YOu can have a resting heart rate while sleeping in the 30s, yet your real resting heart rate in the 60s.
I don't need a watch to tell me if I was sleeping or not, I was there, I know if I was sleeping... I also don't see the point if it telling me if I got enough sleep or not. Again, I know if I didn't get enough sleep as I'm tired...
I also don't think it's sleep tracker is accurate, I've had my garmin tell me I have taken naps when I hadn't. I was just lying on the sofa watching a film and didn't get up for an hour or so. That doesn't mean I'm asleep.
A lot of value is in the long term trends. One bad night doesn't mean much but if our sleep quality is trending down over weeks, it's a sign you should change something.
Anecdotally, this is very inaccurate for me.
Similarly I've been in bed, awake, reading, unable to sleep and the watch has thought I was sleeping.
I then started looking back at my historical garmin data, pretty much everytime I was sick, my HRV would drop a few days before. I then started monitoring my HRV closer and taking it easy whenever it dropped. Anecdotal data from one person here, but I found that I get sick less and when I do get sick, it's usually not as bad.
One thing that surprised me has been seeing the affects of either alcohol or caffeine on the type and quality of the sleep I get.
Even if the absolute numbers aren't 100% accurate the watch definitely spots when I've had even 1 beer during the evening.
I also find heart rate variability interesting. I can't put much spin on the absolute numbers but after either heavy exercise or if I've been unwell I can see the variability rate really drop.
What makes one measurement "real" and the other one "not real", if you're mainly using it as a personal metric?
The reason that the traditional definition of resting heart rate exists is people didn't have 24/7 heart rate monitors, and doctors had to measure what they are able to measure. And they still can't measure it well, because patients often have white coat syndrome and there's not enough time during an appointment for people to relax fully.
The Apple Watch, which uses the traditional definition, has to use algorithms to guess which of its measurements counts as "resting" or not, which adds complexity. In contrast, lowest HR during sleep is a more reliable and consistent measurement.
I've known people who have had resting hearts in the low 40s, but actual resting heart rate when awake is closer to 70!
I think Garmin uses resting heart rate when you are asleep as it makes it seem like you have a really low resting heart rate, where you might not. I think it's overly flattering.
Garmin watches calculate resting heart rate as the lowest 30 minute average.
https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=F8YKCB4CJd5PG0DR9ICV3A
You're saying that some devices are measuring "resting heart rate" when it's not using the traditional definition, and comparing that number to the traditional definition is wrong, and I would agree.
I'm saying that the traditional measurement of resting heart rate is bad for a variety of reasons, one of which is that taking it while sitting at your couch at home after 15 minutes and having a stranger take it in the weird doctor's office can have very different results. And if our smart devices consistently measure an RHR on a regular basis, that's probably a better measurement of progress.
However, for me, the results looked reasonable most nights and for those nights when I didn't sleep well for whatever reason, I mostly knew that was the case without the device results.
for me at least, the silent alarm so as to not disturb my partner is a huge part of the value in a smart watch.
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2025/01/the-begining-of-the-end-...
You can use Siri to start a workout
The market more likely is people that see themselves as "extreme adventurers, mountaineers, extreme hikers, etc", despite mostly doing half day rides at the nearest mountain biking trail, national park hikes where they spend one night in a cabin, and a weekend snow boarding at a ski resort.
> spend one night in a cabin, and a weekend snow boarding at a ski resort
This should be enough to get people away from any watch without the features I mentioned - long battery life and button-operated.
One gripe is that the functionality with gloves is a little annoying since you can get false positive screen taps from sleeves/cuffs. A second is that the main button is pressed when doing a pushup or in some situations while climbing, which triggers the emergency alarm mode by default (but is configurable to turn off).
Most adventures are not many days long without sleeping (for me) and this watch works pretty well.
I leave it in airplane mode (this leaves bluetooth on, so it doesn’t impact functionality when my phone is nearby) and disabled the always on screen.
I agree about the questionable value proposition though. A $35 Amazfit band is surprisingly competitive with it, and has much better battery life.
Eh, what? When watches were just watches, most everyone wore there watch while sleeping.
On that note, my brother and I were talking about these smart watches the other day and I expressed how having a gshock is nice because with my use I seem to get about 7 years of battery life, so my watch is always on. Whereas people with smart watches has (as he put it) significant time blind-spots. But he made a comment at one point and basically said something like "It's not a watch. It is a fitness device that has a clock in it". I think that is a good point. As a watch, all these actually perform rather poorly. But as fitness/GPS/communication devices they perform well.