The thing to understand about Apple Watch releases, is they aren’t targeting last year’s buyers. Nor even the year prior. Instead, they’re targeting previous Apple Watch owners 3-5 generations back. And true to that form, Apple each year just slightly increases the specs to make the upgrade path a bit more appealing. A bit more shiny. And a bit more brilliant.
Which, is exactly what the Apple Watch Series 10 does. There are no earth-shattering new features here for most consumers, well, unless you snorkel a lot. But under the covers, it’s a substantial change in terms of the internals to fit into the thinnest Apple Watch to date, with also the biggest screen on any Apple Watch to date. And you’ll certainly notice that big screen when comparing it to even just the 45mm unit from last year. Instead, the majority of the new features come from the also new WatchOS 11, bringing in sports training load, overnight sleep metric trending, a new Tides app, and more.
I’ve been putting all these features to the test, both in the Apple Watch Series 10, as well as within watchOS 11, to see how well they work both day-to-day, as well as in sports applications. As usual, this watch is a media loaner, and it’ll go back to Apple. After which I’ll go out and get my own for any future testing needs. If you found this review useful, you can use the links at the bottom, or consider becoming a DCR Supporter, which makes the site ad-free, while also getting access to a behind-the-scenes video series And of course, it makes you awesome.
With that, let’s get into it!
What’s New:
As is always the case with the Apple Watch releases, it’s really divided into two major camps: Things that are new on the watch itself (usually hardware) relative to the previous hardware version, and then things that are new due to the new WatchOS platform (which is announced months earlier in June). In this review, I’m aiming to cover both of those things, given I’ve spent all summer on WatchOS 11 since back in early June.
Starting on the Series 10-specific side first, here’s what’s new there:
– Totally new design internally, and new model sizes being introduced: 42mm/46mm
– Biggest usable display area to date in any Apple Watch: 374x446px for the 42mm 416x496px for the 46mm
– Thinnest design to date (9.7mm versus 10.7mm on Series 9)
– New ‘Ionic Glass’ screen design, which tapers further down the edge of the display
– New “Wide Angle OLED’ display, which is 40% brighter when viewed on an angle
– Always-on display mode will now show seconds even when wrist is down (updates at 1-second rate in standby mode, versus 1-minute rate)
– Added ability to have speaker play media/music (previously it wouldn’t, had to connect headphones)
– New faster charging times, 80% charge in 30 mins (fastest Apple Watch to date)
– New S10 sip (chipset) inside the Series 10
– Adds new voice calling automatic background removal with new neural network
– Adds depth gauge (supports depths to 6m/20ft for snorkeling – still maintains 50m waterproofing)
– Adds temperature sensor (supports water temperature for swimming activities)
– Adds new ’Tides’ app to show tidal data globally
– Adds snorkeling support for Series 10 (via 3rd party Oceanic App/partnership)
– Adds sleep apnea detection, monthly reporting with analysis reports
– Adds new sleep metric: breathing disturbances (which feeds into sleep apnea detection)
– Adds new ‘Flux’ watch face
– Adds new ‘Reflections’ watch face
– Adds new metal backplate to watch
– Three color options for base edition: Rose Gold, Silver Aluminum, Jet Black
– Three new polished titanium versions, weigh 20% less than existing stainless steel variants
– Titanium Series 10 is a carbon-neutral product
– Same pricing at $399 (42mm) & $429 (46mm), or $499/$529 for the cellular editions.
– Pricing for titanium is $699 for the 42mm, and $749 for 46mm (but includes cellular)
– Shipping on September 20th, 2024
Got all that? Good, now we get to layer in the WatchOS 11 features, which cover plenty of areas, but I’ll be mostly focusing on the sports/fitness/health ones. They are as follows:
– Added new workout Training Load features
– Added Vitals app (for trending overnight sleep metrics)
– Added custom routes for hiking/walking/running
– Added true offline maps to watch
– Added ability to pause Activity Rings
– Added ability to adjust goals on a per-day basis (e.g. Saturday)
– Added structured swim workouts
– Added distance and route maps to a pile of sport types
– Added safety check-in feature at start/end of work-out
– Added intelligent Smart Stack
– Added automatic offline language translations when you arrive in a country
– Added new watch faces/styles
And again, there’s a smattering of other very minor tweaks as well, but that’s the bulk of them.
Finally, note that there’s no change in the SpO2/blood oxygen sensor status. That remains as it has been since earlier this year, wherein Apple is unable to sell units with it enabled within the US. Existing users can keep the feature on their watch, as well as all non-US purchases. But units purchased in the US will not have that feature enabled. The hardware remains the same, so in the (seemingly unlikely) event something changes in a court case, it could be re-enabled. In fact, you’ll notice in WatchOS 11 on the Series 10, the user interface slot that was there in the ‘Vitals’ app for SpO2 is now removed.
Thus, let’s get on to using it.
The Basics:
In this section I’m going to cover all the basics of the Apple Watch from a day-to-day standpoint, partially as a smartwatch, and partially covering some of the basic health/activity features. If you’re familiar with an Apple Watch from before, then very little of this realm has changed, save the new Vitals app.
Still, the most visible change is really just the front watch display itself, now being both larger, but covering the entire top of the watch, including slightly curving down the edges of the case.
How much you notice this extra bit of screen real estate will essentially depend on which watch you’re coming from. Unquestionably, compared to my Series 9 watch (45mm), it looks and feels quite a bit bigger. More wider than anything else. That said, my wife wore it for a ride (and snorkeling) without any issues in terms of size, despite having a much smaller wrist (she’s 5’2”/157cm):
If you’re coming from an older watch, you’ll likely notice it even more. And ironically, as Apple noted in their keynote, this is actually an even bigger display area than the higher-end (and twice as expensive) Apple Watch Ultra 2. Not by a ton, just 3%, but the fact that it’s even the same size at all is notable.
Speaking of other hardware changes, while Apple did add their new S10 chipset to the Series 10, there’s no tangible user benefits except leveraging it for Apple’s voice isolation feature for voice calls. This feature will utilize just a single microphone on the watch, along with algorithms, to remove background noise in watch voice calls. Whereas something like the Ultra 2 series will leverage the 3 physical microphones instead (akin to what a GoPro does). The end resultant is essentially the same, just accomplished via two different methods.
In any event, back on the display/usability, the watch has 2.5 buttons on the side, as well as of course the touchscreen itself. The Digital Crown acts as both a button, as well as a dial to scroll through menus.
Apple introduced two new watch faces with Series 10, including this one shown below, that displays the second by ‘filling up’ like a cup of water. Which is notable as another new feature of the display, now showing seconds, even in a dimmed always-on configuration (previous units just updated once per minute in the dimmed state).
As with before, you can customize the watch face to any of Apple’s included ones, as well as customize the complications (data bits) on the watch face.
The display on the Apple Watch Series 10 is considered an ‘always on’ display by default, meaning that it’ll dim the display state when your wrist is down, but then increase brightness when you raise your wrist. The Series 10 has the same display brightness as the Series 9 (at 2,000 nits), but Apple has changed the technology in the display to make it brighter and more readable off-angle. And while that’s true, in real-life compared to a Series 9, it’s not all that noticeable. Instead, you’d notice it more comparing it against a much older Apple Watch.
(Apple Watch Series 9 45mm at left, Apple Watch Series 10 46mm at right)
When it comes to daily activity tracking (e.g. steps), that’ll be seen within the ‘Activity’ app, along with its famed rings. These rings have different goals that fill up throughout the day. This includes the red ring for calories, the blue ring for stand time, and the green ring for exercise. By default this is standing at least once within each of 12 hours per day, 30 minutes of exercise, and 300 calories. In this context, the threshold/bar for what counts as exercise is pretty low, so even just walking briskly to the ice cream shop will get you credit.
All of this information is of course also visible on the Fitness app on your phone, letting you see the same data and looking at longer timeframes:
Within WatchOS11, Apple has introduced the ability to pause activity rings. This can be helpful if you’re traveling that day, or sick, or just have a crazy busy day at work. Likewise, you can now change the goals for each ring, by day. For example, let’s say you know each Monday is a non-starter for accomplishing your rings, you can change all Mondays. Or equally, you can change it just for today (such as the day after you ran an ultramarathon).
Speaking of things that make you want to sleep, there’s the sleep dashboard, where you can look at your sleep stats from last night as well as the last 14 days. The first and second pages show last night’s sleep data, including sleep phases/stages:
While the last page shows how the last 7 days compares to the previous 7 days:
From a sleep times standpoint, I had no issues with tracking accuracy for the times I fell asleep and woke up, in terms of accuracy of that data. However, as I note in every review, comparing the stage/phase data is basically like throwing spaghetti at a wall. Even the “most accurate” methods to compare sleep phases/stages is only in the mid-80% accuracy range, which we’d never accept for comparing heart rate data to be wrong 20% of the time as our ‘gold standard’. Thus, I don’t do comparisons of sleep phases/stages, as catchy/fun as that might be.
Now, one area that’s new in the Series 10 is the tracking of sleep apnea. This received FDA approval over the last few days, and Apple has rolled it out yesterday to Series 9, Series 10, and Ultra 2 watches. This feature is designed to determine whether sleep apnea exists over the course of a 30-day period, and then alert you, providing you with a report you can take to your doctor.
The new feature starts off with a new metric, “Breathing Disturbances”, which you’ll need to enable in order to start gathering the data. You’ll get prompted to enable it in a few different places while setting things up, but ultimately the enablement happens within the Apple Health app, taking just a few seconds:
Immediately on your next night of sleep, you’ll start gathering data in that bucket, just like any other nightly metric. This will be categorized as Elevated or Not-Elevated, and you don’t need to wait for the full 30 days for this to occur. You can see this already happening on my unit despite just enabling this feature two nights ago:
Note that some levels of breathing disturbances are entirely normal and expected (and can be impacted by simple things like alcohol), however, when they cross into the ‘elevated’ range, they become a concern for sleep apnea.
Each month, after the initial 30 days, the iPhone will analyze the data from your Apple Watch and generate a report if/when sleep apnea may have occurred. It’ll include details on what level that occurred, and is based on machine learning and data from a validated clinical study Apple did with 1,400 people including 30 nights of sleep and compared to a medical-grade APAP diagnostic device, cross-referenced by medical experts to validate the data. Apple says the full details of the study will be included in Apple’s FDA certification paperwork, which should be released shortly.
Technically speaking, the 30-day threshold requires 10 nights of sleep (with at least four hours per night), and within that 10 nights, 50% of those nights must have triggered an elevated reading, which in turn requires a ‘Moderate’ level of breathing disturbances. Once that happens, you’ll see an alert like this on your phone (this is a sample from Apple):
And then following that, you’ll see a page on your iPhone that gives you more information, including exporting out a PDF report of the data for your doctor.
The next sleep-related piece has nothing to do with sleep apnea, but is instead Apple’s new WatchOS11 trending of your nightly sleep-related metrics. This is the new ‘Vitals’ app, which shows your nightly resting heart rate, overnight respiratory rate, overnight wrist temperature trending, and overnight sleep duration. For those who buy the Apple Watch outside the US, it’ll also include overnight SpO2 (blood oxygen) levels. This is a separate app on the Apple Watch, though on your phone the data is rolled into the Health app. On the watch you’ll see this display:
You can then scroll through each of the metrics individually to see their data.
The Vitals app will also track any outliers, bubbling them up to you, to consider (or, ignore). I’ve yet to have any outliers occur over the last three months of WatchOS11. Nonetheless, in the examples above/below, you’ll see the ones in pink as being ‘outliers’. Whereas the ones in blue are within your normal range. If you get two outliers within this range, it’ll notify you, prompting you to look more closely at those metrics and possible causes (seen above, right). Also note below the inclusion of blood oxygen (2nd from right) levels, for those purchasing outside the US.
All this works fine, though, as noted, I’m surprised by the lack of notices around low sleep times. I’ve had some absurdly low sleep durations (like 3 hours), and never get an outlier notice. I’m not quite sure what you’d have to do to get one, and given the difficulty in getting that to trigger, it lessens the value of an app like this, if the goal is to make you aware of disturbing trends. I suppose you’re probably more aware of sleep time trending versus the other metrics (simply because you’re more tired), but still, it’s the only piece that doesn’t really fit for me.
In any case, ending this general section on something entirely different – there’s the new much faster charging times. The new Apple Watch Series 10 will now charge to 80% within 30 minutes. Frankly, it’s been incredible – and is spot on. Most of the technology to make this happen is within the back of the watch, though, it will need a newer model charger to get the faster speeds. Specifically one made in the last few years (either a braided one from the Ultra boxes, or one with silver/metal on the outside of the charging puck, from Series 7 and newer).
Now this doesn’t impact the overall daily battery life, which remains at a claimed “18 hours all day battery life”. And in fact, Apple says the Series 10 should be seeing improvements in battery life. That said, I haven’t had that experience on my unit. For context, I burned through 17% battery last night while sleeping (with it in low-power sleep mode), and concurrently, over the last 60 minutes, I’ve burned through another 13% just sitting here writing. I’ve normally easily made it through the day on a single battery charge, including GPS time (and then charge right before bed). But with this unit, I’m barely making it past dinner each night before having to charge again.
Apple says this isn’t normal, and in talking to others testing the Apple Watch Series 10, they’re seeing substantially better battery life than me (with more GPS time too). Thus, something seems off with my unit in some way/shape/form. I’ll continue to troubleshoot with Apple and circle back. Though, for GPS battery life, looking at yesterday’s 75-minute run as an example, it decreased from 39% to 24%, which would seem at least somewhat normal (implying about 12%/hour, or about 8.3 hours of GPS time per charge on the 45mm, which is above their claimed specs of 7 hours). Thus it seems the daily/general is more the problem, than workout usage.
In any case, let’s talk about those workout features.
Sports & Fitness Features:
Apple continues to focus on and increase their sports and workout-related features, and this year is no different. Though, none of the new features were specific to Series 10, but rather via WatchOS11. So let’s dive into all the features, including both the new and previously existing bits.
First, to start a workout on the Series 10, you’ll tap the little runner icon, which opens up the Workout app. That’s the app that has all the sport modes in it.
As of September 17th, 2024, here’s the complete listing of sport modes on the Series 10 (I had to manually write down this list, as Apple’s own list hasn’t been updated in forever):
– American Football
– Archery
– Australian Football
– Badminton
– Barre
– Baseball
– Basketball
– Bowling
– Boxing
– Climbing
– Cooldown
– Core Training
– Cricket
– Cross Country Skiing
– Cross Training
– Curling
– Indoor Cycling
– Outdoor Cycling
– Dance
– Disc Sports
– Downhill Skiing
– Elliptical
– Equestrian Sports
– Fencing
– Fishing
– Fitness Gaming
– Flexibility
– Functional Strength Training
– Golf
– Gymnastics
– Hand Cycling
– Handball
– HIIT
– Hiking
– Indoor Hockey
– Outdoor Hockey
– Hunting
– Jump Rope
– Kickboxing
– Lacrosse
– Martial Arts
– Mind & Body
– Mixed Cardio
– Multisport
– Other
– Paddling
– Pickleball
– Pilates
– Play
– Racquetball
– Regret Writing This List Out
– Rolling
– Indoor Rowing
– Outdoor Rowing
– Rugby
– Indoor Run
– Outdoor Run
– Sailing
– Indoor Skating
– Outdoor Skating
– Snow Sports
– Snowboarding
– Indoor Soccer
– Outdoor Soccer
– Social Dance
– Softball
– Squash
– Stair Stepper
– Stairs
– Step Training
– Surfing
– Open Water Swim
– Pool Swim
– Table Tennis
– Tai Chi
– Tennis
– Track & Field
– Traditional Strength Training
– Volleyball
– Indoor Walk
– Outdoor Walk
– Water Fitness
– Water Polo
– Water Sports
– Wrestling
– Yoga
Ok then…that was a dumb idea to write all those out. But once I got into it deep enough to realize it, I was committed. You’re welcome.
In any event, your favorites are listed towards the top of the list, so in my case, let’s just go with ‘Outdoor Run’. Here, I can select it to immediately start it, or I can tap the ‘…’ to configure settings.
By selecting the settings, I can change the target (such as a time/distance goal), race against a previous route, as well as create a structured workout.
The structured workouts can be created directly on the watch, including rather complex interval workouts, or, you can use sync from a slate of 3rd party partners, including companies like TrainingPeaks, to automatically import your scheduled workouts from those platforms to the watch. This includes running, cycling, and new to WatchOS11, structured swimming workouts.
You can also tweak your display preferences here, in terms of which data fields/pages you want. Apple has a pile of them, though they still won’t reach the flexibility levels seen on more endurance-focused watches. And interestingly, despite now having a larger display area than the Apple Watch Ultra series, you’re still limited to the same existing data field quantity/sizes (whereas the Apple Watch Ultra series lets you see more data fields per page).
In any event, let’s start a run. As expected, during the workout you’ll see any data pages you’ve configured, and you can scroll through them by using either touch or the Digital Crown:
None of this is any different from before.
However, what is new is the ability to download offline map sections to the watch, and create pedestrian routes to follow. Previously you could download maps to your phone, but you still had to have your phone with you. Now, the phone isn’t required. To download these maps, you’ll open the Apple Maps app on your phone, and then download it to your phone. With that, there will be an option to also “Sync with Apple Watch”, which will do so once the watch is on the charger:
Then, within the Apple Maps app, you can download and/or create routes for pedestrian use. This includes picking from pre-populated routes for the area, or, simply tapping your way through creating a route, as I did for my trail run this past weekend.
Next, out on the run, you can see these maps/routes (and again, this is a feature of WatchOS 11). In this case here’s a photo showing it on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 (whereas I had data on the Series 10), though it’s identical from a functional standpoint. It’ll notify you of upcoming turns automatically, and show you the route on the screen. As you can see, this worked on a trail, it didn’t require any sort of road.
While this works OK, it’s clear Apple needs the same sort of 3rd party connection/API that it has for the structured workout side, so that apps like Strava, Komoot, MapMyRun, etc… can push routes to the Apple Watch. The route builder within the Maps app is fairly limiting in terms of creating routes, except for the most basic of scenarios (for example, it lacks elements like heatmap data). Whereas all of Apple’s partners have the capabilities to make this happen. Hopefully, that’s on the list for WatchOS12 next year.
With my run in the woods successfully navigated, I ended the workout to save the data.
One of the new items you’ll see in that list is the Effort Rating. That’s a new WatchOS11 feature that has you rate the difficulty of that workout. That serves as the basis for the training load components. I dive into this in much more detail in this post, but essentially it takes your effort rating, and multiplies it by your duration, to get your total training load. Apple attempts to calculate an Effort Rating upfront, though I find it basically rates everything a 7 for me.
Likewise, you can see this data on the Fitness app, in much more detail, including metrics like running power and running efficiency data.
In my case, I then use the 3rd party app HealthFit, to sync it onwards to various other platforms, as well as display other analytics (it’s also how I get the data out for the accuracy pieces down below):
Meanwhile, back in native Apple land, there’s the new training load features (again, covered in-depth here, from WatchOS11). On the watch, you’ll see your training load displayed, over your baseline. This is comparing your current 7 days, against your previous 28-day average/baseline (to access this, open the ‘Activity’ app on your watch, then tap the upper right corner icon.
You can scroll along each of the 7 days to see how it compares. You’ll see an indicator showing if it’s normal, or above/below the baselines (or ‘Well’ above/below the baseline). My only challenge with this, and it’s kind of a big challenge, is that it doesn’t provide an actual load number like every other company. Obviously, Apple has that number (and it’s not really a secret), because that’s how it shows the % difference. The problem with not showing a number is you can’t really compare different timeframes.
For example, by 80% “Well Above” from today, is that really all that above? Or, is it just that my current 28-day period on the Apple Watch is a bit lower due to seasonability or travel? If I’m looking at this from an athletic/endurance standpoint, I want to know how things compare between different months, not just the last four weeks. Apple could easily solve this by just showing the actual load number on the screen (or even in the app), like every other company. Speaking of which, you can see this within the app too:
And in fact, my data is such a great example of why they need numbers. Due to only having two wrists, and numerous watches to test, I took off the Apple Watch for a few weeks in August. As such, you see that gap there. Thus, my 89% higher than normal load isn’t real (since in fact I was doing huge workouts then). While Apple can account for other Apple Watch apps pushing data into the training load calculations, it doesn’t account for other platforms. No biggie, but again, if I just had an actual number here, then I’d easily be able to look at it and go “Oh, ok, my current load this week is normal/high/low/etc for me seasonally”, just like I do on other watches.
In any event, I do appreciate Apple getting into this realm, I just wish this was slightly more skewed towards the folks it’s realistically targeting.
Now, a few other odds and ends. From a sensor standpoint, the Apple Watch can connect to various Bluetooth fitness sensors, including external heart rate sensors, and cycling sensors. This includes cycling power meters, cadence sensors, and even smart trainers. While it can’t control smart trainers, it can read data from Bluetooth trainers that broadcast power (which is every trainer in the last half a decade+).
And, in my testing, that continues to work very well (it was introduced last year in WatchOS 10).
However, inversely, Apple doesn’t have any broadcasting of your heart rate via normal Bluetooth standards. Sure, a handful of devices will use Apple’s GymKit feature to access your heart rate, but when I say ‘handful’, I mean almost none these days. It’s unclear to me why Apple is so hesitant in this area, which would make it much easier to broadcast your heart rate to other devices (including bike computers). In effect, it basically forces cyclists (the very people Apple added power meter support for), to use other 3rd party products to get heart rate data onto their bike computers (as most serious cyclists aren’t using Apple’s bike phone companion app/feature on their handlebars). Hopefully they’ll consider adding that down the road.
Overall though, Apple continues to round out its sports and fitness features. It’s clear in the 2024 hardware/software updates that it’s not trying to be a Garmin in terms of sports depth, but rather, trying to be just deep enough to tempt those that don’t need all the Garmin features, with just enough features to cover the majority of use cases. And thus far, it’s mostly threading the needle well.
New Depth Gauge (Snorkeling):
You’ll note that this section is separate from the Sports & Fitness features. Sure, one could assume that’s because I wanted to highlight the new depth gauge feature that’s marketed specifically towards snorkeling. But unfortunately, that’s not the case. The reason it’s separate is that within Apple’s software realm, it’s not considered a sport. Somehow, it’s an entirely different ‘situation’.
While ‘Social Dance’, ‘Bowling’, ‘Sailing’, ‘Paddling’, and ‘Hunting’ are all sport profiles, snorkeling is not. Even worse, it’s relegated to the ‘Depth’ app. And look, I’ll say upfront this entire thing is very salvageable via simple software updates. But right now, this is nothing short of a hot mess. Not quite dumpster fire status, but, not far away either.
You see, the ‘Depth’ app was introduced with the Apple Watch Ultra series, to allow scuba diving. But Apple didn’t really want to get into the business of being a true dive computer (with all the baggage that has), so instead Apple made the depth gauge/app, and offloaded all the messiness to Oceanic and their Oceanic+ app (which requires a subscription for most diving features). That meant Apple did the hardware work of certifying the dive gauge per all the required standards, and Oceanic did the work of doing the same on the software side. Life was, mostly, grand.
Then, came along the Apple Watch Series 10, with its little sibling depth gauge. While the Apple Watch Ultra series has case protection down to 100m, the depth gauge is only certified to 40m (more than enough for most scuba divers). Meanwhile, for the Series 10, it’s only declared down to 6m/20ft. Which, is perfect for snorkeling (but useless for diving).
To that end, the built-in (and free) Apple Watch ‘Depth’ app shows your current depth and ‘dive’ time, as well as water temperature (shown above).
Except for one problem: It resets anytime you come within 3ft of the surface. Thus, you can’t actually track your snorkel session, as it resets it every few seconds (and sometimes shows water temp and sometimes doesn’t), and then fills up your Apple Fitness app with a gazillion ‘Depth’ activities of a few seconds:
Why on earth this couldn’t have been a simple workout/sport type is well beyond me. After all, if you go for a swim, Apple records the water temp/time/distance/etc there. The same goes for sailing, paddling, and you name it. All that data ends up in the Apple Health database/app (and Apple Fitness app), just like the Depth app. There’s simply no logical reason the same couldn’t have been done for snorkeling.
Instead, they push you over to Oceanic’s app. That app works well on the Apple Watch Ultra series, but alas, isn’t fully ready for the Apple Watch Series 10. Yes, the app itself installs fine on the Series 10, and during your snorkeling session, it does correctly track each ‘dive’ down to the bottom, the max depth, per-dive time, and even a compass. On the watch itself, this actually works mostly well – and is exactly what Apple should have natively.
I realized I never took pretty underwater photos of the actual Oceanic app mid-snorkel. Perhaps I’ll do that tomorrow. So instead, here is a pretty picture of us underwater snorkeling.
Further compounding things, the Oceanic phone app isn’t ready yet for Series 10. Thus at present, it’s missing almost all the data it should have (no detailed depth data, no GPS data, no dive map, no photos, etc…). Basically, the only thing it has is time of day and total duration. A far cry from what was shown in the Apple Keynote:
I’ll have to circle back on this once Oceanic gets their app finished. Still, setting Oceanic aside for a second, this could be a cool feature if Apple simply made it a sport profile like every other sport profile. Or, if they just had the Depth app simply keep everything as one singular session until you ended it, rather than creating a new activity every time you bobbed your head underwater for a few seconds. While I appreciate the extra features the Oceanic App has on the scuba diving side, for the snorkeling side, it seems like this was offloaded to them without any clear reasoning as to why – or how that ultimately benefited the Apple customer.
On the bright side, the new Tides app is great – and arguably one of the most refined things I’ve seen Apple do this year (and by far, the best watch manufacturer-provided implementation of tidal data). The Tides app will automatically show tides for the nearest spot to your current location:
You can scroll along using the digital crown, and see the upcoming 7 days of tidal data. The implementation is just super clean and easy to read, and well done. So much data is conveyed in a very simple format.
In addition to your current location, you can also search from 150,000 other locations, saving those spots to the app as well. Further, you can tap on the current location to see swell information:
Note that the Tides app is now available for all WatchOS 11 watches, so it’s not just limited to the Series 10.
GPS & Heart Rate Accuracy:
There’s been no changes in either GPS or heart rate sensors on the Apple Watch Series 10, as compared to the Series 9. Likewise for the Apple Watch Ultra 2 Black, versus the Apple Watch Ultra 2. That said, aspects like new case designs can (and definitely will) potentially have an impact on accuracy of GPS, as the antenna for GPS is usually around the outer edge of the case. I always validate accuracy of every new model, as I’m doing here for the new Titanium edition of the Series 10.
Starting off on the heart rate side, we’ve got a trail run I did this weekend. This wasn’t an interval run per se, though it kinda ended up as one as I went up/down the various hills in the area. Here’s that data set:
As you can see, there’s clearly no meaningful difference. It’s spot-on with the chest strap, as well as the Google Pixel Watch 3 on the other wrist.
Next, here’s yesterday morning’s interval run, which…well…was painful. It initially started on pavement, but then transitioned to dirt and eventually just all sorts of trails. Here’s that compared to the same chest strap and Pixel Watch 3:
Again, it’s spot-on perfect. Honestly, this is kinda getting boring.
So, let’s step it up and look at a gravel bike ride. Or rather, some road riding, some gravel, and some MTB, all in one. Here’s that data set:
As you can see, it’s very close, but we can see some slight minor struggles from the Series 10 in some areas in terms of delay (above or below). The Pixel Watch made a few minor errors here and there too, and in total, I’d call it a wash between those two on this ride.
Looking at some GPS tracks, we continue to see no issues in GPS accuracy. Here’s a trail run I did, starting at a high level, again this looks identical to the other units:
As we zoom in, we can see in the trees, all the units are very close:
Yet, here’s another area where the Pixel Watch 3 GPS struggled in the woods, but the Apple Watch Series 10 nailed it. Neither of those units have multiband/dual-frequency GPS, and this shows that algorithms and antenna designs are more important than whether or not it has multiband GPS:
Looking at another run, this along a coastal route that included weaving through some high-rise hotels as well as eventually along cliffs and through trees, you can see at a high level, it’s virtually identical:
As I look at some of the areas near the high-rise buildings, again, I see no meaningful differences on the Apple Watch side:
And the same is true along the coastal areas with some trees as well as steeper descents along cliffs:
Ultimately, all of this matches all of my workouts with the Series 10 – there’s simply nothing of note in either heart rate or GPS performance to be of concern. It’s spot-on across the board. While one could argue that perhaps Apple might want to add dual-frequency/multiband GPS, I’m just not seeing a specific problem area that’s requiring that. I’ll be able to add/do some more deep city testing next week, though historically speaking Apple hasn’t really hugely struggled in that arena either with the Series 9. So I wouldn’t expect much difference here with the Series 10.
(Note: All of the charts in these accuracy portions were created using the DCR Analyzer tool. It allows you to compare power meters/trainers, heart rate, cadence, speed/pace, running power, GPS tracks, and plenty more. You can use it as well for your own gadget comparisons, more details here.)
Wrap-Up:
Ultimately, the Apple Watch Series 10 isn’t for existing Apple Watch Series 9 owners. It’s realistically for Series 7 and earlier owners. And it follows the normal Apple playbook of incremental hardware changes that make the upgrade more appealing after 2-3 years of ownership. All the while, Apple keeps on breaking the industry playbook of offering software updates to most watches made in the last 5 years or so. That helps the company keep its less frequent-upgrading customers happy, while concurrently offering techies an excuse to buy new things for all the latest bling.
The Series 10’s display is definitely bling, and it of course makes it kinda quirky that it’s bigger than the Ultra 2. That said, using the two side by side, you don’t really notice it in real-life (because of course, the Series 10 is only 3% bigger in active display area). Instead, the core difference you’ll notice is battery life (and ‘Precision Start’ for workouts). But that’s a separate discussion for another day this week or so (the new Apple Watch Ultra 2 Black).
Many of the Apple Watch Series 10 features are really WatchOS 11 new features – and there are some good ones in there. The training load is off to a good start, and the offline maps and routing is equally off to a good start. I’d like to see both of those mature a bit more next year in WatchOS 12, but for now, they’ll likely meet the mainstream needs. But I think both native solutions also concurrently fall a bit short of the needs of an endurance sports athlete looking for quick routes from platforms like Strava or Komoot. Likewise, I’ll have to see how the depth gauge and snorkeling features mature over the coming weeks as Oceanic finishes their app. But as I noted above, the feature should still be a native feature, especially since Apple did all the hard work already.
Nonetheless, as we look at other core areas – the optical HR sensor and GPS performance is top-notch, as is general speed/usability of the watch. Plus of course the display, as I noted earlier, is great. If you were looking for a reason to upgrade an older Apple Watch, there’s plenty to choose from.
With that, thanks for reading!
Found This Post Useful? Support The Site!
Hopefully you found this review/post useful. At the end of the day, I’m an athlete just like you looking for the most detail possible on a new purchase – so my review is written from the standpoint of how I used the device. The reviews generally take a lot of hours to put together, so it’s a fair bit of work (and labor of love). As you probably noticed by looking below, I also take time to answer all the questions posted in the comments – and there’s quite a bit of detail in there as well.
If you're shopping for the Apple Watch Series 10 or any other accessory items, please consider using the affiliate links below! As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn’t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot.
Here's a few other variants or sibling products that are worth considering:
And of course – you can always sign-up to be a DCR Supporter! That gets you an ad-free DCR, access to the DCR Quarantine Corner video series packed with behind the scenes tidbits...and it also makes you awesome. And being awesome is what it’s all about!
Thanks for reading! And as always, feel free to post comments or questions in the comments section below, I’ll be happy to try and answer them as quickly as possible. And lastly, if you felt this review was useful – I always appreciate feedback in the comments below. Thanks!
Regret Writing This List Out
Could do with that as workout app too
Funnily enough I got a vitals outlier for too much sleep :)
A watch that is like a computer but can’t set the appearance of data fields. for me completely unacceptable for sports.
Interesting with the size now larger than the Ultra models. Do you think they can go much bigger now for the Ultra? I’d still love a company to try a ‘widescreen’ Watch to allow mapping and some data on screen at the same time…
A lot of people think the Ultra 3 will be bigger.
In looking at the Ultra 2, there’s plenty of room to get rid of lots of screen dead space before you hit the actual bezel-case itself. I say ‘plenty’, by using Apple’s definition of just how much (impressively) they can get rid of bezels.
Tons of space to be filled yet!
Ray, you write:
“From a sensor standpoint, the Apple Watch can connect to various Bluetooth fitness sensors, including external heart rate sensors, and cycling sensors. This includes cycling power meters, cadence sensors, and even smart trainers. While it can’t control smart trainers, it can read data from Bluetooth FTMS trainers (which is every trainer in the last half a decade+).”
I don’t think this is quite accurate. With bluetooth, my understanding is cycling data can come from one of these standards:
CPS (Cycling Power Service)
CSCS (Cycling Speed and Cadence Service)
FTMS (FiTness Machine Service), which can send power, cadence, and offer “control point”.
I have a Schwinn IC4 spin bike that sends cadence data by CSCS and also supports FTMS for sending estimated power and cadence by that protocol.
In my testing, Apple Watch will get the cadence data but not the estimated power, so I believe is using CSCS and not FTMS.
Additionally, I have an indoor rowing setup that can send data by FTMS and Apple Watch does not see this signal at all.
My believe is Apple only gets data by CPS and CSCS, or by their GymKit protocol (which I believe is effectively FTMS but requires NFC to handshake).
Do you have a scenario where you are getting cycling data from a device that transmits FTMS and NOT CPS/CSCS?
When I talked with the team at WWDC last year, they specified it was indeed FTMS. That said, perhaps there was some confusion between FTMS vs CPS/CSCS. I can find out.
I’d appreciate a clarification. My belief is that Schwinn decided to do CSCS in addition to FTMS only to get cadence into the Peloton app, which only supports the cadence sensor and no way to get power into it. The IC4 works fine using FTMS to send both power/cadence to apps like Zwift, MyWhoosh, etc. but the Apple Watch only gets cadence which makes me think it is doing so by the CSCS meant for Peloton.
Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, treads and rowers that support FTMS have no way of getting data to the Apple Watch, unless they support GymKit, and I don’t think GymKit supports rowing machines. Rowing machines in particular are a problem. While Apple just added some new metrics for *outdoor* rowing like distance (which it gets by GPS) I don’t think they did so for *indoor* rowing. There’s metrics like pace (time/500m), power (watts), cadence (spm) that a FTMS rowing machine can send that is impossible to get into Apple Health, although apps can send to Strava / intervals.icu so there are ways to get analysis, it’s just that Apple is not useful for this. Garmin Connect supports these rowing metrics but their watches can only do so by ANT+ and not FTMS.
I’d like to see full FTMS support by the Apple Watch for indoor cycles, rowers, treads, especially as those three modalities are present in their Apple Fitness+ service. Ideally, the Apple Watch would also show relevant metrics for those classes within the Fitness+ app as well. Currently as you know, one can connect power/cadence sensors to the Apple Watch, then do a Fitness+ class and power and cadence will be recorded, but won’t show up on the screen where the class is performed, and oddly, one cannot even see those metrics on the watch as Fitness+ overrides one’s custom fields for a default set.
Thanks for reaching out to Apple to check on this Ray.
Sort your hair out.
Good review as usual Ray. I am in wonderment of the HR accuracy you get on the Apple Watch. I had a series 7 and now have a Series 9 and I have never had a accurate HR reading while exercising – even while walking/hiking. I always have periods of bad readings – usually way too high. I have to use a strap connected to the watch to get something accurate. Must be my wrist shape!
Odd. For me, in all my testing, Apple continues to be one of the best out there (along with Garmin’s latest sensors, and the Pixel Watch 3).
I assume that the native workout app is still smoothing GPS tracks? Any insight? It always drove me nuts…
It still does, albeit to a lesser extent than it used to.
Thanks Ray. I’m even more excited for my Series 10 Watch to arrive on Friday now. I had a wobble after trying an Ultra 2 on at the weekend, but ultimately for me the price jump is too big, even if I realise that the watch itself isn’t as big as the specs led me to believe.
When using the Apple Watch to log exercises, do you use the Workouts app? Or for instance the Strava app? With all the extra features that Apple are using, I’m now wondering if it is worth using the Workouts app to log my rides, then import them into Strava later.
I always use the default Apple Workouts app. That said, with the new training log feature, you can use any app on the watch, and assign an Effort Rating later.
Apple just needs to pay up for the oxygen feature. It’s not like they don’t have the money. Not having it on a fitness watch is 2024 is really screwed up and only their US customers are suffering because of it.
Also as a cyclist it is a pain to not be belt send my hear rate information to a Garmin or something. So I’m supposed to wear the watch AND a heart rate monitor? Get real. I’d also like some elevation information for cycling and as long as I’m dreaming Di2 integration :-)
Blood oxygen has really, really limited use or benefit.
And for outdoor cycling you are probably better off with an HRM anyway because of the potential inaccuracies of the wrist OHR – when cycling with my Edge and Epix I always wear a chest strap HRM for this reason.
They don’t have to pay up. They could just redesign the sensor to avoid the pieces the court says infringed. In other words, like almost every other company out there. None of the other big names are paying up.
When you boil it all down, there are very hyper-specific hardware things that Apple could change that would side-step the issue. In talking to a few other competitors about exactly what they could do, they aren’t massive things. Very tiny tweaks that from a patent claims standpoint, that often have no impact on the end product, but shift it from being considered infringing or non-infringing, because a patent is effectively a checklist of very specific things.
My guess is that Apple thought they were gonna win the court case in appeals, and by time that dust settled this past winter, it was far too late to undertake that sensor package redesign. 6-8 months might sound like a lot, but for a product at scale like this, it’s far too short. I’d assume we’ll see a very slight sensor redesign for Series 11/Ultra 3.
How does the standard glass hold up? I guess this is also asking about S9 as the 10 is still very new.
The exposed glass sides put me off as I managed to catch on things a lot and am worried about damaging the glass. Are the newer watches tougher? It’s a lot extra to go for titanium to get the sapphire glass.
Honestly, I’ve got an Ultra 2 right now and I really enjoy it. If I were to get a non-Ultra again, I’d only buy whichever one had sapphire. This year’s titanium option is a really nice one – but the battery I’m used to now would be tough to give up. If you get one and are worried about durability, get the titanium. You won’t regret it. Only reason I sold my stainless was that it scratched so easily.
I’ve been monitoring the sports- and smartwatch-segment in the last couple of years (mostly through this site) and the line between the two gets more blurry then ever… For me, it feels like Garmin‘s only differantiator will soon only be the battery life. Every other thing Apple is catching up. Sure, Garmin has a long history of sports and health focused metrics, especially after buying Firstbeat. But with all the millions of data Apple can leverage, this gap is closing too.
Many years ago I was a ardid Polar fan. When Polar started going down the Nokia route, I switched to Garmin. Now I‘m deep into Garmin‘s ecosystem and have no regrets (I still like Polar and to their credit, they did catch up quite a bit). But I wonder, whether Garmin will be the next Polar… Because if we are honest, it’s not IF Apple steps up its game, it‘s HOW FAST Apple will step it up…
Garmin has nothing to worry about until Apple is transparent about how metrics like training load are calculated.
The reason that Garmin should worry is that it would be easy for Apple to add these details – as Ray mentioned, the information/data is already there ‘under the hood’ but Apple just does not show it.
For the moment the AW is not a realistic altermative to a Garmin watch for many people (including me) because only Garmin has the sports features that they need (or at least want). But those are mostly application-level software, so _can_ be added to the AW (or WearOS devices) over time and the AW _will_ become a legitimate competitor/alternative to Garmin for an increasingly larger number of people.
Conversely, it is much harder or impossible for Garmin to add smartwatch functionality to its devices and increase its addressable portion of the market.
Spot on. Year by year we will see more and more added. I saw the word “coaching” in some interface copy somewhere; I suspect personalised, adaptive session prescription is not too far off, for running and cycling at least.
Year, by year, by year, by year… we keep waiting. (Where are my topo maps, Apple?). And it’s not like Garmin is standing still. This year, hazard warnings/reporting. A few years ago ClimbPro. At least this year on iOS 18 Maps finally shows trails. Not complete coverage, but it may actually be useful. And just checking now on WatchOS 11, Maps also has trails, and more complete coverage. That’s progress. Trails are not actually named on the Ultra, but at least there’s an indication that they’re there. No topo lines, though, except on the one small patch.
I think we cannot deny, that AW is increasing its pace faster then Garmin. Not bashing Garmin, as I said, I have no regrets being in their ecosystem and I like my F7. But Apple is a bigger beast then even Garmin and it has decided to tackle on Garmin. But unlike Coros, AW does introduce these features more smartly. Apple builds great smartwachtes which already appeal many a people, then they introduce sports-feature, that might tip the scale for some sports-focused people still deciding between an AW and another Sports-Watch. Also, when they do introduce something, it is usualy quite polished and well integrated. So, the question is: what will Garmin do? Will they go down the Smartwatch road? Will they have some other Aces up their sleeves (which AW probably will catch up with too) or will it be the Nokia route…? Don‘t get me wrong, I want Garmin to prevail, but my humble opinion is, that AW will cut savagely into Garmin sales in the not so distant future.
I hear you – but I suspect what we’re seeing is small areas being used to prove that it all works before a “true” flag is coded and it rolls out globally or at least to whole territories. ClimbPro is a great example of a feature that I don’t think Apple are likely to go after – it’s a metric only those of us that ride bikes long and hard enough to care about will ever use. Apple want the 90-95% who simply want to exercise or train at a level where that stuff really isn’t that relevant. I’ve got a 1050 and really love the hazard warnings and the bell in particular, but I recognise the niche they’re created for too. If I were to bet, I’d say by Watch OS 13 we’ll have structured, on-device created workout plans (probably including “get started”, 5k, 10k, half and marathon) for running and probably a lot more mapping. There’s also space to expand the Ultra 3 display inside that case and existing bezel, so if this appears in some form next year I won’t be shocked. In any case, I’m really enjoying my Ultra 2 as my daily now and my Fenix 7X is going to stay on the shelf for a little bit until I need it for snowboarding over Xmas.
Does anyone know if the manual training load input uses anything other than RPE at all? Is any of the heart rate associated with an activity used in the calculation of a training load? WorkOutDoors requires manual entries at this time because it doesn’t auto generate any training load score based on heart rate/ trimp.
It’s not. It used initially to establish the effort rating (automatically), by Apple, but then once that effort rating is established, it’s purely rating*duration.
Hi,
Do you like that band better than the rubber sport version? It seems more adjustable. I am a forever Garmin user looking to switch to the 10. I hate the new look of Garmin Connect and ready to try this Apple.
Big, big mistake if you’re primarily interested in a sports watch. And Apple has nothing similar to Garmin Connect. Health is not a replacement for Connect, and there’s nothing online at all. I own an Ultra and an Epix 2, and the Ultra cannot be used like the Epix. (Of all the sports Ray listed above, I wonder how many are as useless as cross country skiing on my Ultra.)
I like aspects of the fabric strap better, and aspects of the rubber one better. For fabric, I like adjustability and feel. But I dislike post-shower/pool/whatever where it absorbs water, and then isn’t try, so when I put my hand on my leg/pants/couch/etc, it leaves a wet spot.
Exactly my „band-dilemma“ for years…
I’d love to see a comparison AW10 vs AWU2. I am struggling which one to choose and – for now, I decided to go to the reseller and see how they look on my wrist.
If the GPS is so accurate on AW10, then for a non-diver this is really a question if you want longer battery life for the price of a bulkier watch.
Also – and that is not covered by this review – it’s a question about the durability. The jet black colour looks great, but everybody remembers how scratched iphones 7 were in this colour option…
Ray, are you going to write an article on aw10 vs awu2?
I have also gone back and forth on Series 10 vs Ultra 2, after trying on an Ultra 2 at the Apple Shop and realising that it didn’t feel as big on any wrist as the specs implied.
I kept my preorder for the 10, mainly because of the price jump, the £270 difference is more than an Apple Watch SE costs! I’m working on the basis that I’ll be able to justify replacing the cheaper Watch earlier when Apple inevitably releases something new and exciting in a few years.
Although I am keen to hear Ray’s take on it.
I would add that “Precision Start” (being able to manually start a running workout when the GPS is ready instead of automatically with the 3,2,1 countdown) for runners is a big one in favor of the AWU. Seems a small software tweak but IMO is essential.
The choice I had to make two years ago is whether to get a series 8 or an Ultra. I’ve been using an Apple Watch as my daily wear since the original (series 0) came out. And every two years, since the battery started to fail (no longer got through the day without a boost), I replaced it. I chose an Ultra in the hopes that the battery would last more than two years. Right now it seems like I made the right choice. We’ll see if it last another 2 years, but right now the battery is in great shape. So that’s a consideration, too. You’ll probably need to replace the 10 sooner than an Ultra 2.
I’m sure people in the comments have already seen it, but Ray delivers: link to dcrainmaker.com
Hi Ray, you’ve got the wrong picture just under the sleep apnea section, where it says this:
> This is a separate app on the Apple Watch, though on your phone the data is rolled into the Health app. On the watch you’ll see this display:
You’ve got a picture of a running workout, not an SpO2 reading.
Thanks, fixed!
,just a quick update tought as you say ;)
regarding activties profil there is also Skatebording. It was included in previous ios but now GPS tracking is included !
Hello DC Rainmaker
Thanks for Testing Apple Watch Series 10,
I have a question:
Is it possible to rename the trainings manually with the new Watch iOS 11.
Example: Outdoor Running – rename after training to your own name
Thanks
Richard, do you mean renaming your completed sessions in the Fitness app? If so, then the answer is “no,” but there are apps that read from the HealthFit database that can do this. One example is the HealthFit app that Ray mentions in this review. In addition to renaming the session to whatever you want, you can add notes to the session. Another app that recently added the ability to change the title and add notes is called Gentler Streak. There’s likely others.
These changed titles and notes are only seen in those apps; it won’t change them for Apple’s Fitness app.
is there now a way to start a walk / run workout WITH a planned route? Or do you still need the two apps separately and how does that work?
Is the jet black color more delicate than the silver color in your opinion?
Based on the eye-watering pricing for the new Fenix, I think Garmin’s future strategy is to focus on specialised products with high profit margins. Apple will continue to eat away at market share, but Garmin will have a strong business if they target elite athletes, professional divers, military personnel, pilots, etc.
I see the watch market as being similar to the audio market. Apple is coming up with some really compelling audio products, but it doesn’t mean that the likes of Bose/Sonos/Yamaha are going to disappear.
Quick question regarding the effort rating:
When rating a workout, the Info (“i) says I should rate how the workout felt overall.
The different categories are then described. Under “Hard” it says
“Could not go on for long at all”
An ascend of Mt Ventoux that takes two hours is clearly hard but at the same time one did go on for long.
Does apple mean one could “not go on for a lot longer” here?
And “All out” would then be “couldn’t do that any longer at all”?
As the description is now, any long bike ride couldn’t be “Hard” or “All out” because one clearly did “go long” and it was hard at the same time.
Can you add Maps as a Smart Stack, and then use Double Tap while running to quickly see a small version of Maps to know your route/see the next turn you have to make, before going back to Workouts to view pace/HR/power/etc? That would be a tidy workaround of the issue of having to double tap the crown to switch to Maps while on the move.
Thanks for the review.
The Apple Watch 10 has turned out well:
Thinner, better display, sleep apnoea detection.
What bothers me:
– there is no aluminium with sapphire glass. That should be standard at this price.
(I find the glass of the Apple Watch is very sensitive
to small scratches).
– No night mode.
– still curved glass edges (thus reflections at the edges)
– same battery life (for how many years?)
– The thing with the GPS signal and countdown
The Ultra 2 is too expensive, too clunky and ugly for me.
I therefore switched to the AW10 (from AW7).
Hopefully watchOS 12 will be better, because I’m not impressed by the 11.
Can you actually track your running shoes with Apple (with watchos)?
so how many kilometres have you run with a pair?
I really like that with Garmin too!
Hi Ray,
This review provided great information as usual. I have a question regarding calorie count accuracy. I just got the AW10, which is my first AW. I’ve been using Polar for many years (RCX5, V800, VV, V2) and I’ve used the H10 HR strap. While the heart rates track track very well, I’ve noticed a big difference in the calorie count between Polar and AW. Here are the experiments:
WO#1: Just a brisk walk with my wife.
AW10 left wrist: Avg HR: 111bpm. Time: 77 mins. Active Calories: 526.
V2 right wrist. Avg HR: 111bpm. Time: 77 mins. Calories: 660 (AW10 -134 calories).
WO#2: Road Cycling
AW10 Left wrist: Avg HR: 141bpm. Time: 77 mins. Calories: 642. (with 30 more bpm avg than WO1, there’s only 116 calories difference??)
Polar Beat/H10: Avg HR: 140bpm. Time: 77 mins. Calories: 1101.
I also wore the V2 on left wrist. Something happened to the workout and it didn’t upload, but the calories were over 1,000.
So AW10 calories, 526 & 642.
Polar V2: 660 (AW -134 calories).
Polar V2: I’ll leave this out here. But I did see over 1,000 calories.
Polar H10: 1,101 (AW10 -459 calories). This is HUGE!!
So, who’s algorithms for calorie burn are correct? Polar or Apple? I know that Polar has helped me lose quite a bit of weight these last 7 months and I don’t believe that I would’ve done that at 642 calories a workout. I was burning 1,000+ each workout (or close to it). Unless Apple is what it is and 642 calories=1,101 polar calories.
Thanks,-Dan
I don’t use either, so have limited information to go on here but 2 noted/observations:
1. Do AW and/or Polar differentiate between ACTIVE calories and TOTAL calories for the workout (like Garmin does)? Would want to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples.
2. I do not know what your weight is and which heart rate zone 140bpm puts you, but 1,100lcal for a 77min bike ride looks very high.
For comparison, at 71kg/155lbs my Garmin estimated 1,285 total kcal (1,096 active kcal, 189 resting kcal) for 140 minute, 128W average power base bike ride for me this morning.
Forgot to add: Average heart rate for my ride was 138bpm, so very close to tour workout 2.
Hi SG,
I do think that Polar may be a bit high, but I also believe that Apple is way low.
To answer your question in #1 above, the total calories that Polar provides for the workout is displayed for that workout only (so active calories). That is later added in with total calories for the day.
My current weight is 173. I’ll do another check today, except I’ll try to use the Polar Beat app on the AW with the H10.
Regards-Dan
I have to disagree: Comparable rides to your WO2 give very similar kcal estimates on my Garmin as on your AW. More than 1,000kcal for a 77 minute activity seems way too high.
Hi SG,
So who’s right? Garmin, AW or Polar? Plus, I have 8.16kilos/18lbs on you. I should be burning more calories. Polar’s business started with heart rate monitoring back in the 70’s and I believe they’ve gotten the science pretty darn close. The 450 patents that they’ve filed must mean something. If I was a betting man in Vegas, my money would be on Polar. They haven’t kept up with Garmin and others with features, etc., but I think they’ve gotten the HR science dialed pretty close.
My point is as I said above, I think Polar may be a bit high, but AW is low. None of it will be perfect, but 459 cals is big. If we divide the 459 in half and added that to AW (464) then 875 cals would be more palatable.
I’m still learning the AW. I haven’t seen where it breaks down calories into fat calories burned, or carbs burned, but I’m still learning it. This was key for me with Polar in understanding how many fat calories I was burning and by following it, I’ve shredded fat from my body.
Who knows. Maybe I just end up using the AW and Polar Beat with the H10 for each wo. Or, I may possibly get a Garmin or Polar. My goal is to get back into trail racing, so we’ll see if AW fits the bill.
Thanks for the healthy debate.
Regards-Dan
Go to YouTube and look for a few videos on the subject.
From what I’ve seen, the calorie consumption indicated on ALL watches is inaccurate and sometimes very far from the real figures! The worst thing that can happen is that people think they are in a calorie deficit, but in reality they have burned much less.
This means that using the values from the watches to lose weight is a VERY bad idea.
You have to put in the work:
noting what you eat (calories) and weighing yourself every day.
One point to note here is that I’m specifically talking about the H10 here for Polar accuracy. Not the OHR’s that they’ve put on the market. Some have been better than others, but they haven’t kept up with the competition here. I believe the H10 science is pretty darn dialed in and Polars algorithms with processing the data from it.
OHR is another beast for all of the companies and one that is much tougher to dial-in.
Hi King,
Totally agree on accuracy. OHR is a different beast. An H10 that is strapped to your chest and catching each heart beat is more accurate. As along as the algorithms for data processing are solid, then calorie count will be very close. One also needs to understand how to burn fat or carbs. High HR’s will do it, but your body will burn carbs before it hits the fat. Starting off with maintaining lower HR in the ‘fat-burning’ zones targets the fat first.
And as you point out, watching what you eat is also key. So are the portion sizes and the time of day you eat your biggest meal (directly from the family Dr). Combine that with the right exercise plan and the fat melts away.
Agree on the point about OHR vs heart strap. I almost always wear an HRM PRO strap so not to be reliant on the watch OHR.
I have a pretty strong trust in the accuracy of Polars HR recording, both in general and specifically for your case.
But the issue is not HR monitoring (unless there are big difference throughout the workouts), seeing that your average HRs from the AW and the Polar are very close.
We are talking about calculations/estimates on top of the raw data collection. I have not seen any comparisons (let alone proper studies) of the kcal estimation between the brands. Even if there are any, I suspect one or another might perform better depending on the specifics of the situation (specifics of the athlete, type of sport/activity, availability (and use) of historical data, etc.) – as Bradley pointed out, lots of other factors go into estimating calorie consumption.
That said, I am not sure the Polar numbers in your post pass the smell test.
For one sanity check, let’s remove heart rates and VO2max (which can vary widely between individuals) and look at kcal vs. exercise performance. You did not specify your distances/speed, cycling power (if available), etc. but we can make some assumptions
WO1:
Brisk walk => assume 6 to 8 km/h, implying 8 to 10km distance in 77 minutes.
That would imply 53 to 66 kcal/km for the AW or 66 to 82 kcal/km for the Polar. Neither of those ranges looks unreasonable to me prima facie.
WO2:
Road cycling can mean lots of things, so let’s assume a fairly wide range of 25 to 50km covered in 77 minutes (equivalent to ~20 to 39 km/h average speed – all of which could potentially be consistent with ~140bmp).
That would imply 13 to 25 kcal/km for the AW or 22 to 44 kcal/km for the Polar. The AW seems a little low (unless you are very efficient cyclist), but the range for the Polar looks SUSPICIOUSLY HIGH/UNREALISTIC.
Obviously just one back of the envelope calculation, but the Polar numbers for WO2 look off.
What are you HR zones and VO2max on the AW and the Polar? Are they the same? How about body weight and composition.
“High HR’s will do it, but your body will burn carbs before it hits the fat. Starting off with maintaining lower HR in the ‘fat-burning’ zones targets the fat first.”
Yes on the first part, less so on the second. High HRs are a key driver for fat loss. While the proportion/percentage of energy from fat at higher HRs is lower than in the so-called fat burning zone, the absolute amount of energy from fat (and, hence, the absolute amount of fat converted to energy) is (potentially much) higher during high aerobic activty.
Could I record a 10h run with a series 10? Maybe with always on off and an external heart rate monitor