for no other reason than I’d be surprised if Garmin were all that much better at putting GPS in a tiny housing than Apple.
After "you're holding it wrong", anything seems possible. But yeah that does seem more likely to be software, it's a surprisingly difficult and fuzzily-defined problem.
After "you're holding it wrong", anything seems possible. But yeah that does seem more likely to be software, it's a surprisingly difficult and fuzzily-defined problem.
Weird hill to die on with Apple. That's a 10 year old issue with an iPhone 4, said by a CEO that is long dead.
They gave everyone free bumpers, because sweaty fingers would close the antenna gaps. The statement was true, the gaps were placed where they were expected to least affect the grip.
What exactly would you expect in this case?
The messaging worked. If your iPhone 4 was having signal issue, consider readjusting your hand.
Apple sent out free cases to compensate for the issue.
This is not the nightmare scenario that non-iPhone users made it out to be. Apple haters, like any group of haters are a silly bunch.
They gave everyone free bumpers, because sweaty fingers would close the antenna gaps. The statement was true, the gaps were placed where they were expected to least affect the grip.
What exactly would you expect in this case?
The messaging worked. If your iPhone 4 was having signal issue, consider readjusting your hand.
Apple sent out free cases to compensate for the issue.
This is not the nightmare scenario that non-iPhone users made it out to be. Apple haters, like any group of haters are a silly bunch.
It was a bizarre-ass thing to go with from a serious company. They'll be getting shit for that for decades. Sorry, I guess?
> This is not the nightmare scenario that non-iPhone users made it out to be. Apple haters, like any group of haters are a silly bunch.
What nightmare scenario did I imply? I think you're being a little overenthusiastic here. It was just a funny example to show that Apple isn't above screwing up hardware stuff/radios from time to time.
> This is not the nightmare scenario that non-iPhone users made it out to be. Apple haters, like any group of haters are a silly bunch.
What nightmare scenario did I imply? I think you're being a little overenthusiastic here. It was just a funny example to show that Apple isn't above screwing up hardware stuff/radios from time to time.
> They'll be getting shit for that for decades.
I saw the original video the user that reported it created. That guy was a deceptive idiot. It was obvious that he used trial and error to find a strange, finger-spread death grip that duplicated the issue in the most severe way. What is bazaar is someone that was obsessive enough to develop a grip that produced the issue with the most effect, and used it for personal benefit to gain notoriety.
Not being an antenna engineer, I had also noticed the exact same issue on my Motorola v551 years before, but not that it had anything to do with the grip, merely touching the device anywhere on it caused signal degradation. Apparently, this was a known issue that existed for decades, long before cell phones became ordinary, and the issue can be reproduced on every cell phone from every manufacturer, as well as ordinary radios, and anything that uses an antenna. But I didn't remotely think to try to attack Motorola for personal benefit. I just set the phone down when signal was weak and used bluetooth for data or calls, eliminating the issue, which wasn't Apple's fault and is apparently due to the limitations of antennas.
Singling out Apple was ignorant and deceptive, and fundamentally, Steve Jobs was correct about what that guy was doing, intentionally holding it in an unnatural way in order to produce the effect. That entire affair was nothing but a hatchet job that had nothing to do with user satisfaction and everything to do with negative and toxic personalities that irrationally believe they can gain personal satisfaction by causing misery. The most insidious types of mental illness are those where the mentally ill individual themselves do not suffer, instead they are compelled to make others suffer, which is how narcissism is generationally sustained.
I saw the original video the user that reported it created. That guy was a deceptive idiot. It was obvious that he used trial and error to find a strange, finger-spread death grip that duplicated the issue in the most severe way. What is bazaar is someone that was obsessive enough to develop a grip that produced the issue with the most effect, and used it for personal benefit to gain notoriety.
Not being an antenna engineer, I had also noticed the exact same issue on my Motorola v551 years before, but not that it had anything to do with the grip, merely touching the device anywhere on it caused signal degradation. Apparently, this was a known issue that existed for decades, long before cell phones became ordinary, and the issue can be reproduced on every cell phone from every manufacturer, as well as ordinary radios, and anything that uses an antenna. But I didn't remotely think to try to attack Motorola for personal benefit. I just set the phone down when signal was weak and used bluetooth for data or calls, eliminating the issue, which wasn't Apple's fault and is apparently due to the limitations of antennas.
Singling out Apple was ignorant and deceptive, and fundamentally, Steve Jobs was correct about what that guy was doing, intentionally holding it in an unnatural way in order to produce the effect. That entire affair was nothing but a hatchet job that had nothing to do with user satisfaction and everything to do with negative and toxic personalities that irrationally believe they can gain personal satisfaction by causing misery. The most insidious types of mental illness are those where the mentally ill individual themselves do not suffer, instead they are compelled to make others suffer, which is how narcissism is generationally sustained.
> I saw the original video the user that reported it created. That guy was a deceptive idiot. It was obvious that he used trial and error to find a strange, finger-spread death grip that duplicated the issue in the most severe way. What is bazaar is someone that was obsessive enough to develop a grip that produced the issue with the most effect, and used it for personal benefit to gain notoriety.
That'd be compelling, except it started as wide-spread intemittent reports that the signal strength was just awful, but only for some people. This came up before anyone had any explanation yet, so couldn't possibly have been caused by a youtube video with a particular grip.
Turns out you just have to bridge a gap in the exposed antenna, there's no insane death grip required. It happens way more for left-handed people.
If it happens for every phone and every manufacturer equally, why/how did Apple fix it with a case?
That'd be compelling, except it started as wide-spread intemittent reports that the signal strength was just awful, but only for some people. This came up before anyone had any explanation yet, so couldn't possibly have been caused by a youtube video with a particular grip.
Turns out you just have to bridge a gap in the exposed antenna, there's no insane death grip required. It happens way more for left-handed people.
If it happens for every phone and every manufacturer equally, why/how did Apple fix it with a case?
Blocking or bridging the embedded antenna on any cell phone will produce the same results. Apple is high profile, so they got the business, so to speak. Materials that do not conduct electricity like wood, drywall, plastics, and glass will impede a cellular signal, but not block it.
But I really think the problem had to do with bridging that space in the antenna with a conductive material, such as the skin on fingers. The case merely provided a few mm of room for the signal to be able to squeeze through, plus it insulated conductive skin to prevent electrical bridging and deattenuation of the antenna.
Having owned an iPhone 4, I personally never experienced the problem beyond the same exact issue I experienced with a Motorola v551, which is that when placed on a table untouched, the signal strength increased, but then touching or holding it, the signal strength decreased. This can be reliably reproduced over and over again with any cell phone in an area of weak signal. Something about the conductivity of human skin interferes with attenuation of embedded antennas, and this has been true from the first cell phones with embedded antennas and is true of all modern cell phones, that in an area of weak cell signal, any skin contact will reduce signal strength and show one or more fewer bars of signal strength until skin contact is removed.
Apple conceded to a flaw in the design and settled a class action lawsuit, but apparently a few are still needy enough to require Apple be punished forever. The complainers had nothing to compare it to, so they were all, all of them, merely mistaken, the flaw exists in all cell phones with embedded antenna. Instead of proving them all wrong, which would have been academic, Apple laid down. What more would you like them to do?
But I really think the problem had to do with bridging that space in the antenna with a conductive material, such as the skin on fingers. The case merely provided a few mm of room for the signal to be able to squeeze through, plus it insulated conductive skin to prevent electrical bridging and deattenuation of the antenna.
Having owned an iPhone 4, I personally never experienced the problem beyond the same exact issue I experienced with a Motorola v551, which is that when placed on a table untouched, the signal strength increased, but then touching or holding it, the signal strength decreased. This can be reliably reproduced over and over again with any cell phone in an area of weak signal. Something about the conductivity of human skin interferes with attenuation of embedded antennas, and this has been true from the first cell phones with embedded antennas and is true of all modern cell phones, that in an area of weak cell signal, any skin contact will reduce signal strength and show one or more fewer bars of signal strength until skin contact is removed.
Apple conceded to a flaw in the design and settled a class action lawsuit, but apparently a few are still needy enough to require Apple be punished forever. The complainers had nothing to compare it to, so they were all, all of them, merely mistaken, the flaw exists in all cell phones with embedded antenna. Instead of proving them all wrong, which would have been academic, Apple laid down. What more would you like them to do?
> Apple conceded to a flaw in the design and settled a class action lawsuit, but apparently a few are still needy enough to require Apple be punished forever.
So, in summary: they fucked up and had a really stupid response, right? I'm failing to see what part of that isn't fair.
> What more would you like them to do?
Nothing. It's just funny. They should probably avoid being ridiculous if they don't want memes about them to exist?
So, in summary: they fucked up and had a really stupid response, right? I'm failing to see what part of that isn't fair.
> What more would you like them to do?
Nothing. It's just funny. They should probably avoid being ridiculous if they don't want memes about them to exist?
> So, in summary: they fucked up and had a really stupid response, right?
Straw man fallacy. Not everything is so simple. Even though all cell embedded antenna suffer from the same or similar flaw of deattenuating signal when held as opposed to being placed on a grounded surface in conditions of poor cell signal, perhaps the tactic applied was to avoid consumer resentment. Perhaps the legal costs of proving innocence and the common flaw among all similar devices was vastly more than paying the settlement. In fact, I am sure that was the case. Apple took the more equitable high road.
>> What more would you like them to do?
> Nothing. It's just funny. They should probably avoid being ridiculous if they don't want memes about them to exist?
This is merely schadenfreude. Do not believe that it is so that you will find happiness in the misery of others. To do so denies that Karma is never broken, or if you prefer, denies the validity of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.
Self-esteem has a negative relationship with the frequency and intensity of schadenfreude experienced by an individual; individuals with less self-esteem tend to experience schadenfreude more frequently and intensely.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
Straw man fallacy. Not everything is so simple. Even though all cell embedded antenna suffer from the same or similar flaw of deattenuating signal when held as opposed to being placed on a grounded surface in conditions of poor cell signal, perhaps the tactic applied was to avoid consumer resentment. Perhaps the legal costs of proving innocence and the common flaw among all similar devices was vastly more than paying the settlement. In fact, I am sure that was the case. Apple took the more equitable high road.
>> What more would you like them to do?
> Nothing. It's just funny. They should probably avoid being ridiculous if they don't want memes about them to exist?
This is merely schadenfreude. Do not believe that it is so that you will find happiness in the misery of others. To do so denies that Karma is never broken, or if you prefer, denies the validity of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.
Self-esteem has a negative relationship with the frequency and intensity of schadenfreude experienced by an individual; individuals with less self-esteem tend to experience schadenfreude more frequently and intensely.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude
Ah yes, the issue only Apple had somehow couldn't be avoided, and yet fanboys like you defend
> What exactly would you expect in this case?
Not pretending it's the user's fault they built the phone wrong. That's just extreme arrogance on their side.
> What exactly would you expect in this case?
Not pretending it's the user's fault they built the phone wrong. That's just extreme arrogance on their side.
The problem is that it exposes exactly the rhetoric that people hate from Apple. They're genuinely incapable of admitting when they're wrong, which is unfortunate since they make so many opinionated decisions. It's about as asinine as when Nintendo shipped Mario Party owners a free pair of gloves instead of admitting that their minigames encouraged skin irritation. It's pure posturing, and hardly a solution.
You're welcome to patronize whoever you want as a customer, but from a business perspective this is the sort of behavior that will be heavily scrutinized during antitrust hearings.
You're welcome to patronize whoever you want as a customer, but from a business perspective this is the sort of behavior that will be heavily scrutinized during antitrust hearings.
> The problem is that it exposes exactly the rhetoric that people hate from Apple. […] It's about as asinine as when Nintendo
So, you admin Apple isn’t the only one. I think you can find examples from any company, especially the publicly traded ones.
Similarly, you’ll never hear a CEO say their new product is decent while the previous one was so-so. The new one always is better, and the old one doesn’t get mentioned, but is implied to be good.
> this is the sort of behavior that will be heavily scrutinized during antitrust hearings.
I doubt it. Even if Apple were exceptional in making this kind of statements, what’s anti-competitive in making them, or in making bad products?
So, you admin Apple isn’t the only one. I think you can find examples from any company, especially the publicly traded ones.
Similarly, you’ll never hear a CEO say their new product is decent while the previous one was so-so. The new one always is better, and the old one doesn’t get mentioned, but is implied to be good.
> this is the sort of behavior that will be heavily scrutinized during antitrust hearings.
I doubt it. Even if Apple were exceptional in making this kind of statements, what’s anti-competitive in making them, or in making bad products?
My Apple Watch seems to get things wrong differently depending on the shape of my route. I often train on a track that I exactly know the lap distance for, and if I do a 10 mile run the watch will usually tell me that I’ve run about 9.5 miles. Which I kinda presume is due to the location sampling rate cutting distance off the oval shaped track. But every marathon I’ve run with the watch, it puts the full distance about .5 to .25 miles before the finish line.
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 are getting ready to track your exercise.
Most sports watches solve this problem by explicitly telling you your GPS status when you are getting ready to track your exercise.
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.
Like the M1 Air, that version was a huge upgrade from the previous one you could consider almost an LTS release.
What's the best gps exercise watch you've used?
I have similar thoughts as OP (though I now use a Series 7 and have few to no issues with GPS now) - the Garmin Fenix 5 or Coros Pace 2 are pretty great. Ive done trail ultra's, road halfs, mixed bike races, city to city tours and everything in between with both. Coros doesnt integrate with as many things as I would like.
Garmin's entire line-up is pretty great. They focus on things that matter: honest GPS measurements and battery life being at the top of the list. I really like some of the new Tactix 7 features, like the ability to remember the route but forget the geo coordinates.
Garmin user for ages. Forerunner 9 series is my jam but you might want to find what works in your price point along with the need-to-have/want-to-have feature matrix of your choosing. Garmin's UX is stuck in the Symbian era of OS design. So I appreciate the competition that Apple brings to this segment.
Sport gear reviewer DC Rainmaker has a full write up on the good/bad/ugly of the Apple watch for athletes[0]. He also has plenty of other reviews on other brands of sports watches if you want to see what is out there for you.
[0] https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/09/apple-watch-ultra-in-dep...
Sport gear reviewer DC Rainmaker has a full write up on the good/bad/ugly of the Apple watch for athletes[0]. He also has plenty of other reviews on other brands of sports watches if you want to see what is out there for you.
[0] https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/09/apple-watch-ultra-in-dep...
If you already have an Apple Watch, I recommend trying WorkOutDoors before looking for another device. It’s a huge step up from the default workout app that I’m still using my Series 3 for everything up to marathons.
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.
Garmin for sure. I use a Fenix series but they have the Forerunner too.
I hear Suunto watches are good too. Basically any company that has been in the GPS space for a long time. Garmin has been doing GPS since long before Apple contemplated making phones.
I hear Suunto watches are good too. Basically any company that has been in the GPS space for a long time. Garmin has been doing GPS since long before Apple contemplated making phones.
The watch needs updated GPS ephemeris data to accurately calculate the position, received by an aGPS (Assisted GPS) server (over IP) or by satellite.
This takes at least 30 seconds by satellite.
Solution: Tether with IPhone before leaving until fix is achieved, otherwise keep watch outside or near a window for 10-15 minutes before running so that it can update its almanac from overhead satellites and get a fix.
There is no software solution. Buy a newer watch with cellular connectivity and aGPS-support.
Solution: Tether with IPhone before leaving until fix is achieved, otherwise keep watch outside or near a window for 10-15 minutes before running so that it can update its almanac from overhead satellites and get a fix.
There is no software solution. Buy a newer watch with cellular connectivity and aGPS-support.
Do you have an explanation for this being a new issue?
OP could have changed exercise habits, leading to more frequently outdated GPS almanac data.
Otherwise, newer OS versions could have degraded the fix algorithm for older Watch-models.
If newer hardware comes with cellular connectivity, newer OS version could assume that by default and not prioritise (or test) backward compatibility with older Watch-models.
Otherwise, newer OS versions could have degraded the fix algorithm for older Watch-models.
If newer hardware comes with cellular connectivity, newer OS version could assume that by default and not prioritise (or test) backward compatibility with older Watch-models.
Why it would need such common updates tho ?
And why it couldn't load that data for say month ahead ?
And why it couldn't load that data for say month ahead ?
I wonder if at some point Apple reduced the sampling frequency of the gps position to save power? Since this sounds pretty important to the guy, I would buy a Garmin watch or similar to compare to and run with both. I also suspect one of the challenges here is that taking a lot of corners like in an urban environment might result in rounded paths — like if you ran around a rectangular city block it ends up being logged as a square with rounded corners. Whereas if the sampling frequency was higher it would capture those corners much better, or if the authors runs were more of a straight line.
It would explain his shortened distances, as low sampling would round out corners, "shortening" the total distance.
I've clocked thousands of ~20km runs across all Watch generations and have never seen a significant discrepancy when measured against something like Google Maps. Urban area without skyscrapers or the like.
Related: DC Rainmaker just released his walk through of the new ultra https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/09/apple-watch-ultra-in-dep...
Dc is the gold standard in fitness guides. My interpretation is that if you (like me) want a sports watch, buy a sports watch and not a smart watch with sports features. At least too many deal breakers for me. But they're getting better.
Dc is the gold standard in fitness guides. My interpretation is that if you (like me) want a sports watch, buy a sports watch and not a smart watch with sports features. At least too many deal breakers for me. But they're getting better.
Second this, his Apple Watch Ultra review is amazingly detailed (like all his reviews), opinionated, and he does his best to participate in the comments.
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?
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.
My experience of using Strava on a mid-range Android phone several years ago was that readings were splayed horizontally across (road-side) paths by five or ten meters in many cases. Now that I have a Garmin watch, I am gradually closing in on my former Estimated Best Efforts with readings that appear to be much more accurate in terms of how they correspond to the paths that I've been running on.
She wears it around her waist, might explain a lot. Thanks for the pointer!
I have never seen and cannot find the pace graph the author shows as a screenshot from the fitness app. Would love that data. Just spent 10 min googling and gave up. Reminds me of this thread from yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32965288
In iOS 16 it’s tap on the workout, then anywhere under Workout details and scroll a bit. That is really no discoverability issue, because there is even a show more button next to it, that has the same function.
But maybe it changed on iOS 16?
But maybe it changed on iOS 16?
Really weird. The only things I can tap into are the splits and the route map. I can scroll the heart rate over to recovery as well. I’m on ios 15. I wonder if it’s the workout type? Outdoor Run, Open Goal is what I’ve used for years now.
I'm delighted with my Fitbit Charge 5. Costs a fraction of the Apple Watch, don't need to buy into the Apple Ecosystem to make it useful. Tracks my sleep and fitness shockingly well. The official app is surprisingly good, and there's an API that works pretty well and has endpoints for most if not all the data.
That said, I'm a casual exerciser, not a proper hardcore sportsperson. For those I'd say avoid a lifestyle device like the Apple watch or Fitbit watches - it feels like Garmin supports that niche better.
That said, I'm a casual exerciser, not a proper hardcore sportsperson. For those I'd say avoid a lifestyle device like the Apple watch or Fitbit watches - it feels like Garmin supports that niche better.
> Fitbit
I'd rather not excercise than have my health data feed the GOOGL advertising engine, thank you. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/google-will-start-as... Because I do not trust them to uphold the EU rules.
I'd rather not excercise than have my health data feed the GOOGL advertising engine, thank you. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/google-will-start-as... Because I do not trust them to uphold the EU rules.
You’d pass up on reduced risk of all cause mortality, reduced risk of cancer, reduced risk of fall injuries, and improved mental health [1]? Just to stick it to Google? Man, get some exercise. If you don’t like Google either don’t use a tracker, build your own, or use one that’s more trustworthy.
1: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti...
1: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti...
Thank you for your compassion, but I already have another tracker (Apple Watch) and am running twice a week.
[deleted]
Just got this too and I love it so far
Only way to get accurate real time data when running is to use a good foot pod like Stryd. GPS just isn't as accurate as people think, no matter if you use Apple Watch or Garmin.
That's right, GPS error can be on the order of 10s of meters, worse in urban environments. Google (and presumably Apple) use WPS to enhance location data, meaning a triangulation (simplification here) or location based on known WiFi router and bluetooth beacon positions. They also have a team dedicated to more complex geometric calculations of how the GPS signal may be reflected given the known positions of buildings.
But if you have a clear line of sight that's a different issue. I went cycling on a path next to a river and the GPS trace was buttery smooth.
But if you have a clear line of sight that's a different issue. I went cycling on a path next to a river and the GPS trace was buttery smooth.
This used to be true, but in 2000 (!)the US government enabled the full range of GPS features for civilian use, vastly improving the accuracy of GPS receivers.
GPS.gov says single band receivers should be able to get less than 2m accuracy. Dual band units, like the latest Garmin Forerunner watches, can do much, much better.
GPS.gov says single band receivers should be able to get less than 2m accuracy. Dual band units, like the latest Garmin Forerunner watches, can do much, much better.
Wi-Fi is stilled used for cold start — gives you a radius before GPS lock. As far as I know at least
I used the Strava App to track my runs on my Apple Watch 2. At some point it started crashing and I tried out the built in app. It's really not for me, the data is somewhat locked in, graphs are non zoomable, etc. Most notably I couldn't send friends a url to the run.
I ended up switching to a Garmin Fenix 7 recently and I'm genuinely happy with it so far. Battery lasts more than 2 weeks and it does 90% of what I was using my Apple Watch for.
I ended up switching to a Garmin Fenix 7 recently and I'm genuinely happy with it so far. Battery lasts more than 2 weeks and it does 90% of what I was using my Apple Watch for.
Since the watchOS 9 update, I am the most unhealthy person ever. I saw on Reddit people have the same results but it really went mental; I walked into the local clinic for a vo2max as the watch keeps warning me; it (the watch) was 15 points off on the negative side, and so was my blood oxygen; 10% off on the wrong side. It’s pretty scary for a software update…
As a counterpoint, I saw something similar happen after upgrading to watchOS 8 for 7 months, but then I somehow got my vo2max to go back up by losing 5 pounds in 1 month and eating healthier.
Well, so far it made me more healthy as I am trying to change it but it definitely is off from the real numbers as I did an actual vo2max at the clinic here.
I'm using new SE, prior to that was using Forerunner 245. I went for a run with watch on each wrists, both almost identical GPS wise, 10k run on Apple watch came as 9.99km on Garmin, heart rate almost same, more calories on Apple watch though
A friend has both a whoop and an Apple Watch. One or both of them are wrong. He almost never get consistent results between the two, Apple is almost always higher than whoop (avg. heart rate for a given period) it’s a bit depressing.
I’ve just completed a 6 month self comparison of the Whoop v4 and Watch S6 for cycling. I found for long endurance efforts they were surprisingly accurate to each other - but during intervals of intense exertion (eg a KOM/hill climb) often the Whoop would read my HR as ~40-60BPM lower while the watch would reflect an expected reading (160-180bpm). Sometimes after 1-2 mins the whoop would “catch up” but it would leave a giant drop in HR graphing for that interval.
This also lowered the avg HR for the workout on the whoop, as you noted. Happy to share an example comparison graph if you’re interested, just reach out.
For what it’s worth, I ended up cancelling the Whoop this month after trying twice to engage with their data team.
This also lowered the avg HR for the workout on the whoop, as you noted. Happy to share an example comparison graph if you’re interested, just reach out.
For what it’s worth, I ended up cancelling the Whoop this month after trying twice to engage with their data team.
dcrainmaker had an article where he reviewed the whoop, he liked most things about it, except the accuracy. Without that the rest was meaningless.
On the flip side, Apple has FDA clearance to use their device for single-lead ECGs, so I would trust their heart rate reading over a hacky tech startup's.
OP should run their route backwards for a week. To see if the effect is symmetrical.
When I was running a half marathon with my Apple Watch 6 ( without a phone) I was getting a 1km notifications within 5-15 meters of the km signs. I was super impressed with the accuracy
According to my Apple Watch I must be the slowest swimmer in the world. I've just spent 3 weeks on the Adriatic coast, swimming an hour twice a day and I lost count of times my watch reported swimming distance of less than 100m (with an absolute low of 4m).
Luckily for me I use it mainly to see how long I've been swimming and don't care about other data because it is obviously useless.
Luckily for me I use it mainly to see how long I've been swimming and don't care about other data because it is obviously useless.
Reminds me how Sports Tracker (and really most apps) got wonky every time my phone battery got below 15% and got into aggressive power savings (and no amount of convincing would convince Android to fuck off).
Kinda smells like something similar, some aggressive power savings cutting on GPS accuracy or how much app is allowed to run in background.
Kinda smells like something similar, some aggressive power savings cutting on GPS accuracy or how much app is allowed to run in background.
“Pausing always fixes erratic mode” makes me suspect they don’t have a GPS lock for some reason.
My Series 3 was dead on until this spring; there is a 5k run I do 2-3 times a week where the Strava would tell me I had hit 5km within a few meters of the same tree. Then it started misbehaving, usually 100-300m short of the tree, a couple of times 50-100m beyond the tree. The path in Strava was all over the place.
I tried rebooting, reinstalling the Strava app. Cleaned up some Watch apps. Didn't get better.
Finally I deleted all the watch apps except Strava: apple store, audible, three authenicator apps (why does Authy have a watch app?), my Bank's app (wtf?) etc. etc. etc. Turned off or configured for minimal sync anything I couldn't delete.
Things started tracking again.
I tried rebooting, reinstalling the Strava app. Cleaned up some Watch apps. Didn't get better.
Finally I deleted all the watch apps except Strava: apple store, audible, three authenicator apps (why does Authy have a watch app?), my Bank's app (wtf?) etc. etc. etc. Turned off or configured for minimal sync anything I couldn't delete.
Things started tracking again.
Honestly, it doesn't matter for the vast population using these devices. I understand the issue, but for a normal runner, most they care about is how did their pace / heart rate compare to their past runs.
> Disabling wifi on the Apple Watch, Bluetooth on iPhone and combinations of those, to disconnect the watch from iPhone before starting the run
Unfortunately, disabling wifi will absolutely wreck havok with getting a quick, precise lock on GPS. Also, the author didn't specify if they have a cellular model or not, which is also a factor.
More importantly, this really is an issue for Apple to fix - let people know what the GPS status is!
IMHO: the apple watch is the BEST casual fitness device. But, if you compete or are training in any serious way, it falls flat almost immediately.
Unfortunately, disabling wifi will absolutely wreck havok with getting a quick, precise lock on GPS. Also, the author didn't specify if they have a cellular model or not, which is also a factor.
More importantly, this really is an issue for Apple to fix - let people know what the GPS status is!
IMHO: the apple watch is the BEST casual fitness device. But, if you compete or are training in any serious way, it falls flat almost immediately.
The use of "small multiples" here in the visualization is excellent, and the layout of the first visual is provocative and eye-catching -- love the vertical line! Great job, author!
The author still seems to be on an Apple Watch 4, if I read correctly. So this seems like a case of Apple shipping a bad update to an older device and not caring. Or OP has a bad device.
Exactly my experience. I run in laps so I'm pretty sure of the distance simply by counting and multiplying, which gives a mostly constant speed of ~5min/km. Apple Watch says my speed is sometimes 3.5min and sometimes 6.5min, and calculates drastically different caloric counts from day to day, which is to the best useless and to the worst misleading and demeaning.
> For me an average pace of 3:52 is great, while 4:12 is very bad.
Um, that’s very fast. At my pace (8:45 or 5:26 in km), I barely notice the discrepancies on my Apple Watch 7.
Um, that’s very fast. At my pace (8:45 or 5:26 in km), I barely notice the discrepancies on my Apple Watch 7.
>Because the watch performed better on earlier versions of watchOS, and even my iPhone 4S was better at tracking, I think the issue is software.
>The measurement errors are so bad, that they overshadow performance differences between runs, and during runs. At the same time Apple keeps adding more and more incorrect stats and graphs, building on top of a shaky foundation. The kilometer splits measured in seconds imply more accuracy than is delivered.
This.
>The measurement errors are so bad, that they overshadow performance differences between runs, and during runs. At the same time Apple keeps adding more and more incorrect stats and graphs, building on top of a shaky foundation. The kilometer splits measured in seconds imply more accuracy than is delivered.
This.
I wonder if cycling is also affected. Theoretically, the watch should be in an almost ideal position on flat handlebars, if less so on drop bars.
You move a lot faster cycling, so GPS errors are less significant because there is a longer distance between readings.
But also, cyclists are less concerned about specific speeds.
But also, cyclists are less concerned about specific speeds.
Cycling computers blend calibrated wheel sensors with GPS data to give the most accurate distance, too. I believe Apple Watch refuses to use bike wheel and crank rotation sensors, but Garmin does use them.
Well, maybe not specific speeds, but… :-D
What you're saying makes sense, of course. I found some hundreds of meters of discrepancies in some rides (Apple Watch 4 vs. Karoo 2). Less than 1% of the total distance, of course.
What you're saying makes sense, of course. I found some hundreds of meters of discrepancies in some rides (Apple Watch 4 vs. Karoo 2). Less than 1% of the total distance, of course.
This sounds like it could all be due to a GPS issue.
From a discussion on Garmin nav accuracy:
> Russia (GLONASS) may intentionally give wrong results in your area. Try switching to just GPS, or GPS & Galileo.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Garmin/comments/vo9w0l/comment/ied5...
> Russia (GLONASS) may intentionally give wrong results in your area. Try switching to just GPS, or GPS & Galileo.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Garmin/comments/vo9w0l/comment/ied5...
If you read down in that thread it turns out it was nothing so mysterious; the ephemeris file for Sony gps chips was expired and had to be updated.
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.
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.
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.
I pace many half marathon and marathon races. Usually what I need for that is: instantaneous pace, average pace, and lap distance.
I tend to plan my pacing for equal effort, so each lap pace is adjusted for elevation such that in the end the overall pace is just slightly faster than what is needed for goal pace.
Needless to say, I use my Garmin Forerunner 945 for this.
If anyone is running the Seattle Marathon, I'll be there pacing :)
I tend to plan my pacing for equal effort, so each lap pace is adjusted for elevation such that in the end the overall pace is just slightly faster than what is needed for goal pace.
Needless to say, I use my Garmin Forerunner 945 for this.
If anyone is running the Seattle Marathon, I'll be there pacing :)
Many runners are racing themselves. To them, seconds matter.
>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?
If you're tracking incremental progress than such variability makes the data less useful. But that's why I prefer to use natural landmarks and a stopwatch - the smart watches I've used so far are off to the point where I don't trust them.
If you're tracking incremental progress than such variability makes the data less useful. But that's why I prefer to use natural landmarks and a stopwatch - the smart watches I've used so far are off to the point where I don't trust them.
The trouble acquiring a gps lock could be due to 5G towers (remembering all the controversy with the FAA), or a new building, or something else that changed in the built environment.
Great writeup. I've noticed the same thing by recording simultaneously with the watch workout app and strava on my iphone. The watch always says pace is slower.
Similar to my experience. It's a fun little stopwatch that you have to charge every day, multiple times per day.
Apple support is friendly, but terrible.
Apple support is friendly, but terrible.
Is it rare in these kinds of applications of GPS to buffer up received GPS signal and retroactively fix the data after the lock? If so, why?
Does anyone know how OP exported this data? I want to see if my watch has the same data quality issues
Open health app and press on your profile picture in the upper right corner (scroll to the top). Then scroll down and press export all health data. Also OP mentioned the exported XML has some errors in iOS 16, so beware of that.
[deleted]
Apple showing more than people actually run to make them feel better?
Seems like a lawsuit incoming due to "ruined health" by overstating measured activities.
Seems like a lawsuit incoming due to "ruined health" by overstating measured activities.
I question the validity of the application. Apple seems to be promoting physical health while simultaneously leveraging mental illness to increase revenue.
I grant that this is an actual business space, accessorizing and promoting fitness, but these computerized accessories fundamentally distract from the individual's primary goal of getting in shape, leading to reliance on computerized devices that are unnecessary to meeting fitness goals. Isn't there such a thing as tuning one's ability to know one's own limitations naturally? Run. Run hard. Run fast. Run until you can't run any longer, and discover and accept physical limitations and push against them if your drive is unsatisfied.
Is this kind of data gathering really necessary to fitness? I'm nearly certain these applications actually fall under the category of play and entertainment. Maybe watch Rocky (1976) and/or Chariots of Fire (1981) for inspiration. Note the lack of any cybernetics. I'll take a mechanical stopwatch over an Apple Watch running fitness application any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Feel free to use an Apple Watch if it makes you happy, but to accept nothing less than perfection is really quite something else, so maybe there is a different kind of fitness that is immediately more pressing than physical fitness.
I grant that this is an actual business space, accessorizing and promoting fitness, but these computerized accessories fundamentally distract from the individual's primary goal of getting in shape, leading to reliance on computerized devices that are unnecessary to meeting fitness goals. Isn't there such a thing as tuning one's ability to know one's own limitations naturally? Run. Run hard. Run fast. Run until you can't run any longer, and discover and accept physical limitations and push against them if your drive is unsatisfied.
Is this kind of data gathering really necessary to fitness? I'm nearly certain these applications actually fall under the category of play and entertainment. Maybe watch Rocky (1976) and/or Chariots of Fire (1981) for inspiration. Note the lack of any cybernetics. I'll take a mechanical stopwatch over an Apple Watch running fitness application any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Feel free to use an Apple Watch if it makes you happy, but to accept nothing less than perfection is really quite something else, so maybe there is a different kind of fitness that is immediately more pressing than physical fitness.
It’s not necessary, but being able to measure improvement is highly motivating. Part of the fun of the sport for some of us is being able to experiment with variables like nutrition, heart rate zones, pacing , etc and measuring the impact on performance. I’ve had a Garmin watch since 2009 and I have always enjoyed being able to know I hit a new pace or distance. It also makes it easy to run on a new trail for X miles and turn around instead of having to map out a run on an existing course and time the laps with a watch. Probably the greatest addition to the sport since music imo.
Whatever it takes to get you moving, but it is a little self-deceptive to ignore or replace natural incentives for fitness with artificial incentives of mere shadows on a cave wall. Perhaps the real world is a little boring, but it has the distinct advantage of being authentic.
I make absolutely zero apologies for the fact that the rings on my Watch helped me lose 40 pounds last year. Sure, I’m gaming myself, but good grief.
Good for you and congratulations, but it was most likely due to your own hard work along with dietary adjustment, so you need not diminish your accomplishment by giving a device as much credit as you give yourself. The Watch really didn't do anything but keep time; you yourself did everything and filled the time.
That guy who is really organised, isn't degrading his organisational skills by using a calendar.
Get a grip jeez.
Get a grip jeez.
Comparing egotistical obsession to neatness and an Apple Watch gathering absurdly detailed metrics in a running application to a calendar is both false analogy and oversimplification. The last part is ad hominem attack.
I don't often say this, but you're wrong and what you're saying shows a massive misunderstanding of fitness, metabolic process and goes in the face of everything we know about our physical makeup:
"Run. Run hard. Run fast. Run until you can't run any longer, and discover and accept physical limitations and push against them if your drive is unsatisfied"
This is just daft. Eliud Kipchoge, and most other runners very rarely hit their absolute physical limit (during training) and usually only hit it during a race if they did something wrong.
Your VO2 limit is not something you want to slam up against very often and doesn't represent anything other than how fast you can process oxygen directly (at the max point). Much more important to fitness is glycogen use efficiency and cell respiration. You don't improve these elements of your fitness (and they're the ones that count) by "Running fast until you can't run any longer". The opposite infact, you train them by doing long-duration low HR/VO2 activities.
In short, you don't know what you're banging on about, so are hardly in a position to be critical of how other people use digital devices when you don't know the first thing about human physiology in exercise.
"Run. Run hard. Run fast. Run until you can't run any longer, and discover and accept physical limitations and push against them if your drive is unsatisfied"
This is just daft. Eliud Kipchoge, and most other runners very rarely hit their absolute physical limit (during training) and usually only hit it during a race if they did something wrong.
Your VO2 limit is not something you want to slam up against very often and doesn't represent anything other than how fast you can process oxygen directly (at the max point). Much more important to fitness is glycogen use efficiency and cell respiration. You don't improve these elements of your fitness (and they're the ones that count) by "Running fast until you can't run any longer". The opposite infact, you train them by doing long-duration low HR/VO2 activities.
In short, you don't know what you're banging on about, so are hardly in a position to be critical of how other people use digital devices when you don't know the first thing about human physiology in exercise.
You're missing the forest for the tree. I wasn't giving instruction for exercise, I was making the miniscule point that all running requires is to run. You have entirely ignored the major point I was making to construct your straw man. All I was arguing was merely that exercise, getting fit and keeping fit, does not require wearable computing accessories to gather data second by second, the true purpose for which is stroking vanity. At these scales, the measurement is too refined to be useful. The odometer on your car does not display millimeters for a reason. Human memory and geographical awareness does the same work for free and apparently is more accurate.
Accessories aren't strictly required, but they can be a massive help. Being aware of your heart rate and your pace helps you get the best results from your exercise. Also, accurately measuring your times, and seeing even few seconds improvement since the last week's training helps keep you motivated. There are many reasons to use such accessories, other than "stroking vanity".
> Being aware of your heart rate and your pace helps you get the best results from your exercise.
This is widely believed but scientifically unproven. The understanding of the significance of awareness of heart rate to workout performance is ongoing. Basically, tracking heart rate shows what is already known, that improving cardiac performance will improve resting heart rate. The stated purpose of doing so is to increase self-esteem. For the same reasons there are large mirrors installed at most gyms.
> Also, accurately measuring your times, and seeing even few seconds improvement since the last week's training helps keep you motivated.
A $5 stopwatch is accurate to hundredths of seconds.
> There are many reasons to use such accessories, other than "stroking vanity".
This is an appeal to common sense, aka the fallacy of axiomatic thinking, or unsupported assertion. Claims which can be asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence.
This is widely believed but scientifically unproven. The understanding of the significance of awareness of heart rate to workout performance is ongoing. Basically, tracking heart rate shows what is already known, that improving cardiac performance will improve resting heart rate. The stated purpose of doing so is to increase self-esteem. For the same reasons there are large mirrors installed at most gyms.
> Also, accurately measuring your times, and seeing even few seconds improvement since the last week's training helps keep you motivated.
A $5 stopwatch is accurate to hundredths of seconds.
> There are many reasons to use such accessories, other than "stroking vanity".
This is an appeal to common sense, aka the fallacy of axiomatic thinking, or unsupported assertion. Claims which can be asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence.
Again, more wrong. Zone 2 HR training induces a different physical response to zone 4. This is proven and measured. Zone 2 training increases mitochondrial function and burns fat. Zone 4 causes glycolysis and so on. These HR zones, reflective of effort, even exercise fast vs slow twitch muscle fibers differently.[1]
Having a device to help you stay in the right Zone is very valuable for effective training.
Large mirrors are in gyms to help with form when using equipment.
[1] https://youtu.be/-6PDBVRkCKc
Having a device to help you stay in the right Zone is very valuable for effective training.
Large mirrors are in gyms to help with form when using equipment.
[1] https://youtu.be/-6PDBVRkCKc
> Again, more wrong. Zone 2 HR training induces a different physical response to zone 4.
I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish by using obscure and invented health industry terminology absent from medical science and citing this kind of evidence with a three hour long podcast that I'm simply not going to entertain.
Regardless, you have constructed a new straw man argument. My point was far less complicated, which is that expensive and complex technological devices as sport accessories distract from the natural incentive of improving fitness and are unnecessary and functionally duplicated with an inexpensive stopwatch. The natural incentive for improved health is traded for the incentive for being entertained by absurdly detailed metrics without advantage to the fundamental goal of improving fitness.
Unnecessary reliance on accessories will synthetically make it more difficult to do the same activity if the accessories are removed, for whatever the reason they happen to not be available, stolen, lost, broken, whatever. Exercise is its own reward, and there is little reason to replace that incentive with the need to be entertained by detailed metrics of past events.
> Your statements are bizarre and arrogant. It feels like debating with an edgy teenager.
More ad hominem attacks.
Please do not be concerned about the opinions of others. Please follow you heart and do what makes you happy. I strongly insist that you do.
I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish by using obscure and invented health industry terminology absent from medical science and citing this kind of evidence with a three hour long podcast that I'm simply not going to entertain.
Regardless, you have constructed a new straw man argument. My point was far less complicated, which is that expensive and complex technological devices as sport accessories distract from the natural incentive of improving fitness and are unnecessary and functionally duplicated with an inexpensive stopwatch. The natural incentive for improved health is traded for the incentive for being entertained by absurdly detailed metrics without advantage to the fundamental goal of improving fitness.
Unnecessary reliance on accessories will synthetically make it more difficult to do the same activity if the accessories are removed, for whatever the reason they happen to not be available, stolen, lost, broken, whatever. Exercise is its own reward, and there is little reason to replace that incentive with the need to be entertained by detailed metrics of past events.
> Your statements are bizarre and arrogant. It feels like debating with an edgy teenager.
More ad hominem attacks.
Please do not be concerned about the opinions of others. Please follow you heart and do what makes you happy. I strongly insist that you do.
The video I linked was doctors who specialise in fitness doing a literature review of the evidence of what I was discussing as published in medical journals and talking about the actual, medical, biomechanics.
"by using obscure and invented health industry terminology absent from medical science"
"Zone 2 HR" is just an alias for 65%-75% of your max heart rate with Zone 3 being 80%-85% and so on ... very simple, and max HR % is used across the medical profession (along with VO2 Max) [1][2][3][4] ... I could go on and on.
These "zones" are defined by the point at which metabolic processes change. After ~zone 2, you burn more glycogen and engage fast twitch muscles, and this affects cellular respiration differently in terms of performance pay-off. At ~zone 3 the metabolic processes and chemical balances change again, and so on [5]
You VERY evidently have so little idea about what you're actually talking about, at this point I consider it a troll and I won't bother continuing.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6607712/ [2] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.000... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259652575_From_Hear... [4] https://escholarship.org/content/qt5cz1v976/qt5cz1v976.pdf [5] https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.14814/phy...
"by using obscure and invented health industry terminology absent from medical science"
"Zone 2 HR" is just an alias for 65%-75% of your max heart rate with Zone 3 being 80%-85% and so on ... very simple, and max HR % is used across the medical profession (along with VO2 Max) [1][2][3][4] ... I could go on and on.
These "zones" are defined by the point at which metabolic processes change. After ~zone 2, you burn more glycogen and engage fast twitch muscles, and this affects cellular respiration differently in terms of performance pay-off. At ~zone 3 the metabolic processes and chemical balances change again, and so on [5]
You VERY evidently have so little idea about what you're actually talking about, at this point I consider it a troll and I won't bother continuing.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6607712/ [2] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.000... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259652575_From_Hear... [4] https://escholarship.org/content/qt5cz1v976/qt5cz1v976.pdf [5] https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.14814/phy...
Your argument has not changed, thus remains both straw man and ad hominem fallacies.
Bannister's use of a mechanical stopwatch on a 440 yard track is as much a case of cybernetics as a modern GPS or a heart rate monitor. He obviously didn't just turn up on the day and run 3:59.4. He trained for months with a stopwatch:
"Several days [per week] consisted of 10x440 in 66 seconds with a 2 minute rest. During the following months they were gradually speeded up ... to 59 seconds per 440." [1].
So aside from accuracy, what's the difference between training with the feedback of timed laps on a track (be it Bannister's mechanical stopwatch and cinder track measured in imperial units), or a modern athlete running kilometer repeats on the road via their fancy Apple or Garmin smartwatch?
If one is that much of a running purist, why measure time or distance at all?
[1] https://twitter.com/jmarpdx/status/1465431668206944256
"Several days [per week] consisted of 10x440 in 66 seconds with a 2 minute rest. During the following months they were gradually speeded up ... to 59 seconds per 440." [1].
So aside from accuracy, what's the difference between training with the feedback of timed laps on a track (be it Bannister's mechanical stopwatch and cinder track measured in imperial units), or a modern athlete running kilometer repeats on the road via their fancy Apple or Garmin smartwatch?
If one is that much of a running purist, why measure time or distance at all?
[1] https://twitter.com/jmarpdx/status/1465431668206944256
> So aside from accuracy, what's the difference between training with the feedback of timed laps on a track (be it Bannister's mechanical stopwatch and cinder track measured in imperial units), or a modern athlete running kilometer repeats on the road via their fancy Apple or Garmin smartwatch?
One gives useful feedback at a scale that is practical and sufficient and does so at a small cost, the other tracks information at scales beyond what is practical, the true purpose of which is obsession with self or vanity, at a comparatively exponential cost.
Consider that car odometers work on the scale of tenths of miles or kilometers. Exactly what purpose would it serve if they instead displayed distances in micrometers? They would be far more accurate, but that more accurate information is not any more useful than measurements in tenths of miles.
I already stipulated to go ahead and get your Apple Watch, or Garmin or what have you, if it makes you happy. But accumulating data on such absurd scales is not going to improve performance beyond that of using a conventional timer. The problem, as I see it, occurs when nothing less than perfection is acceptable, the entitlement that is exhibited simply because one was foolish enough to pay so much for an unnecessary sports accessory.
One gives useful feedback at a scale that is practical and sufficient and does so at a small cost, the other tracks information at scales beyond what is practical, the true purpose of which is obsession with self or vanity, at a comparatively exponential cost.
Consider that car odometers work on the scale of tenths of miles or kilometers. Exactly what purpose would it serve if they instead displayed distances in micrometers? They would be far more accurate, but that more accurate information is not any more useful than measurements in tenths of miles.
I already stipulated to go ahead and get your Apple Watch, or Garmin or what have you, if it makes you happy. But accumulating data on such absurd scales is not going to improve performance beyond that of using a conventional timer. The problem, as I see it, occurs when nothing less than perfection is acceptable, the entitlement that is exhibited simply because one was foolish enough to pay so much for an unnecessary sports accessory.
First, there's really nothing small cost about Bannister's stopwatch:
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-omega-bannister-stopwa...
Sure, I can pick up the awesome Casio F-91W today for £10 and it would do much the same job. But for the modern day money equivalent of that gorgeous Omega piece I'm going to be able to afford a high-end GPS watch. There's nothing comparatively exponential about it.
Accuracy requirements will depend on training context - if you're running 60 second laps on a track and trying to shave 1 second of your mile PR like Bannister was, then you'll be wanting a certified track and decisecond accurate clock. If you're training for the marathon and running 5K repeats on the road, a few 10s of meters or seconds here or there doesn't really matter.
I can understand why some people don't want to run with a smartwatch, measure themselves, broadcast their progress to all on social media, judge themselves against others, and so on. (I also don't generally judge those who do, unless they're truly awful!)
I can also understand why some people would rather not run with any measure of time or distance at all. They feel it gets in the way, they'd rather just run free, they'd rather just run for fun, or they'd rather just race others for places in the spirit of pure competition.
I just can't get my head around the concept (and this isn't the first time I've heard it), that somehow old-school watches are acceptable but modern watches are bad. It smacks of neo-luddism (or sometimes hipsterism).
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-omega-bannister-stopwa...
Sure, I can pick up the awesome Casio F-91W today for £10 and it would do much the same job. But for the modern day money equivalent of that gorgeous Omega piece I'm going to be able to afford a high-end GPS watch. There's nothing comparatively exponential about it.
Accuracy requirements will depend on training context - if you're running 60 second laps on a track and trying to shave 1 second of your mile PR like Bannister was, then you'll be wanting a certified track and decisecond accurate clock. If you're training for the marathon and running 5K repeats on the road, a few 10s of meters or seconds here or there doesn't really matter.
I can understand why some people don't want to run with a smartwatch, measure themselves, broadcast their progress to all on social media, judge themselves against others, and so on. (I also don't generally judge those who do, unless they're truly awful!)
I can also understand why some people would rather not run with any measure of time or distance at all. They feel it gets in the way, they'd rather just run free, they'd rather just run for fun, or they'd rather just race others for places in the spirit of pure competition.
I just can't get my head around the concept (and this isn't the first time I've heard it), that somehow old-school watches are acceptable but modern watches are bad. It smacks of neo-luddism (or sometimes hipsterism).
> First, there's really nothing small cost about Bannister's stopwatch:
I was unfamiliar with the term and incorrectly assumed it was a common type of mechanical stopwatch rather than a ridiculously expensive brand of stopwatch. The fallacy is straw man, because my argument stated mechanical stopwatch implicitly as an inexpensive alternative to an Apple or Garmin watch. You effectively laid a trap for me and I walked right into it. Well done. But whatever your point may be, it is beyond the argument that I have made. I have no idea what the difference is between two expensive products.
> Sure, I can pick up the awesome Casio F-91W today for £10 and it would do much the same job. But for the modern day money equivalent of that gorgeous Omega piece I'm going to be able to afford a high-end GPS watch. There's nothing comparatively exponential about it.
Again, this is a straw man argument you have constructed in order to attack it. Regardless, it is not my argument.
> Accuracy requirements will depend on training context - if you're running 60 second laps on a track and trying to shave 1 second of your mile PR like Bannister was, then you'll be wanting a certified track and decisecond accurate clock. If you're training for the marathon and running 5K repeats on the road, a few 10s of meters or seconds here or there doesn't really matter.
The only running I am aware of that requires accuracy to the hundredths of seconds available on $5 digital stopwatches is sprinting races. Sprinting is not a cardiovascular workout but instead an anaerobic exercise. Regardless, the $5 stopwatch will suffice in tracking either cardiovascular or anaerobic exercise.
> I can understand why some people don't want to run with a smartwatch, measure themselves, broadcast their progress to all on social media, judge themselves against others, and so on. (I also don't generally judge those who do, unless they're truly awful!) I can also understand why some people would rather not run with any measure of time or distance at all. They feel it gets in the way, they'd rather just run free, they'd rather just run for fun, or they'd rather just race others for places in the spirit of pure competition. I just can't get my head around the concept (and this isn't the first time I've heard it), that somehow old-school watches are acceptable but modern watches are bad. It smacks of neo-luddism (or sometimes hipsterism).
Again, this is a straw man, a rephrasing of my argument such that it is no longer recognizable as my argument. My argument was that these extremely complex and expensive accessories become the ends themselves, they distract from the original intent of improving fitness, trading the natural incentives for fitness with the incentive of being entertained by a gizmo, which fundamentally is vanity. Beyond that, I speculate that it is merely the difference that money can make, and in this particular case, the difference is negligible and entirely arbitrary.
Simply be aware that unnecessary reliance on affectations will synthetically make it more difficult to do the same activity if the affectations are removed, for whatever the reason they happen to not be available. Exercise is its own reward, and there is little reason to replace that incentive with the need to be entertained by detailed metrics of past events.
But that said, for the love of serenity, please do whatever makes you happy.
I was unfamiliar with the term and incorrectly assumed it was a common type of mechanical stopwatch rather than a ridiculously expensive brand of stopwatch. The fallacy is straw man, because my argument stated mechanical stopwatch implicitly as an inexpensive alternative to an Apple or Garmin watch. You effectively laid a trap for me and I walked right into it. Well done. But whatever your point may be, it is beyond the argument that I have made. I have no idea what the difference is between two expensive products.
> Sure, I can pick up the awesome Casio F-91W today for £10 and it would do much the same job. But for the modern day money equivalent of that gorgeous Omega piece I'm going to be able to afford a high-end GPS watch. There's nothing comparatively exponential about it.
Again, this is a straw man argument you have constructed in order to attack it. Regardless, it is not my argument.
> Accuracy requirements will depend on training context - if you're running 60 second laps on a track and trying to shave 1 second of your mile PR like Bannister was, then you'll be wanting a certified track and decisecond accurate clock. If you're training for the marathon and running 5K repeats on the road, a few 10s of meters or seconds here or there doesn't really matter.
The only running I am aware of that requires accuracy to the hundredths of seconds available on $5 digital stopwatches is sprinting races. Sprinting is not a cardiovascular workout but instead an anaerobic exercise. Regardless, the $5 stopwatch will suffice in tracking either cardiovascular or anaerobic exercise.
> I can understand why some people don't want to run with a smartwatch, measure themselves, broadcast their progress to all on social media, judge themselves against others, and so on. (I also don't generally judge those who do, unless they're truly awful!) I can also understand why some people would rather not run with any measure of time or distance at all. They feel it gets in the way, they'd rather just run free, they'd rather just run for fun, or they'd rather just race others for places in the spirit of pure competition. I just can't get my head around the concept (and this isn't the first time I've heard it), that somehow old-school watches are acceptable but modern watches are bad. It smacks of neo-luddism (or sometimes hipsterism).
Again, this is a straw man, a rephrasing of my argument such that it is no longer recognizable as my argument. My argument was that these extremely complex and expensive accessories become the ends themselves, they distract from the original intent of improving fitness, trading the natural incentives for fitness with the incentive of being entertained by a gizmo, which fundamentally is vanity. Beyond that, I speculate that it is merely the difference that money can make, and in this particular case, the difference is negligible and entirely arbitrary.
Simply be aware that unnecessary reliance on affectations will synthetically make it more difficult to do the same activity if the affectations are removed, for whatever the reason they happen to not be available. Exercise is its own reward, and there is little reason to replace that incentive with the need to be entertained by detailed metrics of past events.
But that said, for the love of serenity, please do whatever makes you happy.
What you’re describing is a fantastic way to injure yourself.
Comment is vague, but apparently what you are suggesting is that physical fitness isn't safe without using a computer. Our bodies evolved to run, and it is, actually, possible to recognize and react to what the body reports to the brain through sensation without any intermediary electronic device gathering and reporting false data. Many are capable of sensing injury or illness before overt symptoms appear, and react accordingly, reducing or eliminating negative impact. The more computerized devices are relied on for ordinary activity, the more they become a crutch, and the more difficult it becomes to operate without them. Obsession is unmistakably unhealthy.
No, what they're saying is that exercise as you've described, will lead to injury and goes against ALL the traning advice of seasoned long-distance runners.
But hey, go ahead.
But hey, go ahead.
Then they, as you, have entirely missed the point of my comment, which had nothing whatsoever to do with any exercise plan. I was instead cautioning against unnecessary reliance on affectation.
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 developed over time, such as something impacting GPS receive sensitivity. Or it could even be a new source of RF interference in the GPS range near the author’s start point, which impacts GPS lock until they get far enough away from it.
Interesting issue, but note that this issue appears to be specific to this one specific person, not a general issue with all Apple Watches as some in this thread are speculating. I certainly have not noticed this behavior on my Watch even with the latest updates.