After the Apple Watch 1.0.1 Update, Heart Rate stopped working...

I am greatly confused.

As a 1.0.0 user:

When I am watching TV or pottering about in the house the health app mostly records my heartbeat every 10 minutes.

When I go for a walk in to town my heart rate is not logged by the app.

When I switch on the Activity app my heart rate is logged every 10 seconds.

Exactly how does 1.0.1 differ from this?

Miller, your research has me pretty worried. I've been watching the delivery date for my watch (ordered 5/3) go from July to, as of today, the week of 6/12, getting excited with each move. Now I'm not sure what to do.

I, like you, wanted a watch/tracker that would give me credit for "brisk" activity without having to go into workout mode, which the HR could trigger. Not anymore. Furthermore, the tests you did are just more proof that a person won't know what to believe in terms of calorie expenditures if they "forgot" to enter workout mode or didn't realize when they started the brisk activity that it would turn into something that could've been a workout.

For those of us looking to monitor our calorie intake and adjust it based on calories expended, this is problematic. I had been wearing a Garmin Vivoactive, which I like. It gets notifications (which I like), though not as elegantly as the Apple Watch. I need a HR monitor when I do a workout (Mio Link). Not really what I want, but ever since the Bodymedia Link started going on the fritz, I've been looking for something comparable. The Link worked.

Today, I wore my Fitbit Surge and my Jawbone Up3. The Fitbit measured 1000 calories more than the Garmin, and the Up3 was in the middle. I still don't think the Surge works for me at all (which is what led to the Vivoactive). The Up3 appears to have the technology to do what I want since it has the sensors that were in the Bodymedia Link. But I don't trust Jawbone to actually use them for anything other than resting HR while you sleep. They say they will "in the future", but their track record is not good. Right now, it's little more than a glorified Fitbit Flex. I tend to believe the Garmin.

So, I'm pretty confused. I'll give the Apple Watch a try and see what happens. I'm really looking forward to the test that someone else is going to do tomorrow. I was really looking forward to the slick integration the Apple Watch will give me along with a trustworthy fitness tracker, but I'm not sure now. Between Apple, Fitbit and Jawbone making changes to get things right, I have the most faith in Apple.

My excitement is really starting to wane as I read this thread. Fitbit and Jawbone are just as secretive about how they calculate stuff and what their trackers are actually doing as Apple seems to be right now. I hope Apple will fix it and/or come clean with what they're really doing.

I personally have no issues getting my brisk activity detected by the Watch as brisk. I'm not saying there aren't issues with the Watch's heart rate sensor etc. but it's obvious people vastly overestimate how active they are. I'm sorry that this will offend people, but things such as playing golf absolutely do not qualify as exercise or brisk activity, and obviously playing golf for 2 hours in no way compares to maintaining a 3 MPH or faster pace for 2 hours. So yes it probably is closer to 100 calories than 700.

This thread started out with good intention but it has really devolved into senseless whining with specious arguments about what should be credited by the Watch. If you have to resort to cheating (by starting an "Other" Workout then not doing anything active for 30 minutes) in order to get your 30 minutes of exercise per day in, I suggest you take it as a hint that you're most probably nowhere near as active as you think you are, instead of blaming Apple for not telling you you're doing awesome when you're really not.

I still have concerns about the comparisons of various fitness devices. Generally it just seems that if the Apple watch has worse numbers, then it must be the one which is wrong. And it may be. But how do we know the other devices that we are used to aren't the ones that are off? When I checked the HR on the watch when resting, I did it three ways for comparison. First used an app that uses the camera lens and flash to calculate it. Did it a number of times. Then I used a blood pressure device that also gives HR. Finally, I felt my own pulse and with a clock, counted the beats directly. The watch was always within 1 bpm. But I know over time it will get some odd readings - like a work out where it says 135, followed 5 seconds later with 90, and 5 seconds after that, back to the 130s.

This really doesn't bother me much, especially for a first generation. Now, if it spent minutes in the 130s, then minutes around 90, and then back - all with a similar effort - then I'd worry as that couldn't be chalked up to a fluke movement. And maybe such isolated numbers should simply be skipped when checking every 5 seconds.

Anyway, I wonder how accurate those other devices are. I suspect a chest strap from a reputable company is better, but I can also see how, at least when it comes to calculations (as opposed to direct counting of HR) of calories that some companies may have bad formulas - or formulas that deliberately give you better numbers, thus making people want to believe that is the accurate one because they it makes them feel better.

I walk on a treadmill at 3.6 mph. The Apple Watch only detects a few minutes out of every half-hour session as exercise, or "brisk." This is clearly wrong, because a) I'm walking fairly fast, and b) if any of that time is exercise, then all of it should be. The same is the case when I walk outdoors, at a similar pace: out of 20 minutes, sometimes nothing gets counted as exercise, sometimes 5 minutes or so.

Also, as some people have pointed out, turning on the Other workout turns on the heart rate sensor, and the same activity gets counted as using many more calories than when the Workout app isn't used.

So it's not that we're all couch potatoes, it's that the Apple Watch simply isn't working as it should.

I think the other two devices you used are accurate. Especially a blood pressure monitor, that is approved by regulatory authorities as a medical device, which the Apple Watch is not; it has to meet higher standards of accuracy.

I don't know about chest strap devices. It seems that the people who use them feel they are generally accurate, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

I kinda suspect the chest straps are accurate too, but then, if most people assume so, we may be basing our opinions on, well, assumptions.

However, since people can always count their heartbeat - it isn't something that involves some elaborate formulas - then I think any bad product would be caught too easily. But this isn't the case when they start calculating calories. I don't think there is just one accepted formula for one thing. And it may well be easy for a company to give their calculations say as 10% boost. Not enough for people to say, "That's bogus" but maybe enough that people want to believe it is correct and keep buying from that company. Or they could be completely honest but just have different opinions on the "right" formula.

I want the stuff that can be confirmed to be as accurate as possible. So, heart rate, of course. But also, if you are walking consistently on a treadmill, it shouldn't be saying only a small portion of that counts while a lot doesn't. Makes no sense if you are going the same speed.

That's just a general principle - my use really isn't about calories anyway. I want to get a good feel for how my HR changes when doing various things. Sort of for future comparisons in case the numbers start changing a lot.

To be honest, I don't think most people should be worried about heart rate, unless they're fixated on exercising at aerobic intensity, or if they're athletes training for a marathon. But the HR is important since it affects the calorie count. Now I don't think any calorie count is accurate, but it is the main metric that the Apple Watch is using to measure activity. Hence, it should be as accurate as possible.

I've always felt that any fitness tracker is more about motivation and trends than accurate data. However, if the data is wrong to start with - I've tested some fitness trackers that count 30-50% more steps than are actually taken in a day - then your trend is just skewed. I had expected that Apple would have figured this all out; it seems they haven't. If you look at the total calorie count, and resting calories, they're ludicrous. The heart rate readings are all over the place. Together, it's hard to think that any of this has more than anecdotal value.

I strongly disagree. OF COURSE data should be accurate. If it's not accurate there is no point in having it whatsoever.

There is a limit to its accuracy. As a wrist-worn device, it won't be as accurate as a pedometer you wear on your belt, for example, (Though, in comparing the step count reported by the Apple Watch and my Fitbit One, the Apple Watch is very close, unlike most other trackers.) As for calories, that will never be truly accurate, because there are so many ways to calculate, and they are all nothing more than estimates.

The point I was making with my golf test is not to show how great golf is at burning calories. Clearly running or something like that is better. The point of the test is to point out that there are huge differences between no workout app and with workout app. If the watch worked as Apple marketed it, there would be no way to "cheat" because it would pick up activity the same way whether workout was engaged or not. And this is entirely the point of this thread (for me) because my theory is that is this lack of heart rate measuring that is contributing to this difference. Apple advertised it will pick up small movements like gardening (which is even less exercise than golf) and give you some credit for it. It will not do this. You simply cannot trust the data it gives you because it isn't even consistent with itself. But you can cheat with it! Simply using the workout app will generously fill your rings very easily. This shouldn't be possible. And because it is, I don't trust any of the readings it gives me and the rings aren't a motivating factor for me.

When you start an 'Other' workout, you are explicitly telling the watch that you are doing a workout. Specifically one that isn't covered by the other features. Golf is not a workout, so yes YOU are cheating but telling the watch that you are working out when you are actually just standing for a long time, walking a short distance, then standing for a long time again. The watch is trusting you to not cheat.

I'm not sure how anyone expected checking your heart rate every 10 minutes would help with calorie calculations. that is not nearly often enough. Apple only uses the accelerometerfor calorie calculations unless you are tracking a 'workout'. In workout mode it checks the heart rate every 5 seconds which is often enough to trust.

Trackers like the FitBit HR stuff track your heart rate every 5 seconds all day, and thus can use HR to calculate calories all day, but not the Apple Watch. So the change between 1.0 and 1.0.1 doesn't hurt this. It was never going to use HR for all day activity.

Clearly there is more going on here than a thoughtful evolution of Watch function. This is an abrupt change in direction entirely inconsistent with the original marketing (which is directly derivitive of it's engineered design). Now we wait. Apple clearly has no plan to explain this to anyone.

I like the Watch. I'm keeping it regardless. So, in my case, Apple's calculated decision to change specs in the middle of the nite, goes without effect. I remain disappointed in a company that I've trusted for nearly 31 years. There's been some hits and misses in that time but the overall performance warrants patience. I've said this before is some threads on other forums... Apple, don't take your lifelong customers for granted and please don't forget how you became the most valuable company in the world.

I respectively disagree. First golf is a workout. My heart rate was elevated, I was sweating, and my muscles were tired after 2 hours on a driving range. Secondly - and my entire point - the watch is supposed to pick up on all your little background activity and count it toward total calorie burn. It should therefore be impossible to cheat because the watch should be monitoring your activity. If it is possible to cheat, the watch fails as a passive activity tracker and the rings can't be trusted.

I think it's quite out of line to say using "other" for golf is cheating. The various workout modes attempt leverage different sets of sensors to give you the best overall picture over your workout. One apparent criticism of the "outdoor walk" mode is that it assumes your arm is swinging -- something that doesn't happen when you're pushing a stroller or, in my case, carrying a small dog. In some modes GPS is used, others, for indoor activities it's not as it would be pointless. I gather that "other" probably enables all sources of info since the watch otherwise has no guidance. So choosing other will provide more data, but that data should always be accurate nonetheless, no way to game the system. Either you're heart rate is elevated and you are burning more calories, or you're not. If you're referring to filling the exercise ring simply by choosing "other" for 30 minutes, well, that's a personal choice and you're not fooling anyone.

As far as checking your heart rate every 10 minutes, I suspect that if it could accurately detect your HR that often when not in a workout, it would likely prove to be a decent picture of your calorie burn. Sampling / extrapolation. If my HR is 85 for a full hour when sampled every 10 minutes, it's a decent bet it's been on average 85 for most of the hour. Tracking it more frequently during a workout gives you better granularity to see when you're in various HR zones, which are frequently only for very short times, so that's important. But when I'm sitting in meetings all day and just walking around the office, I don't really need my HR captured nearly that often.

The real problem (IMHO) is that Apple discovered inaccuracies in the IR based HR detection when the watch is in motion. So much so that they felt it was worth the potential PR problem of changing the feature. I can't believe they made that decision lightly, but I'd sure love to be a fly on the wall when the VP of Apple Watch development had to report to Tim Cook about this one.

My bet is along the lines of one of the blog posts linked to earlier -- they are trying hard to figure out how (and whether) they can address this to get back to 10 minute sampling, but it may simply not be feasible because of hardware limitations combined with the fact that its worn on the wrist. Reliable physical measurement of most things is a hard problem -- they clearly thought they had nailed it...then...well...boom!