Whether you're trying to hit New Year's resolutions or just need a good workout or diet tracker, the best health and fitness apps can help you get there. And if you're feeling overwhelmed (or underwhelmed) by the choices available, I'm here to share personally-tested workout and planning apps to get you started.

Some people thrive with personalized, AI-made workout or diet plans. Others benefit from social apps like Strava where challenges and "kudos" from friends keep you motivated. And you'd be surprised how a good spreadsheet or basic workout log might work better than an expensive app with videos and plans.

Broken down into specific categories — general health/ fitness apps, workout apps, companion apps for smartwatches, and weight/ diet apps — these are the best apps to help you hit your goals for 2026, with info on key features, pricing, and why they've helped our staff succeed with their goals.

General health & fitness apps

Fitbit Personal Health Coach

Key Health Features: Sleep Score, Daily Readiness Score, Stress Management Score, Menstrual Health, Meal & Water logging, Mindfulness sessions, Trend "Insights"

Key Fitness Features: Active Zone Minutes, Cardio/ Target Load, Gemini-made personalized workout plans, video workouts, Fitbit/ Pixel Watch integration

Subscription: $10/month or $80/year (AI plans/ analysis, video workouts, long-term reports)

Why Fitbit will help with your goals: Recommending Fitbit Premium became easier once Google employed Gemini to make the Fitbit Personal Health Coach. It allows you to "speak" to an AI coach and create a comprehensive workout plan within minutes, incorporating dozens of different indoor or outdoor workout types. So whether your fitness goal is to lose weight, improve at a specific sport, increase muscle mass, walk more, or anything else, Gemini can give you weeks of personalized workouts for that goal. No other app is as comprehensive or customizable.

AI aside, Fitbit benefits from syncing with cheap Fitbit trackers, so the app can track stats like resting heart rate, blood oxygen, skin temperature, sleep zones, and HRV. The new app shows "Insight" cards with trend data for these stats, so you can see how your health is improving as you try to get fitter or lose weight.

Why we rely on Fitbit: "Fitbit is simple and accessible for anyone just starting out with serious workouts." — Derrek Lee, Managing Editor

"I love the new interface and how simple it is to get important data at a glance. I've been impressed with the AI coach and its recommendations. I think it's one of the best lifestyle fitness apps with a holistic approach." — Tshaka Armstrong, Contributor

Google Docs / Google Sheets

Why a spreadsheet will help with your goals: Apps can be motivational and auto-track your data and progress over time, with fancy graphs and AI analysis. But they're usually (A) paid, (B) mobile-only, and (C) specialized to one activity.

That's why, when it comes to New Year's resolutions or making a workout calendar, a simple document or spreadsheet works better than trying to find the perfect, all-in-one app! Use other apps to track specific goals like miles/ steps/ weight loss/ books read, but consolidate them all into one document you can check on your phone or computer, using tables and drop-down menus to label your progress (as I did above).

Or, use a spreadsheet to lay out your long-term workout plans, then a specific running or strength app to put those plans into action. I used that method to plan my months-long marathon training (see above), paired with my Garmin watch, and it was highly effective.

Why we rely on Google Docs/ Sheets: "Yeah, it sounds silly, but I actually found a use for spreadsheets. I need upper body strength, so lifting weights is the way I try to maintain it. I can keep record of my current routine as well as any goals, and there is plenty of room for extra notes. Best of all, I can check off each day's workout from my phone or my desktop and have access to all my long-term progress, so I feel like I'm accomplishing something." — Jerry Hildenbrand, Senior Editor

Strava

Key Fitness Features: Activity recording, local routes with 3D maps, Heatmap, Segment leaderboards, Clubs, Challenges, long-term workout analysis, Athlete Intelligence summaries, race predictions, Instant Workouts

Subscription: $12/month or $80/year (Saved routes, full data analysis with AI summaries, Instant Workouts

Why Strava will help with your goals: Most people try harder when cheered on or competing with others. Strava lets you connect with friends to offer and receive "kudos," motivating you to keep getting out there. You also have "Challenges" where hitting certain thresholds nets you badges and awards from partner companies, and leaderboards where you can compete to be fastest on local routes and trails. And it helps you find local Clubs with like-minded athletes, if you need in-person motivation.

More recently, Strava has doubled down on Athlete Intelligence, a tool that utilizes your workout history to assess the quality of a specific workout and provide context for your improvement over time. This year, Strava launched "Instant Workouts," with personalized activities across 40 sports types and four types (‘Maintain’, ‘Build’, ‘Explore’, or ‘Recover’), including custom routes from your starting location using a Heatmap of other users' workouts. Essentially, Strava offers personalized, tailored workouts, without committing to a long-term plan.

Why we rely on Strava: "I found my local running group through Strava last year; I appreciate when Strava tells me a certain activity was my fastest in the last month; and I'm motivated to become the 'Local Legend' for certain segments like my nearby track." — Michael Hicks, Wearables Editor

"Strava is a great app to connect with others who are into fitness and keep yourself accountable. Many fitness apps sync with it, so you can post your watch's workouts and keep yourself active and motivated." — Derrek Lee, Managing Editor

Workout apps

Nike Run Club

Key Fitness features: Activity tracking, media playback controls, 5K/10K/13.1/26.2 training plans, audio-guided runs, challenges, streaks, real-time location sharing

Subscription: None

Why Nike Run Club will help with your goals: NRC is popular with veteran runners as a running-focused alternative to Strava with similar gamification (i.e., badges, challenges, and likes) and long-term stat tracking.

Why I recommend it for beginner couch-to-5K runners, aside from the lack of subscription, is Coach Bennett's audio-based guided runs. As you run, the pro running coach will give you pointers and motivation as you're struggling to keep pace and stay moving.

Why we rely on Nike Run Club: "I’ve used Nike Run Club to run over 1,500 miles across a decade and countless devices. NRC handles the basics excellently, with the bright and bold Nike font making your pace, duration, heart rate, and more visible at a glance. It supports media playback controls, and its post-run breakdowns are both data-rich and easy to understand. The app prioritizes friendly competition with other users (with weekly challenges) and yourself (with awards and milestones) while reminding you to rest." — Brady Snyder, Contributor

"Nike Run Club helps me get into highly productive steady-state runs and brainless interval training. I just open it, choose a run that matches my intention, and move my feet." —Tshaka Armstrong, Contributor

Alternative option: Try Zombies, Run!, which has dozens of hours of audio stories designed to keep you motivated as you run, including some Marvel adventures.

Strong

Key Fitness features: Customizable workouts with custom sets, full exercise list, workout graphs, macronutrient tracking

Subscription: $5/month or $30/year (Unlimited workout templates, analytics like muscle maps and macros)

Why Strong will help with your goals: Whether you're working out at home or the gym, you don't need an app distracting you. You need simplicity, a streamlined workout log where you can check off one exercise or set, then move on to the next, without giving yourself a chance to slack off.

Strong fulfills that niche! You can build out workouts using its comprehensive exercise library, including Warm-ups and Drop/ Failure sets, and then follow that workout to completion. The PRO subscription gives you more data, but the free version is more than good enough to get you started.

Why we rely on Strong: "Strong is the gym diary where I fully flesh things out. I built out my workouts and track not only my progressive overload but my body part gains (i.e., biceps, calves, quads, etc.)." — Tshaka Armstrong, Contributor

Alternatives: Try Hevy for a workout log with more community features, or Fitbod if you need AI help building your workouts.

Sweat

Key Fitness features: Prebuilt programs, on-demand workouts, pro trainers, exercise form guides, healthy recipes

Subscription: $20/month or ~$120/year (mandatory)

Why Sweat will help with your goals: Tailored to women, Sweat has long-term strength programs tailored to any skill level, with a clean UI that makes it easy to navigate through workouts and see (A) the proper form for every exercise and (B) the muscle map of how it'll impact your body. It's on the expensive side but offers a lot of value as an alternative to a (more expensive) personal trainer.

Why we rely on Sweat: "I subscribe to Sweat because it provides a perfect balance of cardio and strength training workouts, without requiring me to plan my entire week. As a postpartum mom with very little time, knowing exactly which workout I'm due to do each day is incredibly helpful and truly eases my mind." — Nandika Iyer Ravi, News Editor

Alternatives: Peloton or Apple Fitness+ are the obvious big hitters for general coaching, while Centr is a more hardcore option.

Smartwatch/ smart ring companion apps

Garmin Connect

Key Fitness features: Garmin Run/ Cycling/ Strength/Triathlon Coach, daily suggested workouts, strength/ yoga workouts, Training Status, Training Load, long-term metric graphs, Garmin Golf, Garmin Trails, LiveTrack, downloadable/ custom courses, Challenges & Badges, gear tracking, race predictions, and more

Key Health features: Body Battery, HRV Status, Sleep Score/ Coach, menstrual tracking, food logging with AI image recognition and barcode scanning, Lifestyle Logging, Health Status

Subscription: $7/month or $70/year (AI summaries, Nutrition logging, Trails, Performance Dashboard, coaching videos, and other small features, not required)

Why Garmin Connect will help with your goals: Garmin watches mainly get praise for the long-lived hardware and post-workout analysis on your wrist. Garmin Connect is a bloated, labyrinthian app that takes time to adjust to, but it's filled to bursting with features you won't find elsewhere (especially for free), most notably personalized training plans and daily suggested runs, rides, walks, or strength workouts.

The Activities tab lets you see how your efforts compare week-to-week or month-to-month, while the Performance Dashboard (above, subscribers only) makes your data even more colorful and dynamic. Garmin also added food logging, Lifestyle Logging, and health outlier warnings to the app recently, making it obvious that it wants Connect to appeal to more "mainstream" athletes, not just the pros.

Why we rely on Garmin Connect: "Garmin feels more comprehensive and ideal for serious gym-goers than Fitbit." — Derrek Lee, Managing Editor

"Garmin has helped me hit marathon and half-marathon PRs, improve my VO2 Max, and run more miles than I ever have before. It motivated me with dynamic run suggestions based on my training load and running tolerance, so I always knew how hard to push without overdoing it." — Michael Hicks, Wearables Editor

Oura

Key features: Readiness, Sleep Score/ Debt, Health Panels, Meal logging, Cycle/ Pregnancy/ Premenopause insights, Cardiovascular Age, Daytime Stress, Resilience, Oura Advisor, Automatic Workout Detection

Subscription: $6/month or $70/year (mandatory)

Why Oura will help with your goals: The appeal of a smart ring is to get a laundry list of data, day and night, for those who find smartwatches too bulky, distracting, or uncomfortable for sleep tracking. And the Oura Ring tops our best smart ring list on the strength of its app.

Over the last few years, Oura has packed its app with a comprehensive list of health metrics, with the AI Oura Advisor as the flashy topper to make everything more accessible. Aside from the obvious nightly stats about sleep quality or heart health, Oura tries to analyze long-term trends and provide more context on your body's ability to handle stress. And it offers some rudimentary fitness tools.

Why we rely on Oura: "I rely on Oura as my daily mental health monitor. It tracks when I'm stressed and provides personalized tips for getting the rest I need." — Nandika Iyer Ravi, News Editor

"The Oura app is a passive experience for me. I use it to check my sleep quality and overall daily health and wellness, as I wear it more consistently than my Garmin or Pixel watches." — Derrek Lee, Managing Editor

Zepp Health (Amazfit)

Key features: Readiness, Sleep Score, Exertion Score, PAI score, Zepp Coach training, food logging with AI image recognition, tracked strength workouts with rep counts and muscle maps

Subscription: $12/month or $70/year (Zepp Aura advanced sleep reports, music, meditation, and AI coach)

Why Zepp Health will help with your goals: Amazfit watches are well-known for their budget value, but it'd be harder to recommend these budget watches if the companion Zepp Health app weren't so useful.

You'll find the usual collection of nightly health data, but packaged nicely with straightforward scores. The Zepp Coach can help build workout plans tailored to your abilities, while food logging is more straightforward than on other apps. And aside from the optional Aura sub, everything is free.

Why we rely on Zepp Health: "I pretty much use Amazfit exclusively these days. The Zepp app syncs perfectly with Strava, which I use to share with friends and build community. The Zepp app also makes it stupid easy to log food with its LLM-driven technology. I've written about this several times now, but you can use natural language to input your meals and snacks instead of scrolling through a bunch of lists or scanning barcodes." — Nick Sutrich, Senior Content Producer

Weight & nutrition/ diet apps

Healthify

Key features: Nutrition tracking, food logging, AI recognition, AI chatbot for recipes, calls with nutritionists, connected CGM

Why Healthify will help with your goals: Logging every single meal and snack is a major time suck, especially when you need to calculate every ingredient to a meal. HealthifyMe's whole premise is removing that delay by letting you simply photograph something and get the nutritional stats in a flash. It also has AI coaching and suggestions, or a way to connect with real nutritionists for a fee, but the streamlined food logging is what made this app so popular.

Why we rely on Healthify: "HealthifyMe is my go-to for staying accountable to my calorie deficit." — Nandika Iyer Ravi, News Editor

MyFitnessPal

Key features: Food logging, calorie and macro counting, voice logging, AI meal scan, barcode scanning, intermittent fasting tracker, recipes, grocery list sharing,

Subscription: $25/month or $100/year (for most features besides basic manual food logging and calorie count)

Why MyFitnessPal will help with your goals: It's the same reasons we listed for Healthify, except MyFitnessPal has a slightly longer feature list in exchange for its subscription, like thousands of recipes, personalized meal planning, voice logging, progress reports, and so on. You'll also find Android and Apple Watch apps, making it easy to check your daily stats or quickly log a favorite meal.

Why we rely on MyFitnessPal: "MyFitnessPal helps me keep track of my lifestyle and habits. I log my meals and exercises to monitor my macros." — Derrek Lee, Managing Editor

Withings

Key features: Connects with smart scales for weight, body composition, visceral fat, and more

Subscription: $10/month or $100/year (Health Improvement Score, Cardiologist review, Health Assistant, Smart Trends, etc.)

Why Withings will help with your goals: You can replace Withings with other smart scale brands, but this app tends to be a staff favorite. The gist is that you can see more than your weight, but also your body fat/ muscle percentage and (with fancier scales) specific data on how that fat is segmented throughout your body. Essentially, having a smart scale will help you track how your health and fitness goals are directly impacting your body.

Why we rely on Withings: "Withings is very important to me as a Type 2 diabetic. It gives me a segmental analysis of body fat & muscle losses and gains. What's most important is the visceral fat metrics, how it tracks the fat around your internal organs that can literally mean life or early death." — Tshaka Armstrong, Contributor

"Withings shows me my weight, body fat, and muscle mass, as well as how I'm trending, which helps me know if I need to make changes." — Derrek Lee, Managing Editor

We had a strong 2025 for fitness watches and wearable tech, but like you, I'm already turning my attention to what 2026 has in store for us, from new Garmin tech to escalating lawsuits and improved smart glasses-fitness integration.

My 2026 Pixel and Galaxy Watch predictions included plenty of exciting health and fitness tools, but I'm focusing here on the dedicated fitness brands — Garmin, COROS, Polar, Suunto, Amazfit, and so on — and the new hardware and software we should expect this year, with some smart ring and glasses info thrown in.

Plus, I'm listing out everything I want to see in the fitness space in 2026. Let's dive into what should be an exciting year (if I'm right)!

Garmin will find a signature Fenix 9 feature for an otherwise quieter 2026

Garmin's 2025 was packed with new Forerunners, Venus, Instincts, Vivoactives, and more. This should be an off-year: Aside from the already-leaked Vivosmart 6 fitness band, we could see an Instinct 3X or Venu Sq 3; a Forerunner 170 or Lily 3 is possible but less likely, given they've followed three-year schedules so far.

The only guaranteed release is the Fenix 9, with an Enduro 4 also highly likely. Garmin's stock flopped because the Fenix 8 Pro didn't sell to expectations, so there'll be huge pressure to innovate.

We've seen Garmin patents for "glycated hemoglobin" tracking and "pulse spectrometry" data for your hydration levels and red blood cell count; either could be the signature feature for sixth-gen Elevate sensors. Two other recent patents — Solar charging on AMOLED displays and a crown instead of Up/Down buttons — could signal design changes to make the Fenix 9 stand out.

Garmin's rivals will keep undercutting its watches and focus on Whoop-style bands

COROS had a strong ending to 2025 with three new watches, but there's one obvious missing link: the VERTIX series, which launched the 2 in 2021 and 2S in 2024. After the APEX 4 skipped a generation to align with the PACE 4, a VERTIX 4 in 2026 as a more affordable Fenix 9 rival seems like an obvious prediction.

Otherwise, I'm expecting COROS to launch a diving or snorkeling feature with the APEX 4's inactive depth sensor. It even patented an "Underwater Motion Trajectory" tool in October that would track smartwatch swimming motions with sonar, which sounds pretty cool.

Polar should continue to focus on the Polar Loop in 2026, with an emphasis on rebuilding the Polar Flow app to make the experience more compelling. Gadgets & Wearables has Polar on record about its three-step app revamp plan; eventually, we'll get a "dynamic and data-centric" home screen that's user-customizable, a "layered navigation system where quick glances lead to more detailed insights," and "Cards" for metrics like HRV, similar to what we see in other fitness apps.

G&W also claims Suunto is building its own Whoop/ Polar Loop-style band, which we could theoretically see in 2026. It would be designed for 24/7 wear, tracking both sleep and workout data. I'm also expecting a budget version of the Race 2 (the Race 2S) to undercut the Forerunner lineup.

We've also seen leaks about an Amazfit Active Max coming soon, priced at $170 and featuring 25-day battery life and a 1.5-inch display. This, too, will target frugal athletes scared off by Garmin's ever-rising prices. Amazfit already sells its own Whoop-style Helio Strap.

Fitbit dives back into the fitness hardware game

The Google-owned Fitbit brand has barely released new hardware in the last few years. But it's guaranteed that we'll get new Fitbit-branded hardware in 2026, aligned with the new Fitbit Personal Health Coach AI that builds a personalized, flexible workout plan across different sport types.

Fitbit execs have made it fairly clear that the Pixel Watch is the official Fitbit smartwatch, which could mean we're more likely to see an Inspire 4 or Charge 7 than a Sense 3 or Versa 5 — though this isn't certain.

Fitness patent legal wars will escalate in 2026

This last year, we saw Oura wield smart ring patents to get Ultrahuman banned and sue Samsung and Amazfit. Strava sued Garmin before eventually settling the dispute, but Suunto also sued Garmin over patents related to golf ball tracking, breathing rate, and antenna design. Polar, meanwhile, failed to beat Suunto and Garmin's Firstbeat in court over a heart rate patent, while Whoop sued Polar for IP infringement over the Polar Loop's Whoop-esque design.

Samsung will continue to fight Oura in court in 2026, with its recent countersuit arguing that twelve Oura patents should be invalidated. And the Garmin/Suunto and Polar/Whoop battles should continue. But more broadly, fitness watch brands could become even more litigious in 2026, leading to deactivated features or even delisted devices.

Garmin desperately needs a performance boost (and a software pledge)

Garmin watches pack in more features than any other dedicated fitness watch brand, and the last generation improved the UI to be more smartwatch-like. But the hardware inside Garmin watches hasn't kept up: Menus are laggy, and using maps is painfully slow on the premium models. Garmin may want to prioritize battery life, but COROS managed to deliver its 2025 watches' zippy performance while still offering 2–3 weeks per charge.

The summer Fenix 9 launch is the perfect opportunity to pack in a new chipset and extra memory to make it feel more flagship-like. It would help Garmin improve smart features on Fenixes that aren't especially reliable — like auto-route generation and voice commands — and add new on-watch features like live challenge progress.

At the same time, Garmin should reassure buyers by promising to support the Fenix 9 with Fenix 10 features.

Garmin alienates its most loyal customers every time it cuts off software support for $800+ watches after 1–2 years, and that'll only escalate when Fenix 8 owners get shunted aside. A three- or four-year software guarantee, similar to what Apple and Samsung offer, would mollify users who think buying an exorbitant Fenix 9 is "worth it" in the long term.

More smartwatch-smart glasses synergy

This year, Meta glasses added Garmin integration, reading real-time Garmin stats, automatically capturing footage of key workout moments for a shareable montage, and warning you if you're outside your target HR zone. I'd like Meta and Garmin to keep tag-teaming new features in 2026, and for Meta to open up this feature to more fitness watch brands.

Likewise, we know that Samsung AI glasses with Google software will launch in 2026 and will sync with Wear OS watches for features like gesture shortcuts. Google could easily make Android XR compatible with Fitbit and Samsung Health.

In particular, the Samsung glasses with a HUD could display your real-time workout data, just like the ENGO 2 glasses, for sports like cycling, where you want to keep your eyes forward. And they could use Gemini integration for personalized AI audio coaching, too.

A proper 2026 Fitbit renaissance

I think that we're only going to get basic Fitbit trackers in 2026. What I want is a new Sense 3 or Versa 5 — essentially a Pixel Watch 4 Lite.

I want a Fitbit watch with week-long battery life and a lighter, thinner design. But I also want the last few years of Pixel Watch fitness perks to carry over, as dual-band GPS, HR algorithm improvements, and Gemini-made workouts ported from your phone to your watch. A Fitbit Ring would also be nice!

Better fitness watch repairability

Fitness watches like Garmin's are known to work for years until the battery gives out, but once something goes wrong, you can't repair it because their components are glued together, both for water resistance and ease of production. Even if it's under warranty, companies will just throw your old unit away and send you a new one.

I want more fitness watch brands to emulate Google's Pixel Watch 4 repairable design. Basically, any layman can follow documentation to take their Pixel Watch 4 apart if they want to swap in a new battery or replace a cracked display. This would let people keep their old watches going far longer, instead of being forced to upgrade.

Back in 2023, I wore six smartwatches for 6,000 steps to judge the most accurate brand. Garmin beat Apple, Samsung, and others ... but here we are, two years later. Is Garmin still on top? I decided to run a more thorough test, with more brands and newer models, to find out.

Companies don't advertise step-count upgrades, but Google tried to improve its step-count algorithm, then rolled it back when it inflated step counts. I assume other fitness brands regularly change their step calculations as well; watches that did poorly two years ago might have improved, while the better models might have regressed.

To see if Garmin is still the step-count king, I charged 10 of the best fitness watches I own — one each from Apple, Samsung, Garmin, Google, OnePlus, Amazfit, COROS, Polar, Suunto, and Withings — and jammed them onto my skinny runner arms for two 5,000-step walking tests and one 5,000-step jogging test. As a control group, I manually logged steps on a counting app.

Since I couldn't fit more than five watches on my arms simultaneously, that meant 30,000 steps in one tiring day. But it gave me some fascinating data! These are the most (and least) reliable fitness watches for hitting your daily 10,000 steps.

Tests 1 & 2: Step count while walking

My Apple Watch Ultra 2 undeniably had the most consistent and reliable results; its "high dynamic range gyroscope" lives up to the fancy name, whereas the old Series 7 I used in 2023 had more pedestrian results.

Otherwise, any watch that's within 100 steps after 10,000 is still quite good by my measure, which puts the OnePlus Watch 2R, Garmin Forerunner 970, Polar Vantage V3, and COROS APEX 4 in a reliable tier.

The COROS APEX 4, while not perfect, did much better than the APEX 2 Pro in my 2023 test. The Garmin Forerunner 970, on the other hand, actually did better in my original hands-on testing, differing only by a single step after 10,000. Either that was a fluke, or my first test today was; it did significantly better for the second test. And Polar is another fitness brand that lived up to my expectations.

I have no idea why the Suunto Race 2 did so unbelievably badly; it was perfectly accurate in the run test, as you'll see, but ignored thousands of walked steps, whether it was on my wrist or higher up my arm.

The Galaxy Watch 8 Classic results were more clearly off than I'd expect from a major brand, but Samsung has never done especially well in past step test, either.

The Pixel Watch 4, by contrast, did much better than my Fitbit Sense two years ago...at least at first. During the second test, the Fitbit app refused to track any new steps, then subtracted about 4,000 steps when I got home. I think this was just a weird bug, but it means I can't rank Google's watch properly.

Test 3: Step count while jogging

For this test, every single watch met the quality standard I expected, even the fairly mediocre (Withings ScanWatch 2) or poor-performing (Suunto Race 2) watches from the first two tests.

I think it's just easier for watches' accelerometers and gyroscopes to detect the deliberate, consistent motions of a running stride than the subtler, more ambiguous arm motions during walking.

An accidental test: Pocket step tracking

For my last walking test, since the forecast showed imminent rain, I wore five watches and kept the other five in my pocket so I could swap quickly. This led to a fun surprise when I realized some watches had tracked close to 5,000 steps from my pocket!

To be specific, the Forerunner 970 tracked 5,037 steps, the APEX 4 had 5,041, and the Ultra 2 showed 5,088. Other watches tracked far fewer steps, like Samsung (~2,000) and OnePlus (~3,000), but I won't hold that against these brands; I can hardly say it was a fair test.

I still find it exciting, though, because I've spoken to several people, including my brother-in-law, who complain about how inaccurate their step counts are when pushing a stroller or hiking with a trekking pole, as their arm movement isn't a "normal" step motion. But based on this test, putting your smartwatch in your pocket might be a useful workaround, depending on the brand!

Why an accurate fitness watch matters for your step goals

Walking 10,000 steps a day may have started off as a marketing gimmick for a fitness company, but I can point to several scientific studies showing major preventative health benefits from walking at least 6,000–8,000 steps a day, including reduced long-term risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, sleep apnea, reflux, dementia, depression, and obesity.

So let's say one of your New Year's resolutions is to hit a benchmark like 10K steps per day. A 200-step accuracy gap might not seem that drastic, but that's 6,000 extra steps per month or 72,000 in a year! Ideally, you want a smartwatch that's pinpoint accurate.

If you use a smart ring for step tracking, it does surprisingly well for walking steps, but it tends to add thousands of phantom steps during the day while you're typing at your desk. You'll end up being much more sedentary than you realize if you're getting "10,000 steps a day" with an Oura Ring.

You may not want to spend $700+ on a fancy Apple or Garmin watch just to get slightly better accuracy than, say, a $100 Amazfit Active 2. It's just nice to know that (Suunto aside) most fitness watch brands — and mainstream smartwatch brands that take fitness seriously — are actually tracking your steps, not just estimating.

And runners, in particular, are getting very accurate step data, no matter which watch they use!

Grades: Smartwatches (B+), smart rings (C), smart glasses (A)

It's been a dramatic 2025 for wearables. Some trends were predictable, like smart glasses continuing their exponential growth and smartwatches adding more AI and health features. But I didn't anticipate some things, like Oura lawsuits strangling its smart ring rivals or the impact of tariffs.

I've decided to look back on my 2025 forecast for smart rings, glasses, and watches, including two analysts' predictions, and judge how well our collective expectations lined up with reality.

Then, I'll look at the biggest wearable and fitness watch brands and grade their 2025 performance — where they succeeded and how they could have done better.

Judging my 2025 predictions for smartwatches, rings, and glasses

As expected, Garmin tested "loyal users' willingness to buy pricier status-symbol smartwatches." The Garmin Fenix 8 Pro ($1.2–2K) and Venu X1 ($800) are clear examples, but even mid-rangers like the Venu 4 ($550) have become more high-end.

Add in the $800 Apple Watch Ultra 3, $500 and $650 Galaxy Watches, and the $1,000 Polar Grit X2 Pro, and you can see brands normalizing phone-level prices (and offsetting tariff costs).

It was also expected that there would be "more options" for thrifty consumers. The Apple Watch SE 3 qualifies, sticking to its old $250 price, but it's the exception. We saw cheap trackers from Xiaomi and CMF, but very few cheap Android smartwatches besides discounted last-gen models. Even Amazfit sold as many $300+ watches as $100 ones.

Tariffs have interfered with budget options, making it more profitable to attract wealthier hobbyists.

Meanwhile, Google, Samsung, and Apple started pushing the idea of smartwatch AI in 2025. But it's still mostly on-phone processing of queries and health data analysis.

The Pixel Watch 4 and Apple Watch S11 have on-watch AI tools like smart replies or live translation, and I appreciate how Gemini on Android watches syncs well with Google apps. I expect a bigger AI push in 2026, particularly with the Fitbit Personal Health Coach AI.

Again, companies clearly want smartwatches to become medical devices, but we're still in the predictive "wellness" phase. For example, Samsung added virtual doctor's visits and prescription management while giving its watches vascular health and antioxidant index analysis, with heart failure warnings coming soon.

That said, my analyst's prediction of direct blood pressure monitoring on watches in 2025 didn't happen. But Apple started offering hypertension alerts, while Fitbit and Oura launched hypertension studies — so at least we're getting warning signs for high blood pressure.

As for smart rings, I don't have hard figures for 2025 yet, but IDC's current estimates show it's a tiny but growing sliver compared to fitness trackers, and growing much more slowly than smart glasses.

Sales have grown, but I'm expecting the category to stagnate. Oura has leveraged its patents to demand royalty payments from every major smart ring brand, bringing Circular and RingConn to heel, successfully banning Ultrahuman from the U.S., and currently challenging Samsung.

The current rumor is that Samsung won't make a Galaxy Ring 2, and there's little hope for competition and innovation in the space if brands like Fitbit and Apple decide it's not worth the legal hassle — or giving Oura a cut of the profits — to make a smart ring.

Finally, IDC's Jitesh Ubrani wasn't bullish on smart glasses' future last year, saying that "most consumers don't need" the photo/ video/ music/ AI combo and that sales would only climb from 2.5 million to 3.5 million in 2025.

Turns out, IDC's current forecast is 9.4 million glasses sold in 2025, Meta's Ray-Ban/Oakley partner EssilorLuxottica has ramped up production to 10 million per year, and Ubrani is much more enthusiastic about smart glasses' future.

That said, 10 million sold may not qualify as "mainstream," compared to 200 million smartwatches and trackers in 2025. The Samsung AI and HUD glasses coming in 2026 should help the category continue to grow, especially internationally.

Garmin in 2025: B

Garmin launched a series of successful, high-quality watches this year: the Instinct 3 for hikers and campers, the Vivoactive 6 for thrifty indoor athletes and daily step-counters, the Forerunner 570 for runners and triathletes, the Forerunner 970 for pro-level athletes and trail runners, and the Venu 4 as the all-around best option.

Unfortunately, Garmin raised watch prices across its entire lineup for extra revenue, delivering strong earnings but making them less accessible to everyday athletes. As much as I love the Venu X1, I can't recommend people spend $800 on one.

From an economic standpoint, Garmin has become a top-5 brand for worldwide smartwatch sales. Despite that, Garmin's stock plummeted because its uber-expensive Fenix 8 Pro couldn't compete with last year's massive Fenix 8 sales, undoing all its gains.

The new Garmin Connect+ subscription, which launched this year, may have earned some profits, but Garmin fans have never embraced the feature, especially when it's required for features like Garmin Trails, extra badges, and their Year in Review summary.

Unrealistic shareholder expectations aside, Garmin has had a strong year, but its tendency to price-lock the best features to Fenix-level watches is harder to stomach when the "cheaper" models are still expensive. And you never know when there'll be a major blue triangle crash.

COROS in 2025: A-

I won't grade every fitness watch brand, but I'm highlighting COROS because it's had a strong 2025 as a foil to Garmin. The COROS Nomad, Apex 4, and Pace 4 have each impressed me with their accurate GPS and HR data, weeks of battery life, affordable prices, and fast performance for trail and street maps.

COROS gained some ground on its rivals with vital features: media playback controls, move alerts, undo laps, flashlight mode, cycle tracking, mid-activity voice alerts, street names and POIs on maps, and an adventure journal.

Equally important, COROS updates its entire lineup, rather than price-lock features to the flagships. It makes models like the $300 COROS Pace Pro feel like a great value, because you get tools like offline maps and Strava Live Segments that only $600+ Garmin watches have.

It's no coincidence that COROS is the "fastest-growing watch brand year-over-year on Strava" in the app's 2025 end-of-year report. It won't catch up to Garmin (2nd overall) anytime soon, but COROS has earned a reputation for budget quality with serious athletes — stealing Garmin's customers.

COROS's main 2025 blemish was an IT exposé revealing major security vulnerabilities on all COROS watches, letting hackers potentially access your account, snoop on notifications, and worse. COROS says it has resolved these issues, thankfully.

Oura in 2025: A

Oura reports selling 5.5 million rings so far, with half those sales in the past 12 months. It also has a new U.S. DoD contract, which requires them to build a manufacturing facility in Texas. This deal also caused some backlash over fears Oura would share private data with the Trump administration, but CEO Tom Hale has reassured otherwise.

The Oura Ring 4 continuously received new features in 2025. The LLM-powered Oura Advisor is the centerpiece, giving advice and coaching based on your ring stats. The AI Meals tool gives you a nutritional summary of your plate with a photo. Your Oura Ring can now track pregnancy and premenopause symptoms. Its Preventive Health data studies signs of cumulative stress. The list goes on!

Oura also launched the Ring 4 Ceramic, a more expensive model with premium zirconia ceramic materials. While our tester praised how "incredibly soft" it feels to wear, he's also noticed areas where the finish has been "scratched off" from wear and tear, and that the new finish makes it "noticeably thicker and a bit heavier" than the normal Ring 4.

Overall, Oura kept users happy with new features, made record-breaking profits, and weaponized patents to scuttle its biggest rival (Ultrahuman) and demand royalties from the rest. That's a good business position to be in.

Meta in 2025: A

Meta released three pairs of smart glasses in 2025, which is a significant accomplishment. Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 2) is the centerpiece, and while it isn't significantly different from the original, the extra hours of battery and 3K video do make it easier to recommend.

The Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses cater specifically to the athletic crowd, particularly with the Garmin integration, and while I loved them, it'll take time to see whether they resonate because of the weight and price.

The Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses have struck a chord with the tech niche, with some impressive HUD features that have started to live up to the Google Glass idea people have waited a decade for. They're too thick, heavy, and expensive to break out of that niche, but it's a step in the right direction.

Hardware aside, Meta has done well with software updates in 2025. It added Meta AI support for several apps (Audible, Spotify, Google Calendar, Outlook, and Weather), released Live AI and Live Translation, sped up camera captures, and brought Gen 2 features like improved stabilization to the Gen 1 glasses.

Failing New Year's resolutions is a cherished tradition. People come up with lofty, vague plans like "learn a language" or "lose weight." They spend the holidays gorging on rich foods, then hit January tired, bloated, and back at work. Most people make a half-hearted effort for a week, then fall back on old routines by "Quitter's Day."

In my case, 2025 isn't over, but I've completed (or will complete) 32 of my 40 resolutions for the year. I wish I could have done more; I never got far with my goals for cycling, push-ups, and novel writing. But resolutions aren't some impossible challenge.

I can help you plan out your New Year's resolutions so that you're set up for success. You can't just buy a fitness smartwatch or download a nutrition app and hope an algorithm will bully you into being healthier. You need to plan them for yourself, and do so right now, not on January 1.

The five ways to make your New Year's resolutions successful

1. Make resolutions for things you already do

There's a reason why you haven't already started volunteering, lost weight, or learned to knit. We have finite time and mental energy outside of our 9-to-5s, and working new things into your schedule means sacrificing other things.

Before you make ambitious new plans for 2026, start by creating resolutions that fit within your current, established routine and hobbies, only slightly different or harder. That way, you're primed for success, and as you log these completed goals, you'll then be motivated to track and try your more challenging resolutions.

• If you read 20 books in 2025, aim to read 25 books this year, or 20 but with five in a new genre.
• If you're a runner, try running more miles, hit a new race PR, do X more track or trail workouts, or go to X running club or race events.
• Cooks and bakers could try one new recipe a month, or side dishes that pair with favorite meals.
• If you commute every day, commit to more books, podcasts, or journaling for at least one leg of the trip.

2. Break down resolutions into monthly goals

Let's say you want to walk 10,000 steps a day in 2026, or work out more; how do you keep yourself accountable? It only takes one bad week to fall off your routine, and then you have no reason to keep trying because you've already failed.

Instead, break your resolutions down by month. Split them out so you can make up for lost ground if you start to fall short, or monitor your progress toward a long-term goal.

Here's one example: Instead of "Three gym visits per week," make it "twelve times per month." Compensate for missed days by going more often the following week. If you only go six times in January, that's no excuse to stop; you can aim for eight visits in February, then ten in March.

The eventual goal is to build a consistent routine, but changing your lifestyle is a struggle, and building in for failed days or weeks makes you less likely to give up entirely.

• Want to walk 10,000 steps per day? That means 300,000 steps total, so you'll have to build in days where you walk more than 10,000 steps, like on weekends, to compensate for days you slack off.
• For vaguer goals like "Drink less alcohol," add each night of drinking to your monthly total. By January's end, if you drank 10 times, that's your baseline, with the goal to decrease that number in subsequent months.
• Similarly, if you want to "lose weight," logging your last weigh-in every month lets you see how you're progressing, or if you're backsliding.

3. Give yourself stretch and backup goals

Whatever your goals are for 2026, give yourself easier backup goals in case you're overly ambitious and stretch goals for if you surpass your own expectations.

The screenshot above shows my 8K steps/day resolution. Some months, I really slacked off, but because I had the lower 6K and 7K targets, I still had motivation to go out near the end of the month instead of giving up entirely. Other months, I kept pushing after hitting the 240K total, because I could hit a higher goal.

• Want to read more? Maybe 5 books per month is your target, but let yourself aim for 2 (bronze) or 3 (silver) for the months where you don't read for three weeks and need some motivation to finish the month strong.
• Want to do gym or HIIT workouts 10 times per month? Your monthly goals could be to hit five workouts (bronze), eight (silver), ten (gold), and twelve (stretch).
• Want to lose weight? Your bronze goal could simply be to maintain your current weight, which is something to celebrate!

4. Give yourself accountability...and a vision

New Year's resolutions require work toward self-improvement, and work can be hard and monotonous. By the time you hit spring, aiming to hit arbitrary goalposts will get boring, and you'll start to slack off if you let yourself. You need to find a north star, a concrete goal to work toward.

In my case, I signed up for a marathon, which gave me months of motivation to run or walk on weekdays, even when I was exhausted from work. I knew the alternative was having a horrible time during the race and wasting my flight and hotel money, so I didn't let myself off the hook; I even started hitting my stretch resolutions.

To go with your monthly self-perfection resolutions, commit to specific events that mesh with those goals and make lifestyle changes fun instead of onerous.

• Want to hit the gym more? Sign up for Spartan Racing or HYROX, competitive events that give you a concrete reason to train specific muscles: beating your fellow athletes.
• Want to cook or bake more recipes? Maybe you sign up for a class that does the hard parts (finding ingredients and recipes) for you, or even a cooking competition.
• Want to be better about cleaning or fixing up the house? Create a point system for each scrubbed toilet, weeded garden, or fixed floorboard. Then choose rewards you must redeem points for, like 50 points for movie tickets or 500 points for concert or sporting tickets.

5. Start planning (and doing) your New Year's resolutions now

If you go into January 1 with vague hopes of self-improvement, you're probably going to fail. You need to build a resolution game plan, with attainable, multi-tier goals for old and new hobbies, all broken down into twelve monthly categories. Then you need to look through local events, classes, clubs, and competitions that could liven up your resolution experience.

This is a lot of work to plan! That's why I think it's most essential that you start building your resolutions document now.

Not only will you be more prepared to actualize your goals, but you can start testing your resolve and building habits in the second half of December, when you're more likely to have more free time. If you can't exercise regularly or find hobby time while you're on vacation, how will you manage it in January?

Plus, if you're specifically planning to do more workouts or dieting next year, it makes sense to start testing out your new fitness smartwatch, workout plan, or nutrition app now. For example, the new Fitbit Personal Health Coach on the Pixel Watch 4 could build a training regimen for the gym, while a Garmin watch has personalized race plans and daily suggested workouts.

We have more fitness and resolutions content upcoming on Android Central in December, including a starter kit guide on the best tech and fitness apps to hit your goals. So if you're looking for more guidance and motivation to hit your goals, keep an eye out for those!

One reason I love running is that it's not an expensive sport. You buy a few dependable things and make them last. I've worn one pair of Brooks running shoes for 700+ miles in 2025, my shirts come from races I ran years ago, and my Nordstrom Rack sock packs have survived for a decade.

That said, running that many miles is easier when you have certain tech and tools to support you! I regularly review fitness watches from Garmin, Google, COROS, and others, and I've spent Black Friday covering the best wearable tech deals available, including this Garmin Cyber Monday watch deal guide.

Whether you're buying things for yourself or the runner in your life, these are the Cyber Monday running tech deals and other running stocking stuffer deals that I either plan to buy or would buy if I didn't already own them.

Cyber Monday running watch deals

• Garmin Forerunner 165: $249 $199 ($50 off) at Best Buy
• Garmin Forerunner 265: $449 $299 ($150 off) at Best Buy
• COROS PACE Pro: $349 $299 ($50 off) at Amazon
• Google Pixel Watch 4 45mm LTE: $499 $399 ($100 off) at Best Buy
• Garmin Forerunner 965: $599 $449 ($150 off) at Amazon

All six of my best running watch picks have Cyber Monday deals, and that just scratches the surface. Personally, I use and love my Garmin Forerunner 970 for its 15-day battery life and fantastic insights into my body's cardiovascular and biomechanical load. But even at an all-time-low $100 off, it's still $649, too expensive for an impulse buy.

The Forerunner 165 is my first suggestion for most beginner or intermediate runners, and it's the cheapest Garmin watch I'd still recommend buying; the Forerunner 55 or Venu Sq 2 (both $149 today) are too outdated in key areas. It gives you essential data to run smarter and improve your VO2 Max, without overwhelming you.

If you're willing to spend a little more, the Forerunner 265 is an old favorite of mine, upgrading the 165 experience with slightly better battery life, enhanced dual-frequency GPS that pinpoints your location in city or forest environments, and key Garmin data screens like training load and training readiness that make it clearer whether you're training hard enough to improve.

Above that tier, the Forerunner 965 hits a fantastic 23 days of battery life and improves on the 265 with key features like topographic maps for hiking, real-time stamina warning you when you're reaching your limit, and a Hill score judging whether you need to improve your elevation training.

There are other running watch brands than Garmin, of course! I'm a particular fan of COROS watches as an alternative, as they deliver similar training insights at lower price points. The COROS PACE Pro, for example, gives you a 20-day battery life, training load, customized workout plans, and topographic maps, while only costing $299 ($50 off).

If you're looking for a proper smartwatch with great fitness tools, my personal recommendation is the Pixel Watch 4, which performed well in my fitness test with excellent GPS and solid HR accuracy, along with surprisingly good battery life for both GPS and music streaming to headphones. You even get the new Fitbit Personal Health Coach, which uses Gemini smarts to speak to you about your running goals and build a flexible training plan, whether for a 5K or marathon.

Other Cyber Monday running tech I'd buy

• Shokz OpenFit 2: $179.95 $119.95 at Amazon
• COROS HRM: $79.00 at Amazon (with possible 25% off)
• Polar H10: $105 $89.21 at Amazon
• Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 1) smart glasses: $329 $262.99 at Amazon

Most running tech is nice-to-have, not essential. The only gadgets I need to stay on pace are a running watch and workout earbuds. For the latter, I've worn and loved the Shokz OpenFit 2 series for all of 2025 and absolutely love their light, open-ear design, rich audio, and button shortcuts. It's a great deal right now, though if you're willing to spend a little extra, the Shokz OpenFit 2+ is even better with Dolby Audio sound.

The other "essential" tool for many runners is a HR chest strap or armband, synced to their watch. All wrist-based optical sensors are prone to inaccuracy, especially in colder weather, so a chest strap like the Polar H10 or Garmin HRM 200 is a great upgrade for the runner in your life who already has a running watch. The H10 is known for being the gold standard, while Garmin's model is equally accurate and a little cheaper.

Personally, I prefer the COROS Heart Rate Monitor; it's an armband, so it's easier to wear and forget than a chest strap (especially if you're not skinny), while still offering better data than a smartwatch. I got my fiancée one to pair with her Apple Watch for weightlifting workouts, and she loves how quickly she sees changes in her heart rate. It's still full price at the moment, but you can get 25% off if you buy a COROS watch at the same time.

Otherwise, the other "essential" for a lot of runners is sunglasses. I'm no expert on those, but I have reviewed tons of smart sunglasses like the Oakley Meta Vanguard and Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2s, which pair with your Garmin watch to read out live stats and "autocapture" videos of your runs to share later. These new glasses are full price, but you can get the older Gen 1s for as low as $238.99 (20% off) and get all the same software — though with shorter battery life.

Cyber Monday under-$50 stocking stuffers for runners

Enough rambling on running tech! You're here to find some last-minute Cyber Monday running deals for athletic loved ones, or gifts for yourself. These may not fall into my usual tech focus, but they're still running deals that I either use regularly or plan to buy.

As for other gift ideas for runners, see if you can find them a way to display their favorite medals, like a medal rack or medal/ bib holder; you can find their latest race on sites like Marathonfoto or FinisherPix and buy a nice finisher photo to go with the display. This Etsy marathon map with personalized time is another option that'll make your runner happy.

You can print out a cute coupon for one free race and promise to pay for their next registration fee (restrict destination marathons in the fine print).

If all else fails, sneak into their sock drawer and find their favorite socks. Runners always need more socks, but you should find out first if they prefer No-Show or Ankle cut.

You can also pick out a sweatband for hot climates, or a beanie or gloves for cold weather, but those can be tricker to pick out, and they may prefer a gift card to a place like REI or Dick's to pick those out for themselves.

Cyber Monday 2025 - quick links

• Best Buy: up to 60% off Chromebooks, Android phones, and more
• Amazon: early discounts on headphones, smart home tech
• Walmart: early price drops on ASUS laptops, locked phones
• Samsung: new Galaxy XR headset, trade-in opportunities
• Verizon: free phones with new line, trade-in
• T-Mobile: free Galaxy phones, $300 back w/ 5G Home Internet
• Mint Mobile: 50% off Pixel 10, BOGO Unlimited plans
• AT&T: get a free Z Flip 7 with trade-in, new line
  
  More Black Friday coverage
• The best Google Pixel deals of Black Friday and Cyber Monday
• The best Samsung deals of Black Friday and Cyber Monday
• The best Motorola deals of Black Friday and Cyber Monday

Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 2) and Oakley Meta HSTN smart glasses have wide-ranging styles and lenses to appeal to as many people as possible, blending in with normal glasses and working both indoors and outdoors. Oakley Meta Vanguard has the same tech, but a polar-opposite approach and audience.

You're not wearing these into a museum or on vacation to learn about art and landmarks, nor on a late-evening stroll for music. They're designed (and priced) for athletes who spend hours on trails, slopes, boats, or courses every week, and who want to capture and share epic moments as organically as possible.

While I own and like the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2s, Vanguard smart glasses appeal to me as a runner, with their IP67 water resistance, longer battery life, nose guards, centered camera, and Action button. My Vanguard review will focus on whether you will similarly love these, or if the weight, price, or photo & video quirks will scare you off.

Oakley Meta Vanguard price, specs, and lenses

Oakley Meta Vanguard smart glasses cost $499, slightly higher than the $379–479 range for other second-gen Meta glasses. It ships in four frame/ lens color combinations: Black frames with 24K gold or Road red lenses, or White frames with Black or Sapphire blue lenses.

You won't find clear, polarized, or Transitions lenses for Vanguard. Unlike Oakley Meta HSTNs and Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2s, these aren't meant for indoor use.

The lens shape precludes a straightforward prescription insert, but a fellow AC writer purchased unofficial Vanguard lens inserts that you attach by swapping out the default nose guards. He said it was "absolutely worth it" for near-sighted athletes.

Overall, you'll find that the Oakley Meta Vanguard specs are quite similar to Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 2) for connectivity and cameras, but it wins for battery life, speakers, and durability.

Oakley Meta Vanguard: Everything you'll love

Meta smart glasses combine a mic and speaker, camera sensors, and AI smarts in a single package, paired to your phone. The Vanguard design is tailored to loud, sunny conditions and long workouts, but its target audience may already have favorite open-ear workout earbuds, so the threshold to impress them is higher.

In my case, I'll admit that Oakley Meta Vanguard doesn't quite match the targeted, rich volume of my Shokz OpenFit 2+, but it's a much narrower gap than with my 2nd-gen Ray-Bans, and certainly better than bone conduction earbuds.

The high-decibel speakers sound excellent for track sprints, windy trails, or other sporty conditions, with convenient (if finicky) touch controls around the right Oakley logo to pause or skip tracks, raise/ lower volume, or summon Meta AI.

Everything from bass-heavy workout beats to chill audiobooks and phone calls cut through the ambient noise, and the five-mic array ensures my voice comes through clearly on the other end.

For solo hikes, runs, or rounds of golf, my Vanguard glasses can keep me motivated for hours. Meta specifically promises six hours of music playback, though your mileage will vary depending on your volume and photo/ video frequency. In my experience, I saw about 16.7% battery used per hour, though closer to 25% with frequent media captures or AI queries.

Is that enough? For half-marathons or quick treks, absolutely; for an all-day ride or event, or for livestreaming, it's less likely to last. For sports with quick bursts of action, you can top off the battery in the case in off moments, like on a ski lift, if you have a way to carry the bulky case.

The main reason to buy Oakley Meta Vanguard is the convenience of saying "Hey Meta, start recording," or tapping a button, and getting a candid shot without the delay and awkwardness of grabbing and pointing your phone at something.

This applies to other Meta AI glasses, but it's especially useful for athletes, where using a phone is a slow distraction at best and a safety issue at worst. It's no DJI or Insta360 camera for content creators' sustained, high-res shots, but Vanguard is more natural for everyday folks looking to commemorate events and share moments with friends.

Superficially, Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses look better on my face than Ray-Ban or Oakley HSTN glasses, which look thick because their design mimics "normal" sunglasses. The Oakley Spheara design is already huge, hugging your face, so Vanguard's bulky size doesn't stand out.

More importantly, Oakley Meta Vanguard's built-in nose guard prevents downsliding during sweaty runs and steep downward trails, spreading out the weight and pressure evenly. With Ray-Ban Metas, I have to choose between a tighter fit that hugs my head or a more natural fit that constantly slides down my nose.

I also appreciate that Vanguard gives you a second Action button for shortcuts, such as triggering a Hyperlapse or Slow Motion video, or reading out your current pace for a Garmin-tracked workout.

The Hyperlapse option is my preference: I absolutely love saving these sped-up glimpses of my favorite points on the trail, or the beginning of a race, whereas a full video might be boring by comparison.

My sports of choice don't lend themselves to slow-motion videos, but I did test it, and the effect would be cool for something like skiing or mountain biking.

Oakley Meta Vanguard: Garmin integration

I wrote 1,500 words about Garmin integration on Oakley Meta Vanguard, for Garmin watch owners curious about the feature. Rather than copy-paste my findings, I'll reestablish the highlights, good and bad.

Once you sync your Garmin watch to Vanguard, Meta AI will know your real-time workout stats. You can say "Hey Meta, what's my current (or average) pace/ HR/ power/ cadence/ distance?" and receive an answer in seconds. You can ask for stats that aren't in your default Garmin data fields, without taking your eyes off the road.

Garmin Autocapture triggers five-second captures at mile markers or other contextual "smart triggers," then collects them into an editable video montage with synchronized Garmin stats displayed.

While Autocapture is well-suited to race events, it's awkward for videos to trigger when other people are walking toward you, and you'll have to delete dozens of random five-second clips from your Photos gallery afterward.

If you're following a Garmin workout with a target zone, the Vanguard's Status LED will light up red when you're off-target. This lets you avoid glancing at your wrist for every out-of-zone or back-in-zone buzz; eventually, I want Meta to show two colors to indicate if you're above or below your target zone.

Lastly, the Meta AI app will create post-workout summaries of how your results compare to past activities, with suggestions on whether to rest from hard runs or incorporate more speedwork after easy ones. I don't find it especially helpful, but novice athletes could benefit, and it's not paid like Garmin Connect+.

Overall, Vanguard's Garmin integration has impressed me, but it's not vital. More Garmin fans will want a HUD for real-time stats, but the Meta Ray-Ban Display design is too heavy for workouts.

Oakley Meta Vanguard: Camera and stabilization test

I took photos from specific spots wearing both my Oakley Vanguard and Ray-Ban Gen 2 glasses. The gallery below shows how Vanguard's shots better center what I was aiming at, though also capturing more incidental stuff around my subject.

I then took out my Oakley Meta Vanguards for a hike, capturing nature photos. I didn't realize that my hat was in the shot until afterward, unfortunately, but you can still see how much wide detail they capture, as well as how they can snap moving targets like a dog or vulture with minimal blurring.

For this third, hatless test, I took more "normal" photos. As with my Ray-Ban Meta camera test, I appreciate the vivid colors and quick-snap captures of moving targets; likewise, I have to accept that without a viewfinder, it's hard to know if I'm standing too far away or should crouch for a better angle.

I don't have a convenient way to embed videos, but 1080p videos give you smoother footage with sufficient details and realism, while 3K mode is more vibrant and detailed with better contrast and minimal compression, but more prone to jittering.

They looked fantastic during my Autocapture setting in sunny weather, but when I did some sprint tests at twilight, the footage was rough, with terrible, shaky blur as the camera failed to fill in details. I'd like to see better nighttime photography on Meta's next-gen glasses.

Meta's auto-stabilization is what makes action videos work, with tools like horizon correction making the footage glide seamlessly. My colleague's video above shows how it looks at different stabilization levels — though Vanguard only lets you customize this setting in 1080p/30FPS mode, for now.

Oakley Meta Vanguard: Everything you won't love

I can comfortably wear Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses for hours, but the 66g of weight concentrated on the nose pads does add up, especially for workouts like running with an up/down, bouncing motion. Even though I wear glasses every day, the Vanguards can make my nose sore after all-day wear, or after shorter workouts on back-to-back days.

If you're hoping to wear these glasses for daily workouts, you might resent the weight; I use them more sporadically, but I also have other workout earbuds and sunglasses for casual runs that I don't care to photograph.

Many of my Ray-Ban Meta review complaints return here, like the noticeable audio spill, poor low-light photography, the hyperfixation on portrait-only photos for Meta's own apps, and Meta AI's limitations. At least audio bleed is less of an issue outdoors where most people are wearing headphones.

As for other nitpicks, Meta should add EQ presets or customization to optimize Vanguard's speakers. And while Meta has a Find My option with your glasses' last location, I wish the case had a way to ping it audibly.

Competition

If you bought Oakley Spheara sunglasses, wireless earbuds, and a cheap sports camera, you'd spend slightly more, but get a lighter fit, specialized audio tools, and targeted video with a viewfinder. Oakley Meta Vanguard is about the wearable convenience of capturing hands-free footage and only having one device to charge.

If you choose Ray-Ban or Oakley HSTN glasses with Transitions lenses, you can use them indoors or for nighttime runs. These models have slightly shorter battery life, worse water resistance, quieter speakers, no action button, and an offset camera sensor. But they otherwise give you the same AI and software perks.

Garmin cyclists might scoff at Vanguard because it lacks a HUD. But current HUD glasses are either too heavy or quite limited; ENGO 2 glasses, for example, have no music, photo, or AI capabilities.

Oakley Meta Vanguard: Should you buy them?

You should buy Oakley Meta Vanguard if...

• You want to document your favorite athletic moments, whether for yourself or others.
• You need open-ear audio and strong eye protection for long, safe workouts.
• You're interested in the Meta-Garmin integration.

You shouldn't buy Oakley Meta Vanguard if...

• You haven't tried them on first to judge the weight.
• You want to wear these indoors or at night for music or AI.
• You only want smart glasses with a HUD.

If it isn't apparent from this review, I really like my Oakley Meta Vanguard smart glasses. I'm capturing more footage of my races and hikes that I'll enjoy looking back on years from now, and I'm more likely to use these than past smart glasses because I know the battery won't die mid-workout.

Meta consistently updates its products years after release, and is currently porting Vanguard features to its first-gen Ray-Bans. So I'm confident that Vanguard glasses will continue to receive new features that improve the experience; in particular, I think the Garmin partnership will improve with more stats and better shortcuts.

If you're at all interested in what Vanguard has to offer, I think they're worth buying. But if you're scared off by the weight or don't like Vanguard's wide portrait photography, you should look elsewhere. Maybe try them on at a Sunglass Hut or electronics store first and see what you think.

FAQ

Next weekend, I'll be running the Garmin Tucson Marathon. It's not my first marathon, but it feels like the first one I've properly trained for; I've more than doubled my monthly mileage with several 15- to 20-mile runs and hit a half-marathon PR.

It's been a useful opportunity to test recent watches like the COROS APEX 4, Pixel Watch 4, and Suunto Race 2. However, I continued to wear my Garmin watch on my other wrist, not just as a control group for testing, but also because I relied on its metrics to stay on task during marathon training.

I'm no authority on running techniques or marathon training strategy; I'd be happy just to break the 4-hour barrier. However, I am familiar with fitness watches and accessories, and I can share which features (whether Garmin or otherwise) were the most useful for marathon prep as a dedicated amateur.

While following AI run recommendations is useful to a point, it was only by straying from Garmin's recommended path that I've achieved my marathon potential.

Keeping things simple: Mileage matters most

I took Hal Higdon's Novice 1 and Novice 2 plans and built my own custom workout calendar (screenshotted above) in Google Sheets. I aimed to finish the Novice 2 distances but gave myself the easier Novice 1 option as an off-ramp whenever I was exhausted or worried about muscle soreness.

The main thing Higdon stressed is not to overly complicate your training plan.

Novice or intermediate marathoners should "save their speedwork" for when they're "not doing a marathon mileage buildup," nor should you do strength training unless you're already a "gym rat," and even then, you should "cut back on the weights."

Many smartwatch marathon training plans emphasize speed work, strength training, and cross-training. And for serious marathoners with the capacity to train six to seven days a week, that makes sense! For novices like you and me, we need to use our limited bandwidth to run whenever we can. Everything else is a distraction.

Hidgon recommended cross-training once a week, particularly cycling or swimming. But I kept it simple and walked. It can be hard to stay motivated for 14–18 weeks if you're spending every Saturday running for 2–3 hours and then recovering, only to do another long workout on Sunday. I found it easier to focus on hitting my 10,000 steps while listening to an audiobook or podcast, prioritizing easy, active recovery so I could get back to running soon.

Slowly build up your body's running tolerance — and skip the sprints

Before my marathon plan, I used my Garmin Forerunner 970 (and other Garmin watches before it) to balance my training load between low- and high-aerobic and anaerobic training, aiming to increase my VO2 Max. But since October, I've ignored Garmin's algorithm every time it prods me to do more tempo or sprint workouts.

Doing enough anaerobic training to satisfy Garmin's formula has a significant biomechanical impact load on my body. My weekly mileage was low because going all-out for 3 miles would put pressure on my muscles and joints, and I'd need days to recover.

I abandoned my weekly track workouts, and it became far easier to work multiple short runs into my week and build up my mileage. I'll start worrying about VO2 Max again once I've finished this race.

At the start of my marathon training, Garmin's running tolerance metric said my body could safely handle 20 miles/week. Higdon's marathon plan starts at about 15–20 miles per week, but gradually builds up to 25–40 miles per week.

Because I stuck to his system, slowly increasing my mileage and maintaining an easy pace, I've increased my Garmin tolerance to 30 miles/week and have safely hit 35 miles in some weeks. I'm confident I'll be able to finish my marathon without injuring myself because I focused on mileage over speed.

Low-aerobic training DOES matter

I didn't ignore Garmin's suggestions completely, though. My training load focus widget reminds me to get as much low-aerobic load as possible. Low aerobic HR training builds your body's endurance, so that your aerobic threshold — the steady-state HR where you can maintain a consistent pace for hours — stays low.

Basically, by following Garmin's low-aerobic demands, I'm hoping I can maintain a strong target pace during the race while keeping my heart rate steady, so I don't build up too much lactic acid in my muscles.

It's never fun having to slow down to a crawl, staring at your wrist until your HR falls back into the right zone; it drags out the workout when you'd rather be running freely. But it pays off in the long run.

The fitness tech I'll use during the Garmin marathon

It feels thematically appropriate to use a Garmin watch during the Garmin marathon, but that's not the reason I'll wear one. The Forerunner 970 offers hyper-accurate dual-band GPS and dependable battery life, though I may end up wearing the Venu X1, simply because it's so absurdly light that it'll feel more comfortable for a four-hour run.

Either way, I'm getting accurate data and useful data fields to help me adjust my pace mid-run. I'm excited about the new Auto Lap feature, which displays your mile pace at the course's official mile markers instead of your watch's GPS points, providing more relevant data.

Whichever I pick, I plan to sync my COROS Heart Rate Monitor to it. I want to keep a close eye on my heart rate during the race so that I can stay out of my lactate threshold as long as possible to avoid burning out. But optical wrist-based sensors are slower to detect and warn you of rapid HR changes.

An external HRM, like the COROS armband, is more responsive. A chest strap would be better for data, but while I've worn one for 18- and 20-mile runs for testing, I hated the constricting feeling that made me feel self-conscious while breathing hard. I can forget I'm wearing COROS' armband once I'm in the zone, which is more important.

I haven't decided yet whether I'm wearing my Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses or my Shokz OpenFit 2 Plus earbuds for my marathon playlist. Both provide open-ear audio, allowing me to stay aware of other runners. However, Shokz's option offers richer Dolby Atmos audio, has less audio spill, and weighs significantly less.

What makes the Vanguards tempting is the ability to document my marathon with photos and videos throughout the race, serving as visual post-it notes to remember what the race was like years later.

There's also Meta-Garmin integration, so I can ask the glasses about my marathon stats at any time, without looking down at my wrist, and use the Status LED to warn me if my heart rate is getting too high. These are more gimmicky tools, but could still be useful.

Whichever I choose, I hope my workout playlist will keep me motivated to beat my marathon PR!

Testing out the COROS APEX 4 for the past couple of weeks has given me flashbacks to wearing the 2022 Garmin Forerunner 955, my favorite running watch before Garmin and its rivals began shifting away from MIP displays. Plenty of fitness watch fans detest this trend, like my 955-wearing brother-in-law. While I'll admit I prefer AMOLED displays, the APEX 4 is a great watch for the holdouts.

COROS's last watch, the NOMAD, challenges the Garmin Instinct 3 in a narrow category: affordable, rugged hiking watches with weeks of battery life. An MIP display felt like the right fit.

The APEX 4 targets trail runners and "mountain athletes" who also care about battery life and outdoor visibility. But its $429/479 price gives it stiffer competition from the Suunto Race 2, Garmin Forerunner 570, and Polar Vantage M3 — all AMOLED watches, and the first two with 2,000 nits for excellent readability in direct sunlight.

Initial thoughts

I reviewed the COROS APEX 2 and APEX 2 Pro in 2022 when I was still relatively new to wearables. The hardware impressed me, especially the epic battery life, but I could tell that the GPS and HR accuracy could be better, the health tracking and software had plenty of gaps, and the MIP displays were painfully dim.

Unsurprisingly, the APEX 4 is more reliably accurate (as you'll see below), the battery life still blows me away, and the MIP display has much better contrast, making it serviceable — though for whatever reason, the NOMAD's display is more readable indoors. I think the APEX 4's sapphire layer catches more obscuring light.

Most importantly, the APEX 4's new Ambiq Apollo 510 processor powers the speediest, smoothest maps I've seen outside of Apple and Wear OS watches, where most fitness watch rivals like Garmin are laggy. You now get street and trail names, and the crown makes it seamless to zoom in to a confusing trail turn or out to a wider view in a couple of seconds.

My only complaints are with the turn-by-turn navigation for downloaded courses. It mostly works without issue, but I noticed twice that when I came to a loop, the arrow suggested I go in the opposite direction that I chose when I made the course.

When I intentionally went off course, the APEX 4 caught it and warned me immediately. But the turn-by-turn directions don't update based on which direction you're facing, so when I missed my right turn and turned around, it still told me to turn right. I hope COROS can address both of my map nitpicks in the future.

With its new processor, the APEX 4 is primed for years of upgrades. Over three years, the APEX 2 added HRV and stress data, sleep quality, and running form analysis, Strava Live Segments, and safety alerts, among dozens of new features. While Garmin watch updates tend to dry up after 1–2 years, APEX 4 updates should last much longer.

I specifically expect its built-in depth gauge sensor to enable scuba diving at some point, and COROS told Chase the Summit that it may use the mic & speaker to enable offline voice commands in the future.

COROS APEX 4 GPS accuracy

Not all dual-band GPS watches are created equal. Having tested nearly every smartwatch brand's GPS accuracy, I've found that COROS's most recent watches come the closest to Garmin for dependability, with the APEX 4 following that pattern. Get ready for some boringly straight GPS lines, with only a couple of glitches to speak of.

I took three dual-frequency GPS watches — the Garmin Forerunner 970, Google Pixel Watch 4, and APEX 4 — out for a 19-mile run; while Google depends mainly on L1 and L5 GPS frequencies, Garmin and COROS also pull in other GNSS signals as needed.

By the end, Garmin measured 0.01 miles more and Google 0.01 miles less; you can read my Pixel Watch 4 fitness test if you want to see its results, but I've focused on the two main rivals here. By and large, all nineteen miles showed the two signals either overlapping or in close parallel with each other. They tended to ding simultaneously or within seconds at each mile marker.

I only have one complaint: The APEX 4's final map showed me warping from my current spot to a previous one, then back, as seen above. It didn't affect my distance results, but it did add about 50m to my final altitude totals. I noticed a similar glitch hiking with the NOMAD in August, adding 170m of extra ascent but no extra distance.

For a second 8-mile run, thankfully, we're right back to superbly, dully accurate GPS data from both the APEX 4 and Forerunner 970, their GPS lines overlapping or paralleling one another for almost the entire run. I've also noticed that the APEX 4 tends to do slightly better with tunnels and underpasses, staying straight while Garmin's line waves slightly.

During a 5-mile hike, neither watch was perfect, each having moments where they strayed slightly from the satellite trail path. Both ended with the same 5.44-mile distance, while my Suunto Race 2 measured 5.43 miles.

What's odd is that COROS measured about 100 feet of extra elevation gain (1,762 feet) compared to Garmin (1,660 feet) and Suunto (1,644 feet). I'm not sure what to make of two activities with excess ascent totals, so I'll keep testing it in my full APEX 4 review.

COROS APEX 4 HR accuracy

I've generally found COROS watches' HR accuracy to be reliable, but not perfect, especially for the highest anaerobic data. I don't mind because the COROS HRM is affordable and comfortable to improve your data, and most COROS watches are cheap, but you'd want the pricier APEX 4 to stand on its own merits.

This graph shows how the COROS APEX 4 and Garmin Forerunner 970 optical HR sensors compare. COROS and Garmin's HR averages ended 1 bpm apart, but you can see how the two watches react to my changes in effort equally fast and generally mirror one another; the only difference is that COROS's results were barely higher.

A more reliable accuracy test came during my 19-mile run, during which I wore a Garmin HRM 200 chest strap as a control group. The COROS APEX 4 ended with the same 161 bpm average and 178 bpm maximum rate.

You can certainly see points in the graph where the two diverge as I climbed into higher heart rates. The APEX 4 trails behind the chest strap to hit higher HRs, then stays high while the chest strap measures my effort level decreasing.

The photo above, with the Forerunner synced to my chest strap, shows how you might not immediately see how hard you're pushing with the APEX 4 at any given moment. So if you used the APEX 4 for an anaerobic track workout, I'd expect the HR average would fall a couple of bpm short. This is common for wrist-based optical sensors, but keep that in mind.

Wrist-based optical sensors can also struggle with sustained, lower HR levels, but the COROS APEX 4 matched the Garmin HRM 200 chest strap for HR average and maximum during my two-hour hike. It's closely aligned 90% of the time, with the APEX 4 doing very well at catching when my HR rose on tough hills. But there were a few moments where my effort dipped but the APEX 4 stayed 5–10 bpm above my HR.

Is the COROS APEX 4 the right watch for you?

COROS reps said during our APEX 4 briefing that they "will still have a split of AMOLED and MIP watches in the future," but that they "still find MIP to be a phenomenal solution." The only current COROS AMOLED is the excellent COROS PACE Pro, but I don't think there will be an APEX 4 Pro with AMOLED anytime soon.

Without wading into the MIP vs. AMOLED debate, the APEX 4 is the right fit for people who prioritize outdoor visibility and longer battery life. I'd argue the latest 2,000-nit Garmin watches are perfectly visible outdoors, but their battery life does suffer for the extra brightness, while the APEX 4 has that classic longevity, to the point that I still haven't charged it since I unboxed it.

The APEX 4 reminds me of premium fitness watches from three years ago, when there was less industry pressure to add "smarts" like you'd find on an Apple or Galaxy Watch. The UI revolves solely around fitness: What's next on your marathon training plan, how much training load, have you built up, and how does your HRV, stress, and sleep play into your recovery?

But I'm less tolerant of certain things in 2025 than I was in 2022, like how the basic COROS UI crams dozens of tools into an annoying, rotating Toolbox, or the overly-large "COROS" label next to the display that detracts from its premium look.

Picking or skipping the APEX 4 comes down to your priorities as an athlete. Switching to the Forerunner 570, for example, would net you a flashlight, daily run suggestions, better music apps, contactless payments, and (arguably) a better display, but would lose you sapphire glass, a more stylish steel bezel, offline maps, and 5–11 days of battery life.

The APEX 4 is what grumbling Garmin users say that they want: A return to the MIP days, where they focused on fitness essentials and battery life over expensive bells and whistles, with a reasonable price and no frustrating feature-locking of the best features like maps.

I'll have a full review coming soon with more feature testing, but it's undoubtedly one of the best running watches of 2025...if you don't prefer AMOLED.

The Pixel Watch 4 is Google's sportiest smartwatch yet. As someone who's tested nearly every smartwatch and fitness watch brand, I put the Watch 4 through its paces to see how well its accuracy holds up against a premium Garmin watch, judging when Fitbit beats the competition and when it falls short.

I took the Pixel Watch 4 out for a half-marathon and a second 19-mile run — along with shorter runs and a hike — comparing its HR accuracy against a chest strap and its GPS accuracy against the dual-band Garmin Forerunner 970.

I also compared stats like step count, elevation, and running form, tested how Google's new activity detection works, and decided whether the Watch 4's new 3,000-nit display and improved battery life make a real difference.

I can't fully judge the Watch 4 fitness experience until the Gemini-backed Fitbit coach arrives later this month. But it's fair to say the Watch 4 is a surprisingly strong fitness watch option — even if it's still missing some essentials that serious athletes need.

GPS accuracy

Anyone who read my Pixel Watch 4 hands-on impressions saw my initial GPS and HR accuracy results, but I'll go into more depth here. The Pixel Watch 4 defaults to dual-frequency GPS, but also manages to be incredibly efficient at it. Google hasn't shared its methods, but I'd guess it's similar to Garmin's SatIQ mode, pinpointing with L5 signals when the L1 signal is disrupted.

During a half-marathon race in downtown San Jose, the Pixel Watch 4 showed mile-long stretches with very accurate tracking, with the two watches' results closely overlapping. But it wasn't perfect, as some of the slides below show (click the box for a closer view):

I also noted plenty of moments where the Watch 4's GPS line curved significantly off of my route before returning, possibly due to reflected signals from tall buildings. More subtly, the Watch 4 is slower to react to any 90-degree turn, with a much wider loop than I actually took. And it didn't do the best at staying straight under underpasses.

Despite its struggles, the end result wasn't far from Garmin's, which had its own occasional struggles with tall buildings but was more faithfully on track.

For my next test, I ran several miles on the same neighborhood loop. Google and Garmin stay parallel — likely because they're on my left and right wrists — but it's fair to say that Garmin's results stay more consistently on the same line, while Google's line strays much more, despite there being few signal blockers nearby aside from some trees.

Again, though, the final result was 5.00 vs. 5.01 miles (16m), and you'd be surprised how many dual-band GPS watches stray slightly off track. The Pixel Watch 3 tended to be significantly worse, particularly for hikes.

I recently ran 19 miles with the same two watches, plus a third dual-band COROS watch. The final result: Garmin measured 0.02mi more and COROS 0.01mi more than Google, all with the same 9:23/mile average. I'll spare you 19 miles' worth of screenshots, but this was the Watch 4's best tracking result, with only the occasional sections where it strayed off-path.

On a related note, the Pixel Watch 4's elevation tracking was only 0.8 feet off of Garmin's for the 19-mile run, though the gap was 3m for my half-marathon. I didn't get a chance to climb a mountain or anything, but I generally trust its results.

Overall, the Pixel Watch 4's GPS accuracy is as dependable as I hoped. It's also more efficient than I expected, only using about 7.5% of my battery per hour of tracking for a couple of runs. It guzzled more battery during my 19-mile run, hitting closer to 12% battery used per hour, but still had more than enough juice for a long activity.

HR accuracy

Google promised that the Pixel Watch 3 had its "most accurate" HR algorithm, and didn't bring it up with the Watch 4, so we can safely assume it's unchanged. And that shows in the actual results: For whatever reason, Google's HR average always falls 1 bpm short of other chest, arm, or wrist-based sensors.

During my half-marathon, my Garmin paired with a COROS HRM armband consistently measured slightly higher than Google's result, particularly when my HR rose above my lactate threshold into anaerobic levels. The graphs run in parallel, with Google always in the right range, but 1 bpm short.

It's normal for a wrist-based optical sensor to lag behind an arm or chest strap, but comparing the Pixel Watch 4 against Garmin's 5th-gen Elevate sensor is fascinating. You can see how both watches respond to changes in effort at nearly the same time throughout a 40-minute run. Still, Google's results are slightly deflated, once again 1 bpm short on average.

For my 19-mile run, I synced my Garmin HRM 200 chest strap to my Forerunner. You can ignore the three flat-line stretches; different watches handle paused workouts for water and bathroom breaks differently. Otherwise, you can see how the Watch 4 mostly keeps pace but still falls 1–2 bpm short during rapid changes. The final averages — Watch 4 with 161 bpm, HRM 200 with 162 bpm — were predictable at this point.

I gave the Pixel Watch 3's HR accuracy a "B" grade last year, and I'd give them the same grade this year: good but not exceptional. The real problem is that Google doesn't give people a way to improve their results, as Wear OS doesn't support connecting to external HR monitors. That's a deal-breaker for a lot of athletes!

Automatic activity detection

Google promises that its AI will "automatically detect and classify your activity and send you a recap" for activities like running, cycling, soccer, or using an elliptical. The Watch 3 would prompt you to confirm an activity mid-workout; now the Watch 4 asks after you're done.

To test this feature, I ran four miles wearing my Pixel Watch 4 and Forerunner 970, only tracking it on the latter. When I finished, I sat on a bench for ten minutes to make sure Fitbit didn't include any post-run walking in the activity.

When I got home, I received a notification that I'd run for 39:53 — only four seconds off of Garmin's duration — with a 142 bpm average (one below Garmin's average, predictably). The only problem was that it measured 4.6 miles instead of 4.0; automatic activities don't show a GPS map, so I don't know what went wrong.

I've always appreciated that Fitbit Cardio Load gives you credit for all activities, not just the ones you log. I prefer to log every workout myself rather than rely on guesswork, but at least Google's AI guesswork is pretty reliable (aside from GPS).

Step count and running form

Google enhanced its step count algorithm for walking with a stroller or trekking poles in March, then reverted it in April because some users had inaccurate results. After that whiplash, we're back where we started, and I've typically found that Fitbit step counts tend to fall slightly short of my actual numbers.

Someone would have to bribe me to count my steps during a half-marathon, but I found it interesting that my final step count on my Garmin (23,041) was significantly higher than on my Pixel Watch (21,852). For my 19-mile run, the gap was smaller (34,260 vs. 33,960), with Garmin still estimating more.

Both Garmin and Google analyze your running dynamics (or form) after a run. Each watch measured the exact same stride length for my 13- and 19-mile runs, while my cadence was either the same or 1 step per minute off.

For other stats like ground contact time and vertical ratio/oscillation, they diverge slightly, with Garmin suggesting my form is more efficient. When I wore three watches, COROS's GCT and stride ratio numbers were closer to Garmin's, so signs suggest Google's running form numbers might be slightly conservative.

Where the Pixel Watch 4 matches, or falls short of, a Garmin watch for athletes

Google/Fitbit and Garmin have a long list of similar fitness, health, and safety features. Both offer training load data and show long-term trends and targets. Both have a morning report/brief showing your Body Battery/Daily Readiness, sleep score, weather, and exercise suggestions. Both let family members track your progress for safety: Garmin with LiveTrack and Google with Safety Check.

Google warns you in the morning if stats like HRV, RHR, skin temp, or SpO2 are outside your normal range; Garmin just introduced a similar feature, Health Status, on the Venu 4 and should bring it to other watches soon.

Garmin currently has the edge for training suggestions, with Garmin Coaching for running, cycling, strength training, triathlons, and multisport "fitness," plus personalized daily workouts outside of structured plans. But the upcoming Fitbit AI coach should challenge Garmin with Gemini-made customized coaching plans that adjust based on your sleep quality, soreness, or if you tell Gemini you're injured.

While Google has an edge for AI — it's not controversial to say Gemini will be much smarter than Garmin's Connect Plus AI, which only summarizes your stats using an LLM — it still falls short for other training basics.

I'm still waiting for Google to use its Maps advantage for fitness. If Google let you create workout routes in Maps — with the option to use street view to make sure it's safe for pedestrians or cyclists — and then upload them to your watch, that'd be fantastic.

Garmin's maps and turn-by-turn navigation give you topographical details, nearby landmarks, and auto-correction if you go off-path. The only problem is, they're quite laggy. If Google made its own equivalent, it would have the advantage of a proper Snapdragon processor.

Many of my gym-loving colleagues are still waiting for Pixel Watches to add rep counting, and think the Pixel Watch is inferior to other brands for indoor workouts.

Fitbit, to be fair, has training videos from professional coaches, including Peloton workouts. And the new Gemini coach will suggest specific exercises in categories like HIIT and bodyweight exercises. That's all well and good for Premium subscribers.

But the watch itself will only judge your strength workouts on basics like heart rate and calories burned, whereas Garmin tracks individual reps for each exercise type, such as bench presses. My colleagues would love to see Google add gym exercise categories, both for manual logging and automatic detection using the Watch 4's gyroscope.

Google has a strong foundation of running metrics, but the Pixel Watch 4 still doesn't have running power, race time predictions, aerobic/anaerobic training effect breakdowns, post-run recovery time suggestions, or dedicated activity modes for track or trail running.

During an actual run, the Pixel Watch 4 doesn't take advantage of its gorgeous 3,000-nit display because the data shown on screen is extremely limited: Miles, duration, HR, pace, and time in the current HR zone. There's no way to show any other information mid-workout, while Garmin has hundreds of custom data fields.

The Pixel Watch 4 can broadcast cycling stats on your phone mounted on your handlebars, but it can't sync with power meters for FTP or show the upcoming climbs on your route. Nor will you find any triathlon modes or open-water swimming.

There's also the fact that the Pixel Watch 4 only lasts about two days per charge and doesn't have sapphire glass.

To the first point, its GPS tracking is efficient enough to handle any multi-hour race, then recharges fully in an hour or less; it's just not built for all-day hikes or rides like Garmin. To the second point, you may decide to buy a bumper case/ screen protector as a precaution.

Overall, the Pixel Watch 4 is still missing some fundamentals that serious athletes need, and there's no guarantee that the Pixel Watch 5 will prioritize niche use cases that don't appeal to a wider audience. But Google is continuing to improve its fitness experience, and that's something worth acknowledging.

Meta's Ray-Ban and Oakley glasses are on version 18 of the operating system; Meta regularly updates them with new features, making it challenging to keep track of every tool they offer. This Ray-Ban Meta glasses guide will run through the key features, settings, tips, and tricks you should know!

While we'll focus mainly on the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2 and Oakley Meta HSTN glasses, we'll also touch on the new Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses with their exclusive tricks. Plus, we'll talk about the features that'll launch alongside or after the Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses in late October, such as Garmin integration and saved shortcuts to skip "Hey Meta" commands.

Let's dive into every key Meta smart glasses feature and how to use them, from Live Translation and Live AI to activating connected apps!

Meta AI features and settings

Meta has a convenient FAQ page listing some sample Meta AI commands, including calling or messaging a contact, asking how much battery is left, or going to the "Next" song in your playlist — all fairly standard commands for any AI assistant.

What's unique to these smart glasses is asking Meta AI to "tell me about X," such as a plant or landmark, to summarize an article in front of you, translate a sign to your language, or remember this hotel room number.

When it comes to Meta AI reminders, you can tell Meta to remember where you parked or that you have an appointment on Thursday; any dated or timed reminders will send a push notification to your phone. Alternatively, you can simply ask Meta AI, "What are my upcoming reminders?" If you enable location tracking, you'll be able to see exactly where you created a reminder, which may help you locate what you're looking for.

You can also set timers using Meta AI, which will appear in the Meta AI app. You can ask the AI for your time remaining and edit it if necessary.

In the Devices tab of the Meta AI app, tap the cog icon next to your glasses, then the Meta AI settings. Under Language and voice, you'll find low, medium, or high-pitched voice options, as well as AI voices for Awkwafina, John Cena, Keegan-Michael Key, and Kristen Bell. You may find these cool or uncanny; I find it more useful to switch the Speaking rate to 1.25X so that I'm not waiting as long to get a response to my questions.

By default, your glasses are always listening for a "Hey Meta" command. If you want to conserve battery life, you can go into your device settings > Meta AI > "Hey Meta" preferences to turn this feature off. You can then summon Meta AI by tapping and holding the touchpad instead.

If you leave "Hey Meta" on, double-check that Respond without "Hey Meta" is toggled as well. You'll still have to say the wake word once, but after Meta AI answers, it'll listen for a reply for about five seconds. So if you asked about the Lincoln Memorial in front of you, you could follow up with "When did he die?" and have Meta understand who "he" is from context.

Live AI

Say "Hey Meta, start Live AI," and the assistant will activate your mic and camera continuously until you end the session; you can then ask as many questions as you'd like without the "Hey Meta" wake word. It drains your battery quickly — the new Oakley HSTNs and Ray-Ban Gen 2s might last an hour in this mode — but it's very convenient for in-depth conversations.

Meta recommends using it for tasks such as meal preparation, fashion advice, or contextual information about a landmark or museum exhibit, particularly when discussing a single topic in depth or seeking context for multiple visual subjects.

You can say "Pause Live AI" or tap the touchpad to temporarily disable the mic and cameras, such as when someone sees the notification light and asks you to stop. Then say, "Hey Meta, resume Live AI" or tap the touchpad again to restart. Remember to say "Stop Live AI" at the end to preserve your battery life.

Be My Eyes

One of the coolest spin-offs of the Live AI feature is Be My Eyes. Blind or low-vision owners of Ray-Ban Meta glasses can contact a volunteer and share their camera and mic feed with that person; they'll be able to essentially see for that person and guide them through that environment.

Even if you can't or don't want to rely on someone else's help, you can always simply ask Meta AI, "What am I looking at?" and get help; that's why Live AI can be helpful, to get continuous support if you're going to be repeating the question.

Meta doesn't want people using these glasses as a dedicated mobility aid, due to the potential for inaccurate information. However, if you activate the Detailed responses feature, Meta AI responses will include more information on the "placement of doorways, people, and objects, as well as quantity of objects," providing low-vision users with the context they need.

Live Translation

Meta glasses can live-translate between English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, or Spanish, but you have to do some setup first. In the Devices tab, tap the Translate button under your glasses. Then select which language you expect the other person to be speaking, as well as what "You speak." Meta will then download the necessary language pack(s).

Once that's set up, face the person you'll be speaking with and place the phone between the two of you. Then say, "Hey Meta, start live translation." Meta recommends that you speak clearly and at a "modest" pace so that the AI has no trouble translating your words. Whatever you say will be transcribed on your phone, while what the other person says will be spoken aloud over your glasses' speakers.

Connected apps

Once you grant permissions, your Ray-Ban or Oakley Meta glasses can sync with:

• Phone apps (iOS and Android)
• Messaging apps (Apple Messages, Google Messages, Messenger, WhatsApp)
• Social apps (Facebook, Instagram)
• Music/podcast apps (Amazon Music, Apple Music, Audible, Calm, iHeart, Shazam, Spotify)
• Calendar apps (Google Calendar, Outlook)

When using music apps or answering calls, it's a good idea to memorize the touchpad shortcuts. A single tap will pause or restart a song; a double-tap will skip to the next song or answer a phone call; a triple-tap will return to the previous song; a tap-and-hold will reject a call or trigger your music app to start playing if you assign that shortcut to it instead of Meta AI. Swiping up or down will increase or decrease the volume.

When it comes to calls and messaging, it's as simple as sharing your contacts with Meta so you can say, "Hey Meta, call Bob" or "send a message to Bob." If you connect multiple apps, you may need to add "on WhatsApp" or "on Messenger" at the end of the command.

Meta unsurprisingly saves its best tools for its own apps, where it can use direct integration instead of basic commands. For example, you can record a voice message (up to one minute), but only through WhatsApp or Messenger. Likewise, you can share your glasses camera feed during a video call, but only by tapping a glasses icon in Messenger, WhatsApp, or Instagram.

When you take photos with your glasses, you can say, "Hey Meta, share my last photo to Facebook/Instagram," or you can specify to share it "to my Instagram/Facebook Story."

Meta will continue to add new app connections over time, as well as better commands for specific apps; you can bookmark the Meta AI glasses release notes to see the most recent updates.

Upcoming Vanguard features

Meta has confirmed that the Oakley Meta Vanguard will launch on October 21, featuring a few fitness-focused AI and camera features, and that these features will eventually be available on other Ray-Ban and Oakley glasses.

First, Meta has teamed up with Garmin and Strava to sync your live workout activities with your glasses. You'll be able to ask, "What's my current pace?" and have the glasses deliver that information from your Garmin watch or Strava app. You'll be able to check info without breaking stride to swipe through watch menus or pull your phone out of your pocket.

Second, Meta's autocapture feature will "automatically capture video clips when you hit key distance milestones or ramp up your heart rate, speed, or elevation," creating memories from a race without having to take them manually.

Third, Meta will add new video modes beyond the current 1080p or 3K recording settings. Specifically, you'll be able to create Slow Motion videos for dramatic extreme sports moments or Hyperlapse videos for extended tours of your activity route. The Vanguard glasses will have a second Action button that you can use to set up your video shortcut of choice.

Meta also told us that it'll create new single-word shortcuts sometime before the end of 2025. For example, instead of "Hey Meta, capture a photo," you'll simply say "Photo," and the always-listening assistant will do the rest. Meta will be the one to choose which shortcuts work, but it'll still be appreciated to trigger actions more quickly.

Meta Ray-Ban Display features

The Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses build on the smart glasses template, adding a built-in display. Most of the features on them are comparable, but with upgrades enabled by the HUD, such as the ability to see Meta AI responses in addition to hearing them, including images or (if relevant) step-by-step instructions in your vision, which you can then swipe through with Meta Neural Band gesture controls.

Taking photos with normal Ray-Ban/Oakley glasses is challenging because you don't know how close you need to be. The Display glasses solve this with a viewfinder previewing your shot, with the ability to zoom in or out by twisting your fingers. Plus, if you're into generative AI silliness, you can look at your finished shot and restyle it based on a text prompt before you upload it to social media.

If you use Meta AI to look for something nearby, the Display glasses support pedestrian navigation to guide you to your destination, though only in "select cities" to start.

Meta smart glasses can show your perspective in a video call, but only the Display glasses can have it both ways, showing the person you're calling in your vision. You also get a full view of other apps, such as your Instagram feed, for scrolling through videos without it being visible to anyone else in the room.

Likewise, you can skip through a music playlist on smart glasses, but only the Display glasses will show the details and album artwork, so there's no suspense of what's coming next.

One of the best Meta Ray-Ban Display features is Live Captions, which transcribes in real time what the person in front of you is saying. The glasses' multi-array mics pinpoint who you're looking at so that any other conversations around you don't mess up the captions; if you turn to look at someone else, the text will switch to whatever they're saying.

The glasses will also enhance Live Translations so that you see people's translated responses in text form, as well as audibly.

Most Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses features are controlled by simple gestures or voice commands. One feature, currently in beta but coming to them soon, is the ability to write words on a desk or thigh and have them transcribed for a message or command; this will allow you to use the glasses silently and subtly during a meeting.

Testing the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2 glasses for the past week, after two years of wearing the original Ray-Ban Metas on and off, has made it immediately clear that Meta significantly improved these glasses in key ways — but left the core experience (and some of my old complaints) unchanged.

Meta handed out the Gen 2s like candy at Connect 2025, making me the unexpected owner of the Shiny Cosmic Blue Wayfarer Gen 2 frames with Transitions lenses.

Switching from my old Matte Black Gen 1 sunglasses allows me to use them around the house or for evening runs, which I love.

But these extra sessions, enhanced by better battery life, also give me more opportunities to notice these smart glasses' pain points.

My full review will come in a few weeks after more testing. But for anyone deciding now whether to upgrade or keep using their current pair, my early impressions can help you decide.

Battery life is the Gen 2 star

When I first started using my 2023 Ray-Bans, they typically lasted about three hours with music streaming, frequent photos, and the occasional phone call or command. By early 2025, when I ran a half-marathon wearing them, they barely lasted two hours. Having a strong Gen 2 baseline will be important to Gen 1 owners, who know the capacity will fade with time, as well as first-time buyers.

So far, the Gen 2s use up about 20% capacity per hour, including one 3K video, frequent Meta AI commands, and high-volume music streaming to combat outdoor ambience. A two-hour run left me at 60% capacity, while a one-hour run the next day left me at 79%.

Using them indoors at a lower volume, with Meta AI commands turned off to conserve power, the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2s were at 69% after two hours — very efficient! Then, a two-minute phone call and filming my cat in 3K for another minute cut another 8% power, so take that into account.

I don't believe you could consistently use these for all-day audio streaming, unless you're willing to take them off once or twice for a quick top-off in the charging case. But it's much better than before, and the 50% recharge in 20 minutes helps.

Overall, the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2 battery boost makes me much more likely to wear them for an outing or work event, knowing they won't become a pointless face-weight after a couple of hours.

These glasses don't feel THAT different, but they'll keep changing

Around the Oakley Meta Vanguard launch in late October, Meta will push several new updates to the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2s: slow motion and hyperlapse videos, Garmin/ Strava integration for real-time workout stats, "conversation focus" mode to enhance the voice of whomever you're speaking with, and new voice command shortcuts like "Photo" without the Meta AI wake word.

Meta has also promised that the Ray-Ban Gen 2s will be able to shoot in 1200p resolution at 60 FPS, but the option isn't available yet. Meta has even opened up its "Wearable Device Access Toolkit" so that devs can integrate Meta AI glasses directly with their third-party apps — but we probably won't see the results until 2026 or later.

Aside from battery life, the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2s don't feel that different today. But all of the above features make me optimistic that they'll feel more "next-gen" soon.

On that note, even though the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2 glasses offer "over 2x more pixels" than the last generation for video recording, the difference doesn't feel that stark. You can notice more details and less compression in side-by-side videos if you look closely, at least.

But Nick, who tested the identical cameras on the Oakley Meta HSTNs, agrees with me that the image stabilization is fantastic at 1080p, creating a super-smooth, gliding video while running fast that almost recreates the effect of a dolly shot in movies. So I find myself preferring that mode; maybe the 1200p 60FPS mode will feel like a nice, smoother compromise between the two, once that arrives.

Honestly, I just wish we'd seen a photo quality boost, as well. The unchanged 3024 X 4032 resolution is still great in ideal conditions, but I'd still like to see better low-light quality, color balancing that's not quite so oversaturated, or some kind of optical zoom (if that's feasible in glasses form) when the Gen 3s arrive in a couple of years.

The cons and nitpicks that you'll have to live with

With my last Ray-Bans, I wore a "Large" pair that put less pressure on my face but wasn't well-fitted, so it slid down my face while walking (or running, especially). With this pair, I got the Standard size, and now they stay firmly in place for a ten-mile run, no matter how sweaty I get.

That's great, but now that I'm wearing them on consecutive days instead of sporadic weekends, the better fit also puts more pressure on my nose bridge and ears. Even though the Gen 2s only weigh about 2g more — a fair trade-off for the battery boost — not everyone will enjoy that extra weight for long-term wear.

The design blends in much better than the Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses, and I like their style more than the Oakley HSTNs, but not everyone will agree with me. For example, my fiancée isn't a fan, whether on her face or mine.

Meta AI can be undeniably helpful for on-the-go questions, live translations, or Live AI. But I'd like it to be better at answering questions about the glasses themselves, such as telling me what video resolution is active or what the touchpad shortcuts are, rather than telling me where to look for myself. And I hear the response "I can't help with that, but I'm learning more every day!" if I ask it to do anything too complicated, such as "Take a 15-second video."

The integrations with current music and messaging apps are pretty good, if a bit slow to work; I could call certain contacts or pull up a specific music playlist or song if I remembered the name. But Meta is working at a disadvantage compared to future Samsung or Apple glasses that'll have closer system integration with your phone.

The Gen 2s deliver rich audio, but not noticeably improved from last generation, and you typically need to turn it up to higher volumes. The real issue, though, is the audio bleed: My fiancée confirmed she can hear a song's melody at about 50% volume and can clearly make out the lyrics at higher volumes. These glasses aren't best suited for open-space offices.

I've been spoiled by my open-ear Shokz OpenFit 2 earbuds, which look much dorkier but have more targeted sound that goes directly into your ears for less bleed, along with several modes like bass boost, voice, or Dolby Audio to customize the sound to your tastes. I'd love for Meta to offer something similar.

Ultimately, the millions of people who bought the first Ray-Ban Meta will like the Gen 2s just as much, while anyone turned off by the noticeably thick frames and obvious camera cutouts won't find anything that different to tempt them.

I gravitate toward the sporty Vanguard design with its IP67 water resistance and nose pads, but my Transitions Ray-Bans are better suited for any environment or time of day, and they're more affordable, too. The Gen 2s are where most smart glasses newbies or vets should start.

The very first Amazfit product I've ever used was the original 2016 Amazfit Fitness Tracker. This simple gadget tracked steps and sleep, and even had a vibration motor inside to alert you to phone notifications. Since then, Amazfit has morphed into a fitness powerhouse, offering dozens of different smartwatches at every price level and functionality you could dream of.

The Amazfit Balance 2 is my favorite smartwatch from the company in a long time, and its impressive capabilities are only matched by its sleek appearance. Of course, my trusty Garmin Instinct 2X Solar is still cranking right along, good as the day it came out, and is, quite frankly, hard to beat for most fitness-related tasks.

I wore both of these watches on my latest Spartan Race and had a difficult time finding any reasonable differences in the data they provided at the end of the race. Which leads me to wonder: why would I pay more for a Garmin than an Amazfit watch? I found a few reasons, and they might help you decide.

Price

Price is the area where Amazfit wins most handily. Garmin is known for producing high-quality watches that aren't inexpensive, which has given the brand a premium image over the years. Amazfit started from the other end of things, offering dirt-cheap products and upping their game over time (but still undercutting rivals on price).

Take the Amazfit Band 7 vs the Garmin Vivosmart 5, for instance. Both of these are the latest fitness bands with displays from each respective company; yet, Garmin's is still three times the price of Amazfit's. Plus, because of software updates and a fresh Zepp app, some of the shortcomings we found in our original Amazfit Band 7 review have been rectified.

This same argument can be made for many of Amazfit's products. In many cases, competing Amazfit products offer 90-95% of the features of Garmin's at something like half the price, and that's a ratio I'm willing to work with.

Fitness tracking

For years, Amazfit watches felt like an obvious second-rate choice for fitness tracking. While they have offered more options for workout types — 180 on the Amazfit T-Rex 3 Pro I just got versus around 90 on the Garmin Instinct 2X I have — I wasn't convinced of the accuracy of the heart rate monitoring until this year's products.

Both the Amazfit Balance 2 and T-Rex 3 Pro have superb heart rate accuracy, matching all the best fitness smartwatches I've tested to date. I've taken these watches out for paddleboarding sessions, run a Spartan Race with them, and spent plenty of time in my CrossFit-style gym trying out everything from cardio days to strength training.

The only area I found where Garmin more consistently has the edge over Amazfit is during strength training and weight-lifting exercises. While several Amazfit workout types will give you a breakdown of what muscles you used and keep track of your reps, Garmin more consistently shows the correct workout type automatically.

For instance, my most common workout type is HIIT since it most closely aligns with my gym's typical activity types. If I look at the data from my Garmin Instinct 2X Solar, it's got muscle heatmaps of what it thinks I used, which is helpful for going back and remembering why my shoulders are suddenly sore two days later.

Amazfit only offers this kind of muscular heatmap for strength training or weightlifting exercise types. I've also found that Amazfit's watches have a harder time differentiating nuanced workouts than Garmin. If I select strength training and do a bunch of front squats with a barbell, Garmin almost always marks it as "barbell squat," while Amazfit's watches might figure that out 30% of the time.

Companion apps and syncing

Here's where things get a little mixed. As an app, Amazfit Zepp is superior. It's got a better, less convoluted UI when compared to the Garmin Connect app, and it offers a ton of additional features that Garmin just doesn't have. LLM-powered food logging is probably the greatest single feature I've used in any holistic workout app, and it's something only Zepp has.

But as good as the Zepp app's features and UI are, it's held back by a number of bugs that are just plain frustrating. Reddit users have complained about this many times, and it often takes Amazfit a long time to address these problems. Coding and workout algorithms are hard, no doubt, but it seems like Amazfit's team isn't able to crank out fixes as fast as some other companies.

I don't often run into problems with the app, but my original intent for this week's column was to compare data from the Spartan Race I just ran. The problem is, the Amazfit watch had my entire workout on it, but the Zepp app simply wouldn't sync the entire thing.

This left me with missing workout data when I exported the workout to quantified-self.io, the service we typically use to directly compare smartwatch fitness data. Unfortunately for my original idea, the entire stack of GPS data was missing, and the Zepp app confirmed that.

Holding Amazfit back

The problem is that there's no way to manually sync fitness data from Amazfit watches or even export from the watch itself. The Zepp app normally automatically syncs all data from your watch at the end of a workout. When this fails, there seems to be no real way to resync.

Amazfit's support will tell you to force stop the app, reinstall it, clear the cache, etc. But none of these options forces a total resync, even though I can still view all the data on my watch.

It's these little annoyances (that are sometimes big problems) that Amazfit needs to fix and, ultimately, what holds it back from beating Garmin once and for all.

The Suunto Race 2 is exactly as advertised: a quality mid-range running watch. It mitigates some key complaints I had with the first Suunto Race, with absurdly good battery life and a training feature that I wish my Garmin Forerunners had.

When I reviewed the Suunto Race last year, I said it was "near the finish line" as a solid mid-range running watch, but the HR results were mediocre, and the GPS data had odd issues with zig-zagging data that added extra distance to every mile.

I've taken the Suunto Race 2 out enough to know that its battery life isn't a facade, the accuracy has improved significantly, and the ZoneSense tool fixes a complaint I've had with Garmin's training load data for some time. If you're looking for a Garmin watch alternative, consider starting here.

Targeting different kinds of runners

The Suunto Race 2 starts at $50 less than the $549 Garmin Forerunner 570 but offers five extra days of battery life or 40 hours of extra dual-band GPS tracking, doubled water resistance, offline maps, sapphire glass, and the same 2,000 nits of brightness.

Garmin's cost cuts and price-locked features make Suunto's watch look more impressive. Even if you get the $599 titanium version I'm testing, it still doesn't feel overpriced.

The Race 2 isn't nearly as well-rounded as the Forerunner 570, to be fair. You don't get a mic, speaker, flashlight, ECGs, music storage, or contactless payments, and Garmin offers native workout plans while Suunto relies on TrainingPeaks.

Garmin will always beat its fitness watch rivals for software smarts, but charges a premium for better hardware, and not every athlete is willing to pay Fenix 8 prices for great battery life.

Maybe you need a watch like the Forerunner 970, with extra benefits like workout suggestions and better battery life. But the Suunto Race 2 works better for runners who already have training guidance and want the best running essentials, not extras.

How the Suunto Race 2 has improved

Unfortunately, medical issues have kept me from running with the Race 2 as much as I'd like. However, I've completed enough workouts to be confident that things have improved for both HR and GPS accuracy.

Across five runs, hikes, and walks, the Race 2 has either matched or fallen 1 bpm short of my COROS HRM armband or Garmin HRM-200 chest strap. The longer the activity, the more likely it'll average slightly lower, but it's not as bad as on the first Race, which was often low by 2–4 bpm and struggled more with anaerobic workouts.

The Race 2 lags behind my HR strap, like most optical sensors, but eventually catches up to match my real results.

While I couldn't do a proper track workout, I pushed myself into anaerobic range, and the Race 2 easily kept pace. Overall, the Race 2 is more than reliable enough to deliver accurate training load data.

As for the Race 2's dual-band GPS accuracy, the Race 2 (blue line) mostly stuck to the trail across 13 miles. I compared it against the Venu X1 (orange), which only has all-systems GNSS, and the Race 2 ended up tracking 100m extra after 13.1 miles — not a major difference, and both results looked reliable.

The Race 2 still had moments where I zig-zagged a few feet in either direction, mostly due to tree cover. Rest assured, the problem was significantly worse on the first Race, both for frequency and side-to-side movement.

The third screenshot shows how the Race 2 sometimes lost me, then had me cutting across obstacles once it reacquired me. Other times, my line stays straight but parallel to my actual location, off the trail or in the street, although I've seen this happen with other dual-band GPS watches.

The main point is that the Race 2 lasts about 50 hours with this level of competent accuracy, longer than most Garmin watches last in GPS-only mode. I can finish these two-hour runs and only lose about 4–5% battery, while the Forerunner 970 would lose 10%. That's darn impressive, considering how much energy the vivid Race 2 display must use.

A nuanced training load tool I want

Garmin and Suunto categorize your runs based on how long you spend in specific HR zones, such as low aerobic, high aerobic, and anaerobic. It helps runners balance their training, but I find it frustrating how they lump each run's training load into one category.

For example, if I spend five miles in low aerobic, then two miles at an anaerobic sprint, the overall HR average will categorize it as high aerobic, which isn't accurate.

I want granular data on how long I've spent in different zones and what that means for my fitness. So I went into the SuuntoPlus app store and downloaded ZoneSense to do just that. Unfortunately, I didn't realize this tool needed a chest strap for HRV insights that the Race 2's optical sensor can't deliver.

I'll test ZoneSense properly for the review once my health is in the clear, but the concept is what I'm looking for, so I know when I typically switch to anaerobic at race pace. Or I can intentionally up my intensity after X minutes of low-aerobic endurance building.

I do wish ZoneSense didn't need a chest strap, but I find it very cool that Suunto has a SuuntoPlus app store full of unique integrations and alternative training tools like this. It makes the Race 2 feel less insular than other fitness watches.

Garmin watch prices have gotten more expensive than ever, but it doesn't seem to matter to the people buying them.

I have no idea how many people will buy the $2,000 Garmin Fenix 8 Pro MicroLED; it's a novelty, first-gen device with noticeable tradeoffs. But Garmin keeps reporting record-setting profits on watches while bumping up prices across its entire lineup. Who's to say the Fenix 8 Pro won't find a credulous audience? It's still cheaper than a Rolex!

In 2025, Garmin fans have grumbled about higher watch costs, the new Garmin Connect Plus subscription, the massive bootloop crash, and especially when Garmin cut off new features for the year-old Fenix 7 Pro to push the Fenix 8. "I'll never buy a Garmin watch again" has been a pretty common refrain on forums, and rivals like COROS and Polar would happily take their business.

This hasn't stopped Garmin from climbing into the 5th-best-selling wearable brand in 2025, with a nearly 30% year-over-year growth, closing in on Samsung in 4th. Either the "never again" people weren't honest with themselves, or new customers happily took their place.

Garmin's recent earnings paint a clear picture. In Q3 and Q4 2024, the $1,200 Fenix 8 and $900 Enduro 3 helped the "Outdoor" watch sales climb by about $230 million YoY. Last quarter, the $550 Forerunner 570 and $750 Forerunner 970 helped its "Fitness" sales grow by $177 million YoY.

Garmin has told investors that it would raise watch prices to combat tariffs, probably anticipating that this would offset lower sales. Instead, it seems like people are primed to accept higher prices and are skipping the mid-tier models to get the best specs and price-locked features.

Having become attached to my $800 Garmin Venu X1, I certainly won't judge! But I'm curious if people's love of expensive Garmins is coming from a genuine need for the best features or from Garmin cleverly wielding our fear of missing out into overspending.

Garmin's price-locking is paying off

Most smartwatch brands stick to a consistent price, only bumping it up for inflation every few years. Upgraded sensors, better hardware, and new health features are the norm. The onus is on them to convince you to keep paying the same price every year or two.

Garmin takes a very different approach. It usually takes 2–3 years to sell a new watch in each lineup, and it charges more for every new feature. So when the Forerunner 570 added a mic, speaker, and better health sensors, Garmin logic meant that it couldn't cost the same as the Forerunner 265 anymore.

Garmin's price tier strategy means certain tools, such as dual-band GPS or a mic & speaker, will never come to cheaper watches. The Instinct 3 was designed for hikers but didn't get topographic maps, making rival watches like the COROS NOMAD look much better by comparison.

The same applies to Garmin's running tolerance tool, which is best suited to helping beginner runners know their limits but is only available on the $750 model.

The problem is, this strategy works! People want the price-locked features, so they pay extra for them. There's no pressure on Garmin to share its best tools with cheaper models when people give in and pay extra for them.

Garmin watches are "too expensive" compared to other brands that make these features available on cheaper models. But Garmin's reputation for quality and longevity turns this negative into a positive: people decide these watches must be great to cost this much, so they spend extra for exclusive features other watches offer for less.

And for what it's worth, these are great fitness watches; they're just overkill for a lot of the people buying them.

How much SHOULD you spend on a Garmin watch?

I'm not trying to single out Garmin for having high prices. Apple opened the floodgates with its Watch Ultra, and other brands are happily selling their own overkill smartwatches.

But it's also true that two years ago, you'd get a top-tier Fenix 7 Pro or Forerunner 965 for $600–800, and now the price for Garmin's best features starts at $750 and climbs up to $1,300 for a Fenix 8 Pro AMOLED. Some people just shouldn't spend that much.

I always recommend people start with cheaper Garmins like the Vivoactive 6, Forerunner 165, and Lily 2 Active; they'll give you the core Garmin experience and plenty of battery life for $300 or less.

But you can spend a little more than that without overspending. I'd say $500 is the cutoff: Most of our best Garmin watch picks cost less than that, and you likely don't need to spend more than that, except for these specific scenarios:

• You're someone who goes on all-day hikes and can't make do with a smartphone map app, or backpack for days with limited access to power sources.
• You regularly go skiing, diving, surfing, or other more specific sports that lower-end models don't track as well.
• You want to leave your phone at home for workouts and use the Fenix 8 Pro's LTE calling and satellite messaging — at least until we get more affordable Garmin LTE watches.

Outside of these use cases, you can find everything you need under $500 with a Venu 3 (mic and speaker, 5th-gen sensors with ECG, a sleeker design); Instinct 3 (military-grade ruggedness, flashlight, longer battery life with a solar option); or Forerunner 265 (dual-band GPS, training load, run coach plans, daily workout recs).

Garmin makes these watches feel like compromise picks to upsell you, but everything else a premium watch would offer — titanium cases, voice commands, spare hours of GPS tracking — is probably something you can live without.

Of course, I love my extra-fancy, overkill Garmin watches and would be a hypocrite to say you shouldn't overspend on expensive maps, rich-people sports, and excess battery life. Grab yourself a premium Fenix 8 Pro or Forerunner 970 and enjoy.

I've been testing the Garmin Venu X1 for months, but my initial impression never changed: it's an incredibly comfortable, painfully expensive fitness watch that prioritizes display space over battery life and traditional style. I love it, even while acknowledging its conspicuous flaws.

Resembling an Apple Watch Ultra on GLP-1, the Venu X1 outshines most smartwatches for battery, weight, and training guidance but falls well short for smarts like messaging or commands.

The Venu X1's 8-day capacity will underwhelm those who typically spend smartphone-level money on a fitness watch. However, if you disregard longevity, it still matches the Garmin Fenix 8 and Forerunner 970, offering 95% of the same features.

The question then becomes, does the Venu X1's gorgeously bright 2-inch display make it a better purchase than a Fenix or Forerunner?

Garmin Venu X1: Price and specs

The Garmin Venu X1 launched on June 18, 2025, and costs $799 / €799 / £679 / CAD $1,159. It's much more expensive than the Venu 3 ($449), in the same price tier as the Forerunner 970 ($750), and cheaper than the Fenix 8 ($1,000+).

It ships in two colors: Black with Slate Titanium Caseback and Black ComfortFit Nylon Band, or Moss with Titanium Caseback and Moss band.

The Venu X1 ships with a nylon strap; if you prefer silicone, Garmin sells compatible Black and Moss silicone bands for $39, or you can search for third-party, 24mm Quick Release straps.

Garmin Venu X1: What you'll love

Most Garmin watches I've reviewed fall into the 50–60g (2oz) range, while premium models like the Fenix 8 weigh anywhere from 70–100g. Lighter watches like the 1.2-inch Vivoactive 6 (36g) sacrifice display space for slightness.

That's what makes the 40g, 2-inch Venu X1 so unique: it prioritizes comfort while still offering unrestricted visual space. I've grown so spoiled by the Venu X1's thin, light design that I get annoyed every time I have to review a heavier watch.

I hate wearing bulky Garmin watches for sleep tracking; the Venu X1 is the exception. It's 7.9mm thick, about 4–5mm skinnier than your typical Venu or Forerunner. There's less surface area to get caught between wrist and pillow, so you avoid any uncomfortable pressure or your watch sensors getting pushed off your wrist.

During workouts, the Venu X1 sits so comfortably flat that it doesn't encumber or distract me when bending my wrist fully. This mindless flexibility helps me when doing push-ups or pull-ups, or using trekking poles on hikes.

In particular, golfing with the Venu X1 is a blast. The large, 2,000-nit display makes it easy to check my mileage to the pin with a glance, sparing my playing partners from watching me fumble with a rangefinder. It has no crown or buttons to jut into my wrist, nor enough weight to affect my swing.

Having that extra square space on your wrist feels odd initially as a circular watch wearer. Once that becomes normalized, though, you'll forget it's there during your workday. And while pumping your arms mid-workout, it's so skinny and flat against your wrist that it doesn't wobble and disrupt your HR data — especially because the nylon strap keeps it snugly secure.

I'm surprised that Garmin managed to squeeze its LED flashlight into such a skinny design. Its max setting isn't brighter than my phone flashlight, but the dim red LED is great for navigating a dark house or tent without waking someone, and the default or strobe settings help others see you at night to avoid collisions. It's a great backup option if you forget your headlamp.

The Garmin Venu X1 has virtually every Garmin feature you'd ever want, now that the August 2025 update has added all of the Forerunner 970's exclusive running tools and evening report.

Garmin restricted past Venus from getting the more specialized training tools like training status or training load. The Venu X1 outshines the Venu 3 software with perks like personalized daily run and cycling workouts; I depend on premium tools like lactate threshold HR and ClimbPro, while others like Endurance Score offer useful long-term benchmarks.

Most recently, the Venu X1 stole the Forerunner 970's running tolerance tool that quantifies how hilly or fast runs have a higher "impact load" on your body. Basically, it can distinguish between cardiovascular tiredness and biomechanical (muscular) strain, helping you avoid injury from overtraining.

This is only scratching the surface; the Venu X1 has other helpful tools beyond running, like exercise animations for the gym, cycling dynamics, or pool swim workouts.

The most important Venu X1 upgrade, however, is its offline maps. While following a course, you can get topographical details and see nearby trails, making it easier to figure out if you're taking the wrong path at a confusing junction.

A few other expensive Garmins allow map downloads, but their circular displays cut off edges that the Venu X1 can use to show more detail at a closer zoom, or place useful button shortcuts without blocking too much info. Text and menu details are larger, while leaving more room for your route to remain visible while searching through options.

Overall, the Venu X1's 2-inch display is the clear selling point: it's twice as bright as the Fenix 8, has sapphire glass protection, and still hits an industry-standard 328ppi so that your main watch face can fit a bunch of tiny complications, all fully readable. Otherwise, most widgets are blown up so that even the most short-sighted person can glance mid-workout and have no trouble reading the details.

Garmin Venu X1: HR and GPS accuracy

The Garmin Venu X1 uses the latest-generation optical HR sensor and All-Systems GNSS mode, which triangulates your location with GPS and other satellite systems simultaneously. It's more accurate than GPS-only mode, but not as perfectly precise (or battery-draining) as dual-frequency GPS.

For a 12-mile run and a hike with satellite-blocking foliage, I tested the Venu X1 against the Forerunner 970 and my Garmin HRM 200 chest strap as control groups. These were the results:

As I'd expect from a premium smartwatch, the Garmin Venu X1 stayed within range of the chest strap, delivering the same end results. The HR graph from my 12-mile run shows how (like most wrist-based sensors) it trailed behind the chest strap for rapid changes, but stays close enough to be reasonably accurate, even at near-max HRs where other watches struggle.

You can check out my Forerunner 970 fitness test for more examples of how Garmin's 5th-gen sensor performs for different types of workouts. Functionally, the Venu X1 delivers the same level of accurate results, so more tests would've been redundant.

In terms of GNSS accuracy, the Venu X1 is as accurate as other dual-band GPS watches, despite lacking the L5 frequency, in normal conditions. Multiple GNSSs help it run parallel or overlap with my Forerunner 970 line across most of the 12-mile run, only occasionally struggling more with tree foliage.

During a tougher hike, the Venu X1 coasted in uncovered areas. On tree-lined paths, the X1 line zig-zags more than the 970, more affected by signal blockage. But again, all this wavering only changed the final result by about 28 meters or 0.01 miles. Serious hikers might resent the missing dual-band GPS, but most people can accept these results.

Garmin Venu X1: What you won't love

To be blunt, you won't love the battery life. Even cheaper Garmins like the Lily 2 Active and Forerunner 165 outlast its eight-day capacity. And don't bother with always-on display mode. While the Forerunner 970 and Fenix 8 last a week with AOD, the Venu X1 dies after two days.

Garmin claims the Venu X1 lasts 14 hours with all-systems GNSS tracking. My testing was less optimistic: an hour of tracking typically burns about 10% capacity. It'll easily survive a marathon, but an all-day hike will have it running on fumes. And GPS combined with the flashlight will kill your battery in two hours, tops.

Should Garmin have made the watch slightly thicker to counterbalance the brighter display? Maybe! As it is, charging the Venu X1 every 6–8 days is still better than the daily charging you get with most smartwatches.

It's a shame the Venu X1 doesn't have dual-frequency GPS, but it would kill the battery for minimal gains, so I don't mind its absence. You may also resent the missing ECG readings; Garmin couldn't fit the metal components necessary for it to work (per DCR).

I'm more disappointed that Garmin didn't give the Venu X1 a third button for shortcuts. You can find most apps and settings quickly by swiping left from the home screen, but it'd still be nice to pull up Garmin Pay or voice assistant with a single press.

Plus, like other Venus, you're fully touch-dependent. This makes the Venu X1 less bulky and sporty-looking, but no crowns or buttons means more sweaty, unreliable swipes.

More generally, I have the same complaints about the Venu X1 as the Fenix 8 and Forerunner 970: The new voice assistant isn't smart enough to recognize every command, the maps can be too laggy, and most fitness watches cost half as much.

Garmin Venu X1: Competition

The Venu X1 reminds you of the 1.9-inch Apple Watch Ultra 2 at first glance, but it's about 6.5mm thicker and weighs an ounce more. You get a full app ecosystem, a better assistant, and cellular calling, plus training load data and Workout Buddy voice prompts. But its 36-hour battery life is significantly worse.

The Venu X1's closest competitor is the $750 Forerunner 970; it's 16g heavier, but swap in a nylon band and the gap narrows considerably. Its 1.4-inch display is smaller but equally bright, and it lasts a week (or several GNSS-tracked hours) longer. You get Up/ Down button controls, ECGs, dual-band GPS, and ski maps.

The Fenix 8 can last up to a month, depending on the model size, with a more striking titanium case and dive-proof buttons. But it's so heavy and expensive compared to the Venu X1 that I think the 970 is the better alternative.

Garmin Venu X1: Should you buy it?

You should buy the Garmin Venu X1 if...

• You're a serious athlete who'd actually use its premium training tools.
• You want the most comfortable Garmin watch ever.
• You frequently use maps/ routes that benefit from a 2-inch screen.

You shouldn't buy the Garmin Venu X1 if...

• You're not a fan of squircles.
• You need more dependable battery life.
• You can wait for a more affordable Venu 4 with no maps or training load.

Having reviewed the Forerunner 970 and Venu X1 back-to-back, I've come to the odd conclusion that the 970 is a much better watch... but that I'd sacrifice its perks and battery for the Venu X1's fit and feel.

It's better suited to sleep tracking and a wider range of sports activities than just running. I have to charge it more often, but extra battery is a luxury when most of my workout activities only last 1–2 hours.

Should you buy the Venu X1? If you're a typical Garmin fan who hates how squircles look and will buy a bulkier design to get extra battery, the Venu X1 will either be a transformational experience or a total bust. At least you know what to expect in terms of features, but the Forerunner 970 is a safer choice.

For non-Garmin fans, I'd say the $799 price tag is way too high for first-time buyers. Start out with a cheaper Venu or Vivoactive and see if you like the fitness tools before considering an upgrade with every bell and whistle.

Many running watches offer marathon training plans. Now that I'm signed up for the Garmin Tucson marathon in November, just three months out, I have to decide quickly which plan to try. Should I trust a smartwatch algorithm to give me a personalized marathon training plan, or use a running coach plan from TrainingPeaks?

It's been a few years since I last ran a marathon. When Garmin offered a media invite to run in its first Garmin Marathon series, I knew I'd have to ramp up my mileage quickly, but intelligently, so I don't overtrain and crash out.

I've reviewed pretty much every running watch under the sun, but whether I use my Garmin Forerunner 970 or another device, my success or failure will depend on the workout plan, more than the hardware.

So I decided to sit down and compare every smartwatch marathon training plan, to see which would best prepare me for the Garmin marathon series.

Every smartwatch-based marathon training plan for beginners

Very few smartwatches recommend long-term training plans. Suunto outsources its plans to TrainingPeaks. Fitbit offers daily Run Coach recs, but nothing cohesive. Apple Fitness+ focuses on indoor workouts. I only know of a few running watches with proper marathon guidance!

GARMIN: Available through Run Coach, Garmin's marathon training plans last 16 weeks. The beginner plan has zone-2 easy runs, zone-4 threshold pace runs, and fartlek runs, with one long run every weekend.

Between three weekly runs, Garmin recommends two cross-training days per week, for bodyweight exercises, yoga, swimming, or cycling.

The intermediate plan expects five workouts per week, but isn't that different. It recommends weekly intervals and has more back-to-back run days, plus longer long runs, but still mixes in rest and cross-training days.

Garmin's training load philosophy emphasizes low aerobic and anaerobic variety to improve VO2 Max, plus strength training to optimize your form. I'm normally all about this philosophy, but frankly, if I'm going to increase my workout days per week and hit my marathon target, I need to spend most of my time focused on mileage. Next marathon, I'll worry about speed and power.

COROS: COROS has 15 marathon training plans, targeting specific finish times or 12-to-20-week schedules. Many target pro runners that hit 50–100 miles per week, but COROS also caters to mere mortals like myself.

COROS' 4-hour, 12-week plan expects you to run five times per week for 25–40 miles. Most are short aerobic endurance runs, with the occasional "marathon pace" run and long, fast runs on Sundays.

This 4:00 marathon pace plan, conversely, schedules four runs per week for 15–25 miles. But nearly every run has you mixing easy pacing with 15-second strides or 400m pickups, eventually progressing to intervals and inverted pyramids. You get more rest days, but rarely take an easy run.

Either way, COROS emphasizes mileage over cross-training, letting you decide if you want to focus on speed work or how far you're willing to go per week. I'm pretty impressed with what they have to offer.

POLAR: The Polar running program has you input how many days per week you're willing to run and how long, plus how hard you typically find running. It then creates a 100-day marathon training plan.

If you're a Light runner, Polar has you do a medium run every Monday and Friday, intervals on Wednesdays, and a long run on Sunday. Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday are reserved for cross-training: Strength, mobility, and core exercises, respectively.

If you're a Strenuous runner, you swap in a tempo run on Wednesdays and intervals on Saturdays, meaning you're doing three medium-to-hard runs in a row from Friday to Sunday. You still don't get rest days, only cross-training exercise days. Either way, these rigid plans are for people who work out every day.

SAMSUNG: The Galaxy Watch 8's Running Coach has ten training levels; Level 10 aims for runners to finish a marathon in under 4:48. To qualify for level 10, you need to pass Samsung's 12-minute running test with unknown criteria.

The Running Coach beta is kind of a mess. You can't simply choose a marathon training plan; if Samsung ranks you lower, you'll have to spend weeks, if not months, leveling up. But if Samsung eventually lets runners pick their target distance and pace manually, however, the Running Coach has a great variety of run types like Fartlek, repetitions, intervals, and long runs that would benefit beginner marathoners.

AMAZFIT: Zepp Coach has you choose a target marathon pace and date, then describe your weekly mileage and average pace. With that, it generates a three-month program of easy, hard, interval, fartlek, and long runs, grouped by HR zones or pace depending on your preference.

It's not the most comprehensive or varied training plan, but it's available for super-cheap watches like the Amazfit Bip 6 or Active 2, which is great for frugal runners.

Which marathon training plan I'm going with

All of these marathon training plans are "free" after you buy your watch, so we can't complain too much if they're a bit limited. You can find thousands of TrainingPeaks marathon plans if you want to pay for something better.

Personally, after all that searching, I'm leaning toward a straightforward Hal Higdon novice training plan, which are popular with first-time marathoners. Rather than focus on complicated speedwork or strengthwork, I'll just check off four runs a week of about 20–30 miles and hope for the best.

I'm a few weeks behind his 18-week schedule, but I'm hoping I can hit the ground running, so to speak, because I've already been training. Then, once I've conquered this Garmin marathon, I can go into another marathon with a more advanced plan.

But if you have a favorite marathon training plan that helped you hit a PR, I'd love to hear your recommendations in the comments!

After a 15-year hiatus from golfing, I decided to get back into the sport last month. I'm predictably rusty and was never that good in my teens. But I've been pleasantly surprised by how useful my Garmin Venu X1 has been as a (sort of) golfing beginner.

Growing up, I would get wowed by Tiger Woods chipping in at the 16th at Augusta, or Phil Mickelson doing some magical flop shot, and then drag my dad to the local 9-hole Par 3 course to practice. I fancied myself good at the short game, but never really mastered my swing.

I eventually graduated to playing (badly) on proper-sized courses with friends during high school. But after growing six inches, my youth-sized clubs held me back; then I went off to college and the working world, never finding the time or money for new clubs. Running was much easier on my time and budget.

Now, I'm finally falling back into golfing at my local course with used clubs. I'm still at the stage where I'm just happy if I don't top or shank a ball, but I'm getting better after hundreds of swings at the driving range. And when I'm playing a round, I find that glancing at my Garmin watch has been an excellent alternative to dedicated golf tech or apps.

This Garmin watch is a straightforward rangefinder replacement

As a near-sighted person who spends most of his day staring at monitors, I'm very bad at judging distances. Hitting at the range, I can tell if I've struck a ball well or how far it's slicing; once it goes past that 100-yard sign, though, it's hard for me to guess how much further my five iron is going than my nine iron.

My Garmin watch gives me that context on the course. When I start a Golf activity, it pulls from my GPS data and its 43,000 predownloaded courses to show my location relative to my local course map. I can then see exactly how many yards I have left to go to the center of the green, whether I'm at the tee or on the fairway.

Knowing that I have 120 yards to go, picking a club based on that information, and then seeing immediate evidence if I chose correctly is vital for an amateur who lacks context or instinct for what club to use.

This tool isn't strictly necessary on a par 3 where you can see the exact yardage, but Garmin can also estimate "playslike distance," telling me how elevation change, wind, and humidity will affect ball flight.

And on par 4s and 5s, it's very helpful to be able to walk up to the ball for my second shot, glance at my wrist for one second, and immediately see a ballpark of how far I have to go. If I'm laying up, I can check around where I'm aiming for the exact yardage to the next hazard.

Ever since I heard a golf shop worker and customer ranting about slow amateurs fiddling with rangefinders or golf GPS apps when they should be focusing on their swing, I've worried about testing the patience of whomever I'm paired with. A simple smartwatch golf app solves that problem.

Once my Garmin Venu X1 detects that I've swung, it starts tracking how far I move until my next hit. After the round, I can check each hole for how far I drove the ball off the tee, my drive accuracy, greens in regulation, and other stats.

Generally speaking, I was impressed with how accurate Garmin's auto-tracked golf shots were. The only place the Venu X1 failed was in detecting my putts or certain chips. I assume subtle putt motions are hard for a watch gyroscope to measure against normal arm motions.

But it's easy to log my score at the end of each hole — saving me from having to pocket a physical scorecard — and then have the watch auto-update to the next hole's yardage and conditions, so I can start mentally planning my next shot while walking to the next hole or waiting for other players to finish.

Why I prefer my Garmin Venu X1 to other golf watch options

I last golfed before fitness watches were a "thing," so I've yet to test how other brands handle golfing. But since Garmin beats most other brands for GPS accuracy and battery life, it was a natural fit to try first.

Only a few premium Garmin watches, like the Fenix 8, Forerunner 970, and Venu X1, have pre-downloaded courses. The Approach series is more affordable and built for golfers, but its training tools are more limited for running, hiking, and other activities.

More importantly, I've become spoiled by the Venu X1's massive, 2,000-nit display and lightweight design.

On a normal fitness watch, the circular display cuts off visual space, so you have to zoom out more to see all the details or scroll through the hole if you prefer an enhanced view. With the Venu X1, I just naturally see the whole hole, with enough space for buttons in the corners and yardage that doesn't block vital visual data.

It's easier to tap specific points to check the hazards or contours, but you rarely need to because the default view shows so much.

More importantly, I barely notice the Venu X1's 40g weight on my wrist, and it's so skinny (with no crown) that there's no chance it bumps into my wrist when it bends mid-swing.

Any normal smartwatch weighs about 1.5–2X that; when I try making a swinging motion with my Galaxy Watch 8 Classic or Apple Watch Ultra 2, I immediately notice the watch bouncing away from and against my wrist from the momentum, unless I wear it so tightly that it's uncomfortable.

It's hard to recommend the Venu X1 without some reservations: it's expensive, even for a Garmin watch, and a rangefinder would be cheaper. Plus, you may not like the squircle look, and while its battery is more dependable than an Apple or Wear OS watch, a full 18-hole course of GPS tracking will burn a decent chunk of its battery life.

But since I already have a Venu X1, I can't see myself willingly wearing any other watch to the course. It helps a beginner like me make snap-judgment decisions on which club to use, without being uncomfortable or a distraction.

The new Oakley smart glasses from Meta have a lot going for them. Great Oakley HSTN style, unique colors, and even the choice of Oakley's patented PRIZM lenses. But they're specifically a great option for athletes who want to save and share first-person footage of their workouts.

The Oakley Meta's battery life improvements and extra camera resolution are great enhancements over Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses. But the real draw for athletes will be the improved image stabilization when recording videos from the glasses.

I took my Oakley Meta HSTN smart glasses out for several runs and to the gym to see how well they hold up during workouts, and was extremely impressed with the stabilization of the video capture, in particular. To see this in action, hit that 23-second mark in the video below and watch as Oakley Meta HSTN smart glasses smooth out my run in a way Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses struggle to do.

Smooth operator

Oakley Meta HSTN and Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses can't record your heart rate or give advanced workout stats — although that could happen in future smart glasses from Meta — but they can capture your run in a hands-free way that a smartphone cannot. Better yet, because they're a snug fit, they don't bump or jostle on my face like some pairs of sunglasses can, so they won't get annoying even on long runs.

While I'm not a marathon runner, I do enjoy running throughout the week to get my heart rate up and push myself to do something out of my comfort zone. Sometimes, it's fun to record these runs and make a little video out of them, if for nothing but my own historical records.

Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses made Michael's half-marathon look like a super smooth experience, and Meta has further improved the image stabilization on Oakley Meta HSTN smart glasses when capturing the action in 1080p. That's great since the default 1080p mode delivers the best battery life and the best stabilization on any camera smart glasses I've tested, a win-win if you ask me.

What particularly impressed me was how the glasses handled stabilization on all kinds of terrain and during all kinds of running activities. Bounding down a hill looked just as smooth as running on a flat sidewalk, and running up stairs two at a time was just as smooth as a light jog.

But I didn't have the same sentiment when setting the Oakleys to 3K recording resolution, though. In fact, it almost looked like the video wasn't stabilized at all at this resolution. It's clear that Meta is using the higher-resolution camera for better electronic image stabilization when the glasses are in 1080p mode.

Considering there's barely any visual quality difference between 3K and 1080p on these glasses, I'd say just stick with the default 1080p resolution and reap the benefits of incredible stabilization and longer battery life!

Working out with perks

While Sunday Runday is usually focused on running, I've also been enjoying doing other types of workouts wearing Oakley Meta HSTN smart glasses. I work out at a CrossFit-style gym, so while we do plenty of running and use cardio machines, we're also lifting barbells, squatting til our legs give out, and generally punishing ourselves for our physical betterment.

Wearing Oakley Meta HSTNs posed no issues with most exercises I tried, despite their rigor. They don't move at all on my head while running, as I said previously, but I also found they stay snug when doing pull-ups, sit-ups, push-ups, everything I tried with barbells, and everything I tried with kettlebells. I even did handstand push-ups (where my head is facing the ground), and they didn't move an inch.

The lone area where they faltered was when I tried to do burpees with them. If you've never done a burpee, here's a very short video on how to do them. Because of the forward-down-up-hop movement, the Oakleys slowly inched off my face until they fell to the floor after the 6th burpee. I tried the same thing with Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses and didn't have this problem, so the straighter temple arms on the Oakleys make them less usable for this one movement.

Above all, though, the biggest problem with using this limited edition PRIZM lens-equipped pair is that they're only sunglasses, unlike my Ray-Ban Meta Smart glasses, which have transition lenses for indoor and outdoor wear.

The limited-edition frames are available for $499, but additional styles and lenses are coming in the next few weeks for $100 less. Once they're available, they'll be excellent workout companions that'll help you visually log your workout adventures alongside your favorite fitness smartwatches.

For my next adventure, I'm taking these out for another Spartan Race to finally get some footage of all the obstacles and course hijinks I can. Wish me luck!

Running Coach on the Galaxy Watch 8 generates a months-long, personalized training plan for beginner runners to hit race milestones like 5Ks, 10Ks, or half & full marathons. As a running veteran, I'm genuinely impressed with Samsung's answer to Garmin Coach...in theory. But some fundamental issues stop me from recommending the Watch 8 series to runners.

Running Coach launches on One UI 8 Watch for the Galaxy Watch 8 and (eventually) Watch 7. You fill out a quick survey with your age, height, weight, and gender, then log the furthest distance you've run — None, 5K, 10K, half marathon, or marathon — and how fast you finished.

You must then complete a 12-minute "running test," starting at a "comfortably hard pace" before building to "full speed," and are lastly timed on how quickly your heart rate recovers during cooldown. It's Samsung's equivalent to the lactate threshold test.

Based on your survey and test results, Samsung gives you a 1–10 rank; each level has a target distance and pace that you must hit to level up. Levels 1–3 focus on finishing a 5K, 4–5 on 10Ks, 6–7 on a half marathon, and 8–10 on a full marathon.

For each level, you're given a 3-to-5-week training plan, with tailored runs each week to build up your speed and endurance. Only after you've completed most of your workout plan can you take the "level test" and graduate to the next tier.

Each workout plan is "designed to help users train safely for marathons" or shorter distances through "optimized intensity and injury-preventive routines." Samsung says an "experienced runner" should find a program that's right for them, even if Running Coach is "ideal for beginners."

While the lower levels focus on walking, jogging, and low-intensity runs to build endurance, the higher levels have a wide range of activities: Fartlek runs, repetitions, high-intensity intervals, buildup runs, long slow distance runs, and jogging, among others. That kind of complex variety is vital for increasing your VO2 Max.

I like Samsung's approach, here! Samsung knows that "serious" runners already gravitate towards fitness watches with long battery life. So it's focusing on amateurs, with a gamified system that introduces them to a wide range of workout types, without overwhelming them.

Running Coach has you complete 3–4 activities a week, but on your own schedule instead of Samsung's. This gives running newbies the leeway to recover from tough runs or give themselves an off-day without worrying about failing the program. You don't need to finish every workout before taking a level test, just enough to improve.

Samsung Running Coach doesn't know how to rank 'experienced runners'

When I took the Running Coach survey, I gave Samsung my last half-marathon pace (1hr:54m), then finished my Watch 8 running test at a 7:09/mile pace. It wasn't my best, as I had to run it on a rolling trail, and I ran too fast at the start, but I figured it would be enough to satisfy Samsung.

Instead, Samsung placed me in Level 7, the "beginner's half marathon tier," with a target of running a half in 2:24 — 30 minutes slower than I ran during a fairly mediocre (for me) race a month ago. Aside from stinging my ego, my workout training plan just isn't tailored to me.

My first recommended workout was a 5.5-mile "pace run" with a 3/5 difficulty score at 10:11 pace; I finished it at a 9:52 pace, and the Garmin Forerunner 970 on my other wrist graded it a "low-aerobic run," meaning not that hard. My next run of "high-intensity intervals" will max out at 9:07 pace for five 0.62-mile splits. Trust me, that's mid-intensity for me, at best.

I understand that this level-7 training plan isn't for me; it's intended for intermediate runners. However, Samsung needs to do a better job of ranking me or adapting to my average pace, as I can't manually level up. Instead, I would need to retake the 12-minute placement test or complete another 17 workouts at slow paces to qualify for level 8.

If Samsung let runners choose an HR zone instead of pace as the workout criteria, this would solve the issue and let runners target the intensity that's right for them.

For now, this Running Coach really is meant to, well, coach slow novice runners. It's a promising beta that could eventually help experienced runners. But so long as it focuses on building up mileage at a slow pace, those who want to get faster at their current race distance will be out of luck.

The Galaxy Watch 8 Classic has some fundamental issues for runners

Most smartwatches have guided workouts that buzz your wrist if you fall out of the target pace or HR range. Samsung's Running Coach workouts follow this system, but not very well!

The photos above show the default workout screen, with your current pace, distance, average pace, and HR. The color changes if your HR average is too high or low, but it doesn't say anywhere what the target range is, or say if your current pace is outside the zone.

Worse, my "current pace" was erratic and incorrect for most of the run. The final tracked pace was 9:58/mile (Garmin measured 9:52), but the watch display usually showed me much slower than that (around 10:20–40), even as I got notifications saying I was on or above pace. Without my Garmin to ground me with actual pace data, I wouldn't have known how fast I was moving at any given moment.

The most annoying part was how the Watch 8 told me I was "on pace" over and over. I expect a notification when I go off pace and when I'm back on; that's it. Instead, every minute or two, I'd be told whether I was on pace, and I had to check every notification in case I wasn't. It distracted me from my rhythm and rarely conveyed useful info.

I wonder whether inconsistent GPS data led to the erratic pace data. This is the second Galaxy Watch generation with dual-band GPS, but Samsung's GPS accuracy has somehow worsened from my Galaxy Watch Ultra tests last year.

I ran six miles on the same neighborhood loop, mostly keeping to the same line, then synced my Garmin Forerunner 970 (orange) and Galaxy Watch 8 Classic (blue) in the satellite maps above. Click the box to zoom in; you can see how Garmin sticks to the correct path, while Samsung occasionally juts well off my actual path into streets or trees, and frequently cuts corners.

The Watch 8 Classic heart rate data is more reliable, especially for lower-paced runs. But the first HR chart above from my high-intensity Running Coach test has a few moments where my HR drops 5–10 bpm even as I increase my intensity. Samsung and Garmin somehow ended with the same HR average by the end (172), but in the moment, you'd assume your HR was much lower than the reality.

The Galaxy Watch 8 Classic weighs 86g and tends to bounce on my wrist during runs unless I tighten the strap closely. Perhaps that caused these HR issues; I'll have to test it against an HR chest strap to be more definitive.

A decent start

I'll have more to say during my actual Watch 8 Classic review. I've been impressed with the device overall: the stylish rotating bezel delivers accurate controls, the antioxidant index accurately judges your dietary needs, and the new Tiles are fantastic.

By contrast, the Running Coach truly feels like a beta product right now, and even if Samsung improves it, runners will still have to reckon with these intrinsic problems with hardware accuracy. I have to admit that it's a bit disappointing.

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 and Watch 8 Classic arrive on July 25, and Samsung has its trademark trade-in deals with enhanced credit to tempt long-time fans into upgrading. But should you upgrade to the Galaxy Watch 8, or should you hold off for the Galaxy Watch 9?

As the person who reviewed the Galaxy Watch 6 and 6 Classic, owns the Galaxy Watch 7, reviewed the first-gen Galaxy Watch Ultra, and is currently testing the Galaxy Watch 8 Classic, I feel more than qualified to answer the question!

I'll talk about the polarizing Ultra-fication of the Watch 8 lineup, something my colleague Andrew discussed in his Galaxy Watch 8 hands-on. But whatever your tastes, upgraded specs and new Samsung Health features should matter just as much as design.

Here's the gist, if you're in a hurry: Galaxy Watch 7 owners have only one tentative reason to upgrade, but with a Galaxy Watch 6 (Classic) or older, you should be seriously tempted.

The Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 isn't as different as it looks

If you compare the Galaxy Watch 8 vs. 7, it's immediately apparent how similar they are. They share the 3nm Exynos W1000 chip, 2GB of RAM, 32GB of storage, dual-band GPS, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connectivity standards, and the latest BioActive Sensor suite with extra HR LEDs.

If you're switching from the Watch 6 to the Watch 8, however, you do get a faster, more battery-efficient processor, dual-band GPS, more accurate health sensors with more data, doubled storage, and extra display brightness. Slightly more tempting, right?

Samsung slightly switched up its display sizes with the Watch 8: It measures 1.34 and 1.47 inches instead of 1.3 and 1.5, with a 326 pixels-per-inch ratio that's right in the usual ballpark. I doubt most people will notice that the display is different from previous years, aside from the extra brightness.

The Galaxy Watch 8 is 1.1mm skinnier than the Watch 7, or 2mm thinner than the Watch 8 Classic. So even if it looks thick in photos, it's the opposite because Samsung redesigned its internals to shrink things down.

The photos above and below show what the Galaxy Watch 8 looks like in person. Active-style Galaxy Watches have cases that hug the display edge so it feels like one seamless package; now, the bezelless display looks more isolated and elevated, and the squircle aluminum case stands out more.

Personally, I've always found Galaxy Watches to be comfortable and functional, but fairly boring and far from a "normal" watch look. So I don't mind the Galaxy Watch 8 design experiment, because it switches things up after years of monotonous repetition.

Both the Watch 8 and 7 look artificial; the newer model just leans into this a bit more. Samsung superfans might dislike it, but since this squircle redesign is probably here to stay, you may want to try it out and see if you like it in person.

My colleague Andrew prefers the Watch 8 Classic look more and doesn't mind heavier watches, but he admitted that the Watch 8 is light enough to "forget" you're wearing it. With the default band attached, the Watch 8 40mm and 44mm will only weigh about 52–56g, very reasonable and comfortable for a smartwatch.

No other smartwatch looks like the Galaxy Watch 8 Classic (except the Ultra)

Galaxy Watch 6 Classic owners may feel conflicted about the Watch 8 Classic look, because the Ultra chic runs directly counter to the idea of a "classic" smartwatch design. But if you're strictly buying for the rotating bezel paired with two generations of upgrades, the Watch 8 Classic fits the bill nicely.

Where the Watch 8 display looks naked above the square-ish case, the Watch 8 Classic fills that gap with the zero-to-sixty scale border and the rotating bezel. From your top-down perspective wearing it, the Watch 8 Classic looks stylish and doesn't seem "unnatural."

To others, however, its flat sides may look bulky, calling attention to the fact that it's a smartwatch.

You may be rightly concerned that the extra steel casing makes the Watch 8 Classic overly heavy. In practice, both my Watch 8 Classic 46mm and Watch 6 Classic 47mm weigh 86g or 3oz. And the newer model is 0.3mm thinner, though you can barely tell the difference in person.

The bulk does have an impact, because Samsung gave its Watch 8 Classic a smaller 1.34-inch display; there's no 1.5-inch option this time because (presumably) it would be way too heavy. You'll have to accept that visual downgrade, though you get an extra 1,000 nits of brightness, the Quick Button, 64GB of storage, and the other Watch 8 upgrades as consolation.

It's clear that Samsung made the Classic a more affordable spin-off of the Ultra, without the benefit of an extra day of battery life. It's too heavy for casual smartwatch fans, but those willing to wear a heavier watch might want the Ultra, or a cheaper, long-lasting option like the OnePlus Watch 3.

Ultimately, long-time Classic fans will have to accept these changes for the rotating bezel, which feels just as seamless and natural to use as it did with the Watch 6 Classic.

Your Watch 8 upgrade decision will come down to Samsung Health

The Galaxy Watch 8 launches with Wear OS 6 running One UI 8 Watch, with major new health metrics: carotene levels for your Antioxidant Index, heart health with Vascular Load, personalized training plans with Running Coach, and circadian rhythm for Bedtime Guidance.

I assumed that because the Watch 8 and 7 share the same health sensor suite, the Watch 7 would track all of this data once it got the update in a few months. I shouldn't have assumed!

Samsung's blog post footnotes warn that Vascular Load and Antioxidant Index will be "only available with the Galaxy Watch Ultra or later released Galaxy Watch series," even though the Ultra (2024) and Watch 7 came out the same year with the same sensors. Oddly, the Running Coach is locked to the Watch 7 and up.

Samsung knew Ultra customers would expect to get every feature, but must have decided that tantalizing Galaxy Watch 7 customers with feature FOMO was fair game. It feels a bit cynical to lock features on a device that's just a year old to push people to upgrade.

As for older Galaxy Watch owners, these features (and the AGEs Index introduced last year) require the latest BioSensor to work, so you'd have to upgrade regardless.

So, are these tools useful enough to justify an upgrade? To me, it depends on whether these features are accurate enough to live up to Samsung's hype, and that's something I'll be testing and posting about on Android Central over the next couple of weeks. Hopefully, I can make your decision easier before the 25th.

Should you upgrade to the Galaxy Watch 8 or Watch 8 Classic?

If you have a Galaxy Watch 4 or 4 Classic, I applaud you for your patience, but since they're about to run out of software support, you really should upgrade while Samsung is giving extra trade-in value for them.

Galaxy Watch 5 models have thick-bordered, dim displays and are two generations behind on Exynos chips with less RAM. It's not totally outdated yet, but I'd take the $150 in trade-in credit from Samsung to swap.

Watch 5 Pro or Watch 6 Classic owners can get $250 in trade-in credit for a Watch 8 Classic or Watch Ultra (2025), which makes the purchase slightly less painful.

If you have a Galaxy Watch 6 or (especially) 7, you can hold out on upgrading to the Watch 8 if you're hoping this design is a one-and-done. I'm skeptical, but it'll depend on whether this generation fails to turn around Samsung's declining smartwatch sales.

I've only worn the Garmin Venu X1 for a few days. It took me a month to judge the Forerunner 970 experience in the context of past models. But the Venu X1 is such a bizarre unicorn of a smartwatch that there's no need for careful consideration or in-depth analysis. Let's talk about the most polarizing, oddball watch that Garmin has ever made!

I've seen the Reddit threads responding to early Venu X1 buyers, calling it "ugly AF" or like a "bad Apple Watch Ultra." I think the reaction would be less visceral if the Venu X1 didn't cost $799, with no Venu 4 in sight. But it's still evoking the Apple design language, for a community that's spurned Apple Watches for years.

As a Garmin megafan, I can't help but laugh at the indignation, if only because Garmin watches...aren't good-looking, y'all. You're accustomed to the rugged design, but they're still bulky, thick, and lack the luxury style of a "normal" watch. The Venu X1 is merely a more artificial tang of the same bitter medicine we all take to get great fitness insights.

What more justifiably rubs Garmin hard-liners the wrong way is that this uber-skinny smartwatch has an eight-day battery life that falls to two days with always-on display (AOD), or just 14 all-systems GNSS hours, so you burn at least 7% battery per hour of tracking. Garmin watches usually last longer the more you pay; the Venu X1 inverts that expectation.

And outside the fitness sphere, the Apple fans Garmin is targeting will love the look but be bewildered by everything else.

I've never worn a smartwatch like the Garmin Venu X1; no one has

The Venu X1's positives are primed to fall on deaf ears because of how it shakes up Garmin's status quo. And it's a shame, because my goodness, the X1 is comfortable to wear.

It takes up more wrist space than I'm used to, but once that's normalized, I barely notice it. Going from my 71g Apple Watch Ultra 2 or 75g Fenix 8 47mm, my 39g Venu X1 is heavenly, while showing me more data than I'm used to seeing. Most Garmin watches weigh about 50–55g, but without all that screen space.

And from the side, it's just so dang skinny! People might initially think the Venu X1 looks "unnatural" in top-down photos, but from the side in person, it looks proportional and unassuming on my wrist, where a normal smartwatch protrudes awkwardly.

People who buy fitness bands like the 31g Fitbit Charge 6 can get double the screen real estate of a fitness band for about a quarter-ounce of extra weight. They'll appreciate that the Venu X1 puts much less pressure on your wrist for sleep tracking than most smartwatches, too.

My fiancee, a regular Apple Watch wearer, loves the look and how thin it is, and doesn't mind that it's proportionally a bit large for her wrist in exchange for the size and brightness. And she scoffed at the idea that a week of battery life wasn't enough.

That's why the premise of a large, skinny watch wouldn't be so outlandish...if the Venu X1 didn't suffer from Garmin's post-tariff price inflation and target Garmin's traditionalist power users with an $800 price tag.

The most obvious use case for a 2-inch, 448 x 486 display is maps, and Garmin's strict feature tier list means it won't put offline maps on a cheaper watch. It's frustrating, but consistent with Garmin's strategy. So rather than follow up on the Venu Sq 2 or Venu 3, Garmin made this new Ultra alternative with a full suite of tools that only hardcore users need.

I can't wait to take the Venu X1 out on hikes and follow trails, or to plan out my golf shots on my local courses. And if you subscribe to Outdoor Maps+, you can't get a better view unless you buy a GPS handheld.

Turn-by-turn navigation works on a circular watch because the focus is solely on the arrow, but this 2-inch squircle cuts off the limiters and lets you see more context around you, without needing to zoom out. The same goes for showing more buttons around the map edge without blocking content or making menus larger and more readable.

Like my Forerunner 970 and Fenix 8, the Venu X1 can be laggy when using maps, a consequence of Garmin's battery efficiency. Anyone used to an Apple Watch will probably care less about the extra topographic detail and wish it were as speedy as Apple Maps.

The Garmin Venu X1 is caught between two audiences

Here's the main problem with the Garmin Venu X1: It can only be this skinny by lacking the CPU and RAM of traditional smartwatches or the long battery life of fitness watches.

Garmin's target audience (Apple converts) will miss their apps, messaging, and Siri. And the UI is liable to overwhelm them with information and premium fitness features that may not be relevant to their lives. The affordable, limited Garmin Vivoactive 6 is a better gateway for first-timers.

As for Garmin power users, the Venu X1 has nearly all the premium features of the Forerunner 970 in a more comfortable package. But these people are accustomed to perks like multi-week battery life and Up/Down buttons during training.

Other fitness watch fans would happily trade battery life for comfort...but they're not the ones who would spend $800. They'd rather spend $200 on a Fitbit.

That's why I think the Venu X1 will end up a niche device, too advanced and expensive for fitness casuals but too hamstrung by its skinny design for hardcore fans. But for those who hit that niche sweet spot, they'll absolutely love it: The Venu X1 is cozier and lighter than any other watch this size, the display is fantastic for displaying a ton of data, and it has nearly every feature the Fenix 8 does for $200–300 less.

This year, I aim to run three Spartan races in an effort to kick up my fitness journey a notch. It's a journey that's taken me five years to get to, and while I've slowly climbed the ranks among my fellow Spartans over the years, I still have a long way to go before I ever consider the possibility of making the podium.

Regardless if I ever podium, though, the key to improvement is through training. Quantifying my results with a smartwatch is extraordinarily helpful, but with the variety of obstacles and types of fitness found throughout a Spartan race, which watch is the best way to track things?

I turned to two of my favorites from last year, the OnePlus Watch 3 and Google Pixel Watch 3, both of which I've regularly turned to because of their fitness-tracking accuracy and detailed stats. And while I prefer the smaller size of the 41mm Pixel Watch 3, the battery life of the OnePlus Watch 3 is an even better plus.

After I finished the race, I compared my stats using a combination of tools. Strava pulled the data off my OnePlus Watch 3, while Google's Fitbit does all the work for the Pixel. All of those were dumped into a web-based tool called Quantified Self, which makes it easy to directly compare stats and GPS-tracked maps at a glance. Now, for the results.

Let's get Spartan

If you've never attended a Spartan Race before, here's the gist. Spartan Races come in three lengths: Sprint (5K, 20+ obstacles), Super (10K, 25+ obstacles), Beast (21K, 30+ obstacles), and Ultra (50K, 60+ obstacles). Obstacles are a variety of challenges that include anything from rope climbs to crawling under barbed wire, angled walls that you have to run or climb over, and even carrying heavy objects for a set length.

To date, I've only run Sprints and have no intention of running longer. I'm not Michael Hicks, and I can't run 20-mile races, but I have participated in Ninja Warrior competitions in the past, so obstacles are my strong suit. The varied nature of a Spartan Race makes it tough to measure with a watch that's built for running, but they still provide a good measure of data to work with for comparison.

Normally, I run Spartan Races in my home state of North Carolina, where things are a lot hillier, but I decided to try one while on vacation in the much flatter (and hotter) state of Florida.

While both watches are pretty even keel across the board, a few stats stood out to me. First off is the elevation change, where the OnePlus Watch 3 seemed to think Florida is a lot flatter than it actually is.

While the majority of the circuit through Burt Aaronson South County Regional Park in Boca Raton is extraordinarily flat by my North Carolinian standards, several obstacles were above or below the elevation of most of the rest of the course.

The bucket carry, for instance, had me trek up a man-made hill that was a few dozen feet high, while another obstacle had us wading through a pond that we had to navigate down a hill to reach.

Looking at the graph, it's clear something malfunctioned on the OnePlus Watch 3. Whether this was a bug or something else, I'm not sure, but I know that I didn't get accurate altitude information from the OnePlus Watch 3. I've never seen it do this outside of this one race (of course), and I've taken it hiking several times.

I know this was a fluke though, because when I look at the rest of the data, both watches are impressively neck-and-neck. This is impressive to me because it confirms my thoughts in my OnePlus Watch 3 initial impressions where I said that OnePlus fixed all the issues I had with the OnePlus Watch 2, namely giving it accurate fitness tracking capabilities.

OnePlus outfitted the OnePlus Watch 3 with a more precise dual-frequency GPS, and it shows when you zoom into the map. In the map below, the OnePlus Watch 3 is orange, while the Pixel Watch 3 is blue.

I know from running the course that I wasn't running around as erratically as the Pixel Watch 3 suggests. For instance, I know I didn't run under the trees on the right side of the image. I stuck to the path as the OnePlus Watch 3's track shows.

Likewise, the strange loop you see on the left side from the Pixel Watch 3 didn't happen like it shows. That was a 20-foot rope wall that I had to scale, then flip around and make my way back down. The OnePlus Watch 3 has a similar circular motion to the path, but it's much more inline with my actual movements.

Which is best?

Looking at the rest of the bevy of available stats — it's seriously overwhelming if you don't know what these mean — it's clear both watches are close enough to each other in tracking to call this a tie. Even the heart rate was dead on, showing a 177 bpm average for the duration of the hour-long race.

For me, the choice between the two can be broken down into two main points. Want a smaller smartwatch that's extra comfortable to wear? The Google Pixel Watch 3 is the best choice for that right now, but a smaller OnePlus Watch 3 is on the way that will surely challenge it.

If you want a watch with excellent fitness-tracking capabilities and a battery that'll last you an average of 4 days on a single charge — yes, even with regular fitness and GPS tracking — the OnePlus Watch 3 is a no-brainer. This is OnePlus's best year yet, and it's great to see the company improving its products in meaningful ways that mean you won't have to sacrifice something when choosing them. I guess "Never Settle" is back, huh?

Last week, my new Garmin Forerunner 970 warned me that I probably shouldn't run because I was close to my running tolerance for the week. Instead, I found out the hard way what happens when you ignore Garmin's algorithm.

I spent May in a bit of a running slump, my mileage dipping about 40 miles from my monthly average. So I decided to rebound in June with more steps and miles. I kicked things off with a half marathon while wearing Ray-Ban Metas on June 1, and then I decided that I could do another hard, hilly run on Global Running Day with a local running group.

By the end of my 7-mile run, I'd fallen behind the group and felt physically weak with a tight right hamstring. I checked my watch later and found I was right above my body's running tolerance.

But since I desperately wanted to rejuvenate my fitness efforts, I went out for a low-aerobic jog a couple of days later once my training readiness score had climbed up a bit. It was a mistake: Even if my heart and lungs felt fine, my hamstring all but gave out on me. I ended up limping home. A week of recovery and a busy travel week at an XR convention later, I'm back where I started.

The experience taught me two things: Garmin's running tolerance estimate is legitimate, and I truly hope it doesn't remain restricted to Garmin's $750 running watch like other "premium" tools.

How Garmin Running Tolerance works

Garmin says Running Tolerance helps you "recognize potentially hazardous training patterns" and "intelligently manage the impact of running on your body as you work to build and maintain mileage."

It builds off of acute load, or the training load effect on your body from the past seven days of workouts, which most Garmin Forerunner models track. But this metric focuses on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), rather than the biomechanical load.

That's where Running Tolerance changes things. For each run, it takes into account your weight, speed, intensity, ground contact time, cadence, and significant uphills and downhills, among other concerns.

The goal is to track the "force exerted by the ground on your body." And a speedy downhill run, for example, might be "three times harder than an easy run on level ground." And you might not normally realize it, because the run felt easy on your lungs.

Garmin then judges your acute impact load miles against your running tolerance, based on your recent running history. It warns you if you've entered a "cautionary state" where you should be careful of injury or burnout.

It's separate from Garmin's typical post-run recovery estimate because it takes more than your cardiovascular system into account. And that's vital context for runners!

Of course, most semi-serious runners will show better impulse control than I did and stop themselves when their bodies tell them to. But running tolerance is still critical for anyone trying to take their training to the next level.

Beginner runners need this more than veterans

Garmin's whole wearable strategy is price-locking software, such as how the Forerunner 970 gets offline maps but the 570 doesn't, or how the Forerunner 165 uses training load data in the background to create daily suggested workouts but blocks you from seeing the widget. It makes you pay extra for the best tools.

And fine, if Garmin wants to lock maps, real-time stamina, Strava Live Segments, and endurance scores to the premium models like the 970 and Fenix 8, we just have to accept that.

But running tolerance is designed to prevent injuries by warning people off who don't know their limits. And I'd argue that it's more important for couch-to-5K runners or casual runners to see that their body isn't ready for a half marathon, or that they've hit their weekly limit and need to ease off to avoid injury.

Are casual runners going to spend $750 on a running watch? No, and they shouldn't! Not until they're advanced enough to take full advantage of the features. But the weekly running tolerance limit doesn't feel "advanced" to me; it feels fundamental.

I shouldn't have ignored my running tolerance data, but at least I was forewarned. Other Garmin watch owners don't get that context. So while I find it unlikely based on Garmin's track record, I'm hoping Garmin's running tolerance eventually trickles down to more watches and helps people prevent injuries!

I decided to wear my Ray-Ban Meta glasses during the San Jose Half Marathon last Sunday. I admit I fell off wearing my smart glasses in recent months as I relied more on my Shokz OpenFit 2s for open-ear streaming. But I decided better sun protection and the chance to snap a few photos mid-race would make them worth dusting off.

I ended up happy that I wore them, but the experience also reminded me why I typically only wear them in casual settings, not runs or workouts. I'm waiting to see if the 3rd-gen Meta glasses can do any better later this year, with or without the AR tech.

Snapping away

Things started off great. Despite being heavier than my regular glasses, my Wayfarer-style Ray-Ban Metas felt comfortable and covered up my eye bags for selfies after my 5am wake-up call. And at a race where everyone is snapping photos or breaking out their GoPros, I was less worried than usual about creeping people out with subtle glasses photography.

From the start line onwards, I was able to reach up and snap photos with a button tap while keeping my eyes ahead, instead of slowing down to yank my phone out of my pocket and line up the viewfinder. I rarely take photographs during races when I'm focused on staying in the zone, but I ended up taking 22 photos and one finish-line video by the end.

San Jose is the farthest thing from a scenic course for good photos, but I wanted to test how these glasses performed before bringing them to, say, Big Sur or NYC.

I also streamed my Half Marathon playlist during the race to keep me motivated, but with my ears fully uncovered to hear anyone trying to pass me and courteously avoid stumbling into them. Since most races "highly discourage" or outright ban headphones, this is a real perk.

But wearing Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses during the race had its fair share of cons, too.

My three main issues with wearing smart glasses during a race

I tend not to wear my normal glasses during runs because I can see well enough that it's never felt worth buying a strap to avoid them sliding down my nose. With my 50g Ray-Bans, it's clear I'll need to buy and strap on this thick, dorky lanyard before I try another race with them.

They stayed in place for maybe 400m, but once my nose got sweaty, they started slipping. If I pushed them up, I immediately felt the weight bouncing and jiggling on my nose bridge before they slid down again.

I kept them in place by keeping my head tilted slightly up like some snooty nobleman in a BBC period piece, but it did take me a bit out of the zone to feel so rigid. And even if I wore the lanyard and they stayed in place, I suspect they'd still bounce uncomfortably because of the weight.

My second problem is less dire: with no viewfinder, it's easy to forget in the moment that you need to get up close and personal with your Ray-Bans to get a clear photo. I would see something cool and snap a photo, only to later have to squint and zoom in just to remember what my subject was amidst the landscape.

In this photo, for example, I saw the lead runners finishing their out-and-back the other way and thought it'd be cool to capture them. But they're barely noticeable and blurry because I took the shot from way too far back.

The resolution is great for glasses, and the ultrawide effect recreates the feeling of standing in a memory rather than composing a photo. In particular, my video of the final sprint, which I can't embed here (sorry), looked startlingly smooth compared to how it felt in the moment.

The point being, I'm still glad I wore them. I can jog my memory of the course without having to pay $50 for photos of me panting past camerapeople. Next time, I'll know that I need to position myself right next to the subject first, or else the photo won't turn out well.

The real deal-breaker, though, is battery life. I took my Ray-Bans out of the case about 15 minutes before the start and didn't use them until then. At that point, I streamed music and took 22 photos and one video throughout my 1 hour 54-minute race, plus one accidental Meta AI trigger. As I cooled down, I checked my battery life: 8%.

Meta estimates its glasses will last four hours with "moderate" use and the right conditions, including "100 videos or up to 500 photos per full charge."

Smart glasses struggle with battery life in cold weather, but I wouldn't call mid-60ºF cold. Streaming music was part of the problem, so maybe I could wear my Ray-Bans and earbuds for another race and use the glasses solely for photography. I also forgot to disable the "Hey Meta" wake word, which can cause a decent amount of idle drain.

The biggest issue, though, is simply that my glasses are nearly two years old, and the capacity is fading. And since it's "not possible to replace the battery inside your glasses" because it's soldered in, I'd have to spend $329 on another pair to get better longevity.

So if I ever wear these for a marathon, I have to accept that I'll only capture content for the first part of the race (unless I go from an average to Olympic-level runner).

The next Ray-Ban Meta glasses need SOME kind of battery revamp

We don't like it when our phone or watch needs more charging after a few years, but we expect it. With new wearables like smart glasses and smart rings, though, they're already working off such limited capacity from small form factors that the degradation feels much more obvious and immediate. And unlike your phone, smart glasses and rings can't be disassembled to add a new battery, not without breaking them.

Power users will continue to shell out $300 every couple of years for new glasses, but for the rest of the 2 million Meta glasses buyers, they might hold off on buying the next version if the battery fades just as quickly, especially since Meta AI is the big selling point of the commercials and the worst source of power drain.

Having tested out running AR glasses recently, I'm curious about the rumored Meta "Hypernova" glasses with a holographic display. Then I could see live stats like heart rate and pace without having to look down at my watch. But I wouldn't call this feature "essential" for race day.

On a more fundamental level, I need the next generation of Ray-Bans to solve or mitigate the battery problem before I make them a regular race companion.

Ideally, it'd have a repairable design to allow for easily replaceable batteries. If that's not possible, then Meta could use a denser solid-state battery that lasts so long out of the box that it remains decent even after a couple of years of fading capacity.

If it started at eight hours with moderate use, then I could stomach my Ray-Bans fading to four hours after a couple of years.

It'd also be nice if Meta copied Android and iOS with a Battery graph that shows which function — music, photos, or AI queries — burns through the most capacity, so you know what you can safely use or should avoid. Or there could be a battery saver mode that disables functions you won't need.

May was a terrible month for my 2025 fitness goals. I only ran 23 miles after averaging 60 my first four months. Several work trips like I/O wore me out, but I have to be honest: The biggest issues are motivation and weather. It's getting hotter in California, and I'm months out from my New Year's resolutions. I need a training reboot.

I suspect many of you are the same. That's why June is the right month to retool our goals, with wearable tech to help.

The people who organized Global Running Day recognized that people need a training reboot in the summer. They encourage people of all fitness levels to run, jog, or fast-walk a few miles on the first Wednesday of June every year.

It's a lovely concept, and I encourage people to join the fun with their local running org or shop. Many fitness watches and apps like Garmin, Apple, and Strava will reward you with digital swag. But this is just one day a year, and not everyone loves running like I do.

So I worked on a more comprehensive three-month plan to survive the summer heat and come out of the season in better shape than when I started, using my fitness watch and other tools to keep me accountable. Here's how I recommend you do the same.

June: Focus on steps before everything else

Even though the 10,000 steps a day rule started off as a marketing gimmick, I truly got much healthier when I walked over 10,000 steps every day for a month. The exact number is arbitrary; the important part is prioritizing consistency more than intensity.

Why? Because there's plenty of valid reasons to skip a hard workout after a workday: Tiredness, lateness, or responsibilities like cooking dinner will add up until you've spent a whole week slacking. But the only reason to skip a walk is lethargy. You can walk an hour whether it's blazing hot or at night by streetlight, even if you're worn out.

Plus, if you start doing a summer activity like golfing, pickleball, or softball, you'll naturally get steps even if you're not tracking a specific "activity" like a run or hike. Your smartwatch will keep you honest on how much you've actually moved and if you've burned enough calories to earn that post-match beer or dessert.

Most smartwatches have a widget or Tile showing whether you've hit your steps goal. My Garmin watch gives me badges for hitting 30 miles of walking or 300,000 steps per month, while a Galaxy or Apple Watch will praise you for closing your daily rings. It's a useful way to motivate yourself.

If you don't do anything else this June, take advantage of the late sundowns and pledge to walk for at least 8,000 steps a day.

Buy an epic fantasy audiobook or download a podcast that'll keep your mind occupied for dozens of hours, or else use the time to call family. Planned multitasking makes it feel less like wasted time, and you'll end up losing weight in the long run simply by staying agile.

June to July: Stay accountable with tech and people, not just money

Several watches and apps have great self-guided training tools I'd recommend. Garmin Coach and daily suggested workouts tailor runs, walks, or strength training to your ability level. A Pixel Watch will give you a target cardio load and daily run suggestions like Tempo or intervals. TrainingPeaks has well-regarded paid training plans, while brands like COROS have free training calendars.

All of them share one key problem, though: Only you can keep yourself accountable and motivated, and you wouldn't be reading this if motivation weren't a challenge! Trust me, I get it.

People use paid incentives like gym memberships to pressure themselves to work out, so they're not "wasting money." But negative motivation only goes so far before shame takes over. You can always tell yourself you'll "go tomorrow" repeatedly when, again, only you are holding yourself accountable.

That's what makes summer a great time for adults to reboot their goals. Unlike students who have sports clubs all year except summer, adults can typically find community activities this time of year for people looking to rekindle their love of sport and make connections.

Join a flag football league, running club, pickleball class, or any other team or community sport. You're much less likely to flake out without a legitimate excuse because others expect you. It's more fun than a solitary workout, so it feels less like work.

Some of these activities will continue into fall, but summer is usually when sports and training orgs recruit new members. So take the time this weekend to Google your best nearby options and get signed up for something fun before end of June. You'll still have to work out properly other days of the week, but these community days will keep you limber and motivated.

July: Go all-in on sleep tracking

According to studies cited by BBC, people get (on average) an hour less sleep in June than in December, and 30 minutes less REM sleep. Early sunlight wakes you, the long days keep you out and active for longer, social drinking worsens your sleep quality, and warmer temperatures make it hard for your body temp to drop the 2–3º necessary for unimpeded sleep.

You'll hopefully spend June getting steps and joining team sports that tire you out for better sleep. But if you're spending evenings working out, it's easy to fall into revenge bedtime procrastination (RBP). You stay up to stream shows, game, or scroll social media feeds, even though it makes you miserable the next day, because you feel you deserve to unwind.

Now that you've established good daytime workout habits, use July to keep yourself accountable with better and more consistent sleep.

For this, I'd recommend a smart ring since they're more comfortable for sleep tracking than a smartwatch, as well as more specialized. My Ultrahuman Ring Air notes stats like HR drop, skin temperature, time in sleep stages, restlessness, and duration.

Of course, many fitness smartwatches track the same stats, if you'd rather not buy two separate devices. What's important is using tools like Garmin Body Battery, Fitbit Daily Readiness, Samsung Energy Score, and so on to keep yourself accountable.

I interviewed Google's clinical sleep lead earlier this year, and he warned that people are "terrible estimators" of their own tiredness and can function with a "severe amount of sleep impairment that you're not even fully cognizant of." It's so easy to build bad sleep habits in summer and wear yourself out, so use July to fix those habits.

July to August: Give yourself some deload weeks

As my gym-nerd partner always tells me, even the most dedicated athletes pushing for serious gains need the occasional deload week so they can regain their energy and reach greater heights.

If you've managed to fill the first half of summer with constant walks, games, and early bedtimes, you're either going to make working out your entire lifestyle and personality, or you're going to burn out and fall back to normal.

That's why, as the awful summer heat sticks around, let yourself off the hook and aim for fewer (but harder) workouts through August. Build off of your summer training foundation to push for new PRs, but take more rest days in-between. Then, when September arrives, set yourself a new three-month training regimen and ride a new wave of enthusiasm.

Hopefully, by the end of August, you'll have established better habits and found the fitness smartwatch tools to keep you motivated through the rest of the year.

The Garmin May 2025 feature update is relatively small, but new features like Garmin Trails, rucking mode with pack weight, and Pulse Ox breathing variations are important ones for most Garmin users. It's too bad that Garmin Trails has so much room to grow and pushes people toward Connect+.

Garmin Trails is the company's answer to AllTrails and Komoot. Any Connect user can search through local trails under More > Training & Planning > Garmin Trails, filtering routes by distance, total ascent, difficulty, popular months, and "features" like being dog-friendly.

You only need a Connect Plus subscription to save the trail to your courses or Garmin watch. Similar trails remain available in the Garmin Courses section, which requires no subscription to export them. Garmin had to balance not removing old features and incentivizing Connect Plus, so it made Trails instead of improving Courses.

Some early reactions to Garmin Trails have been negative, either because it's currently limited to five countries or because it "shouldn't" be paywalled as Garmin watches get more expensive. Judging Trails solely on its merits as a U.S.-based user, along with the new rucking tools, I'm generally positive on the feature, but have several reservations.

Garmin Trails needs your help to work

Most popular hiking apps require a subscription to sync community routes to your Garmin watch for offline navigation. No doubt Garmin hopes that offering a first-party alternative directly in Connect will make people cut out the middlemen (middleapps?) like Komoot and AllTrails.

First, the positives: Garmin Trails has robust filters. I can hover over the wider California Bay Area, say I want a hike with 2,000–4,000 feet of total ascent that's no more than 15 miles, reaches any peak, and is dog friendly, and see all 49 hikes that fit that criteria within driving distance.

In my specific county, I can find 17 easy, 55 moderate, and 49 hard hikes within reasonable driving distance, then narrow down the list with either Loop, Out & Back, or Point to Point filters. It's all useful context, and if you're a casual hiker like me who might try one new route a month, that could last you for years.

However, most of the "Features" and ratings aren't useful yet because they require user input. Garmin made sure to mark 250 dog-friendly Bay Area trails, but (hilariously) can't find a single one that's "Kid Friendly" or has "Forest" or "Flowers" to look at.

I spot-checked a dozen trails, and each had a one-paragraph summary that tended to be fairly generic, listing out the length, time to finish, what views you'll see, and whether it's dog friendly. Seriously, someone at Garmin loves dogs. You won't get much other context.

This should improve with time as users fill in the blanks with reviews, and I like that hikers can tag specific Conditions like Temporary Closure, Trail Damage, Bugs, Crowded, and so on.

But Garmin has to play catch-up against AllTrails, Komoot, and other community-driven apps with years of context and photos, with an entire app dedicated to hiking rather than a single section of Connect. Garmin users will have to help prop Trails up as a service.

Garmin's Trails list misses out on a huge number of trails found on other platforms. I checked around Mount Diablo, a local favorite, but saw no trails at the popular Artist's Point parking lot where people typically start heading to the peak. All the hikes start along the park edge, meaning they're intimidatingly difficult and almost twice as long.

More generally, Garmin Trails shows about 500 hikes in a huge portion of Northern California from Santa Rosa and Sacramento down past the Bay into Monterey; I can find over 500 trails in Contra Costa County alone on AllTrails.

Theoretically, Garmin's selection is supposed to be curated, so casual hikers can skip to the best options. But I think it's more accurate to say that Garmin finds most of the best starting points but defaults to one great hike option when AllTrails might show five or more variations from that same point.

You can "Customize Trail" to download it to Garmin Courses and try to shape it to your needs first, but I found it almost impossible to edit a course to be shorter, so at that point, you might as well make it from scratch and bypass Trails altogether.

Rucking and pack weight

I've been excited to test rucking on Garmin watches for months, ever since I jumped into the rucking fad last year. For those unaware, rucking takes the military training concept of carrying extra pack weight for training and applies it to everyday athletes, helping them build muscle and endurance on hikes that might normally be easy with a light pack.

With the update downloaded on my Fenix 8, I installed a 4-mile route from Garmin Trails, loaded up my pack with 25 pounds — tough for me, easy for most rucking enthusiasts — and drove to the trailhead.

I had two choices: Either do an actual Rucking sport activity or choose Hiking and add my pack weight. In either case, carrying more than a few pounds prevents the activity from affecting your VO2 Max, and the Rucking profile seemed more likely to have specialized widgets, so I went with that option.

The default Rucking data screens show HR, distance, elevation, ascent and descent, hill grade, sunrise/ sunset times, a compass, and your map. And the post-workout screen shows the usual data like calorie burn and training load — only with your logged pack weight taken into account.

That's all useful data, but it's basically what you'd see on a Hike activity. Eventually, I'd want Garmin to display load-adjusted pace, stamina depletion, estimated muscle strain build-up, or other metrics specific to the amount of weight you're carrying.

I've previously written about how cool it'd be to have some kind of Load Score, like Hill or Endurance Score, that takes your logged pack weight into account to judge how much weight you can safely carry and adjusts the score over time with new data.

Returning to Garmin Trails, my on-watch route was quite useful in ensuring I stayed on trail, with occasional audio alerts before turns and a warning once I missed a turn and started to stray off course.

But I do have to roast Garmin's recommended trail a bit. In the photo above, you can see how Garmin told me to climb over this immovable fence surrounded by barbed wire to stay on course. I had to go "off course" 0.2 miles to get to the actual turnaround point (which I knew from a previous hike).

Garmin does have a "Report an issue" field, so I told Garmin that it needed to update its map. I'll be curious to see if Garmin changes its official Trail route, and how quickly.

Breathing variation

A lot of smartwatch brands are pushing towards sleep apnea detection, and Garmin's new breathing variation tool steps in that direction.

Garmin watches have always been the best option for blood oxygen data because you can choose between spot checks, all-night data, or all-day data in the Settings, and they have the battery life to support it. Plus, you had in-depth HRV data to judge your physiological recovery and stress levels.

Now you get one more metric with breathing variations. Garmin attributes them to "lifestyle factors, your sleep environment, or other issues," without specifically mentioning that sleep apnea might cause occasional or frequent issues.

I wore my Fenix 8 to bed and saw moments when I had a "Few" breathing variations, with the Sleep Score showing my SpO2 levels and breath rate per minute (brpm), both average and lowest.

As Garmin warns, it's "not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease," but over time, you can see whether the signs suggest you should get sleep labs done for a potential issue. I'm glad that Garmin's offering it and that it's available on most recent Garmin watches.

Judging the May Garmin update

I didn't need to retest the Passcode feature to say that it's an important one for optional security that other brands already test. And I'm sure golfers with the Venu 3 will appreciate getting new tools like full-color CourseView maps, touch targeting, PlaysLike distance and Green Contours.

I'm generally a fan of this update! It's a relief that my pack weight won't skew my VO2 Max results anymore, and I'm happy to wait for the rucking profile to get more specialized tools in a future update, hopefully.

But for Garmin Trails, Garmin wearers need to start adding in the missing data to catch up with AllTrails and Komoot. The Connect+ hurdle may turn away some users who might otherwise have embraced it, which could slow this down.

The Garmin Forerunner 570 and 970 are more expensive than their predecessors. Other 2025 Garmin watches skimped on new features to keep prices low, so I'm happy Garmin didn't hold back on its Forerunners. But it's also become clearer that Garmin doesn't feel a need to compete with other brands' features — only against itself.

The jump between the $599 Forerunner 965 and $749 Forerunner 970 is significant. You get the newest Elevate v5 generation for better HR accuracy, ECGs and skin temperature readings, flashlight, mic & speaker for calling and commands, sapphire crystal protection, and new metrics like running tolerance.

Or if you're weighing the $549 Forerunner 270 against the $449 Forerunner 265, you also get the gen5 HR accuracy boost, doubled screen brightness on a larger display, the same mic & speaker, and skin temperature with heat acclimation.

The Instinct 3 and Vivoactive 6 stuck to last-gen HR sensors, treading water on hardware so that Garmin could keep them in their fixed price ranges. I feared Garmin would do the same with its Forerunners, making us wait until 2027 for real changes.

That's why I'm excited for the Forerunner 970, but also feeling frustrated at how Garmin holds back mid-tier watches like the Forerunner 570.

As prices rise, held-back features are harder to accept

The $499 Instinct 3 didn't have offline maps despite being an "adventure" watch, while cheaper rival watches like the $349 COROS PACE Pro and Suunto Race S did. I complained at the time, but Garmin hadn't given it storage space for maps, prioritizing a lightweight CPU for battery life.

The $549 Forerunner 570 does have storage space for maps, and no need to hold back the processor. There's no logistical reason it shouldn't support maps; even if they're not pre-downloaded like on the 970, Garmin could let you download a specific region's topo data, at least.

The only real explanation is that their absence makes people more likely to pay for the 970.

The same applies to the 570 health sensors. I obviously appreciate the enhanced HR accuracy and skin temperature. But every other gen5 watch has ECGs, including the $449 Venu 3. And outside of Garmin, ECGs are the norm, from mainstream watches to fitness rivals like the COROS APEX and Polar Vantage series.

But Garmin ignores the context of its rivals; the only competitor that matters is the Forerunner 970. That needs to stand out, so the 570 misses out. Heart health warnings become a $750 bargaining chip.

It's a common-enough strategy for Garmin. With the excellent Forerunner 165, you can't see your training load even though it clearly calculates load in the background to determine your VO2 Max, recovery time, and daily suggested workouts with anaerobic or low aerobic focuses. Blocking that data upsells you to the Forerunner 265.

I accepted that artificial feature block because the 165 costs $249, and training load is still fairly niche. But Garmin watch prices keep creeping up. It's harder to swallow blocked features when these mid-tier models cost much more than a Galaxy or Apple Watch.

With Garmin watches, every component has a price tag

Smartwatch "tiers" are common enough these days, and every company wants to upsell you. But they're also selective about which features are price-locked because they know it'll look bad if a competitor offers something for much less.

You obviously pay more for steel or titanium casing, or other hardware boosts like better battery life. But otherwise, they squeeze most features into the mainline model while sticking to the same pricing every year (aside from the occasional inflationary boost).

With Garmin, every new feature to modernize its watches comes with a price bump. MIP-to-AMOLED display swaps for the Forerunner and Instinct lineups cost tacked on another $50–100 to the usual price. On the Fenix 8, collectively adding AMOLED, better sensors, and a mic & speaker added $200 to the price.

You won't find dual-band GPS on any watch $300 or less, nor offline maps on any sub-$600 watch. And even though Garmin's Gen5 HR sensors came out in 2023, it will keep using the Gen4 sensors on "cheaper" models like the $500 Instinct 3 today.

I don't know how much the components cost Garmin, but it wants us to know that it'll pass that cost onto us.

Other factors like tariff concerns bump up pricing, too. But Garmin's 2025 strategy establishes a clear Garmin precedent: Once a watch costs a certain price, you shouldn't expect new hardware at that price, nor features already established at the flagship tier.

The next version will either cost the same but make minimal upgrades, or add new tools and cost much more.

Garmin treats any new feature as an opportunity to ask athletes for more money in exchange for more value. And it can do this because it doesn't feel as much pressure to price its fitness watches competitively as other brands.

Garmin users like its ecosystem too much — or are too invested in it — to leave. And so Garmin accepts the negative press around Connect+ paywalled features and price-locks the coolest new features because its loyal customers will pay $750 or more for them, even if they grumble about it.

If you think the Forerunner 970 and 570 are too expensive, then at least you know the last-gen Garmin watches are still available — and discounted for Memorial Day, so a Forerunner 965 costs $50 less than the 570.

Otherwise, we have to accept this new normal with new Garmin watches.

This week, I flew to Plano, Texas, to check out Ultrahuman's new factory. After they walked me through every official step of manufacturing a smart ring, I did my best impression of a factory worker and built an Ultrahuman Ring Air from the raw parts. And it gave me a new appreciation for my own smart ring.

Smart rings aren't designed to be taken apart and put back together like other tech. You might know what sensors are inside, but you probably don't know what else is sitting inside all that titanium, resin, and ceramic, and what determines how thick these rings are.

But with Ultrahuman's Ring Air in a sales and patent war with the Oura Ring, the company decided to show off its new American factory. This had the nice side effect of finally sating our curiosity about how smart rings are made, something other brands have been reluctant to talk to us about.

Plus, now I get to say that I helped make a smart ring that someone in the U.S. will buy!

How smart rings are made

The photo galleries below show nearly every step of Ultrahuman's smart ring-making process, starting with the creation of printed circuit boards (PCBs), which contain the SoC, PPG, IMU, temperature, and Bluetooth components.

These components are mass-producible — an engineer suggested one machine could produce 10,000 PCBs in a day — and made of fiberglass, polyamide, and ceramic materials, chosen to make them bendable enough to slide naturally into the rounded ring shape.

But the "UltraFactory" currently only makes about 400 smart rings per day, though Ultrahuman has promised to hit about 1,350 per day or 500,000 per year by the end of 2025. There are several pain points, starting with the fact that the other mass-produced components have to be soldered onto the PCB by hand.

After they create the PCBs, do internal and external spot checks for any flaws, and program each PCB with the requisite software, they're ready for the next step: soldering.

First, the Rx coil is soldered onto the PCB; then, the battery is soldered onto the coil. They brush off the excess alloy, leaving one seamless, bendable component ready to be inserted into the ring.

With a 3D-printed part, the welded-together PCB is curved into a proper J shape. The workers then apply glue to the titanium-carbon ring you're familiar with, remove the cover for the PCB's adhesive layer, and finally shove the component into place.

They do a software check — since technically, you could wear the ring at this point — and then place the ring inside a silicone mold. One mold with 12 rings is brought to the casting station, which is one part of the factory where they wouldn't let us photograph or record.

There, they inject epoxy resin into the ring from the thickest portion — the PPG — inside a vacuum-sealed chamber to prevent any resin bubbles. The process takes 24 hours, because heating the resin to harden it faster would damage the components. Ultrahuman said this casting process is one of the big pain points that slows down the ring process.

At this point, the smart ring is almost ready to be worn, but the resin will look rough and have hard edges that'll hurt your finger. They spend about 30 minutes cleaning and polishing it into consumer-ready form.

Once that's done, they do one more software check to ensure everything is up to code. Then, they place the ring on a 3D-printed part to check its size; if it won't fit or slides all the way down the cylinder, they know it's not to code. Otherwise, the Ultrahuman Ring Air is ready to be sold!

How I made a smart ring

If you've been paying attention, you'll note that I couldn't make a smart ring from start to finish during this tour. The 24-hour resin process made that impossible. So it's more accurate to say that I got halfway through making a smart ring and then returned a different smart ring for the final part of the process. Nor did I get to handle any software or hardware QC.

I'm still going to say I made a smart ring, though. They told me my halfway-done smart ring would eventually be sold to someone, and that's pretty neat.

Following the steps above, I soldered the receiver coil onto the PCB by scraping some adhesive onto the coil and then stepping on a switch to trigger the machine (without burning off my thumbnail, thankfully). I then had to solder two separate points to attach the battery before brushing away the excess adhesive.

I curved the Ring Air components so they would fit inside, ripped off the adhesive with tweezers, shoved them inside the ring, and then pressed hard on the sensors to make them stick.

I was sure my clumsy, shaking fingers would break something, but it turned out my only issue was being too gentle. One portion came loose as I started to shove my smart ring into the casting mold, but I got it reattached and waved farewell to my ring.

Then they gave me another ring further along in the process and had me clean off the resin, using an electric spinning brush, sandpaper, and some 3M buffing fluid. I didn't get to finish the full 15+ minutes before Ultrahuman staff hustled me along to my interview, but I can honestly say I got that Ring Air into good enough shape that the resin wouldn't cut any fingers or look unsightly.

How smart ring manufacturing might change

I asked Ultrahuman's CEO, Mohit Kumar, and chief business officer, Bhuvan Srinivasan, about smart ring repairability, a major issue with all smart rings. The resin that keeps components in place and protected also makes it all but impossible to take rings apart for repair, and there are no visible buttons for resetting a malfunctioning ring.

They explained that they hope to add a tiny, hidden button to their smart rings. If a Ring Air is sent in for repair, they'll be able to remove a tiny bit of resin to hold down that button and reboot the ring into a mode where it can receive firmware updates.

I asked if they had any hopes for a more modular design that would let them remove and replace a battery, since smart ring batteries are so small and susceptible to losing capacity after a couple of years. Kumar replied that they're interested in it, but I got the sense that it's more of a pie-in-the-sky goal than something they're actively pursuing at the moment.

For now, they're more focused on optimization. Because American labor costs are higher than in their Indian facility, they're looking to make the process more efficient; for example, they found a new casting machine that would inject resin into four times as many rings at once, breaking open that bottleneck in the factory line.

As for me, I'm curious how the manufacturing processes of other smart rings differ from those of Ultrahuman and how they are evolving as the tech improves. But proprietary differences aside, the UltraFactory experience gave me respect for the amount of quality control that goes into making a smart ring — while also surprising me that someone like me with no industrial experience can go through the steps with enough hand-holding and patience.

I've previously wavered between calling the Instinct 3 a winner or a flop. Garmin skimped on the Elevate v5 sensor and topo maps, but Instinct 2 owners still get dual-band GPS, built-in LEDs, sleep coach, training load focus, and a gyroscope on top of Garmin's usual training tools.

The problem? Garmin has reached an inflection point. Any groundbreaking features or mainstream smarts go to the $1,000 Fenix 8; then, Garmin withholds these features from "cheaper" models for years to prop up the flagships. That's why the Instinct 3 feels like a bulky Forerunner with a flashlight, with no "adventurer" tools.

Thankfully, anyone upgrading from a years-old Garmin watch shouldn't feel my dissatisfaction: The Instinct 3 is an impressive fitness watch on its own merits. But the AMOLED facelift aside, only hardcore Garmin fans who're lukewarm about mainstream "smarts" will want the Instinct 3.

Garmin Instinct 3: Price, models, & specs

The Garmin Instinct 3 ships in 45mm and 50mm sizes, each with AMOLED and MIP Solar variants. There are "Tactical" MIP and AMOLED models and a budget Instinct E MIP; so far, there's no Instinct 3 Surf, Dezl, or Camo edition, like the Instinct 2 had.

The Garmin Instinct 3 Solar costs $399 and $449 for the 0.9-inch and 1.1-inch models, respectively; the 1.2- and 1.3-inch Instinct 3 AMOLED cost $449 and $499.

My Garmin Instinct 3 vs. 2X vs. 2 guide breaks down specific feature differences. The Instinct 2X Solar, as a compromise upgrade, got 3rd-gen perks like multi-band GPS and the flashlight in 2023. Its solar recharging crushes the Instinct 2 Solar but falls well short of the 3 Solar.

The Instinct 3 AMOLED battery life is comparable to the Instinct 2 Solar's unless you regularly spend hours in direct sunlight to recharge. There is a weeks-long gap between the Instinct 3 Solar and AMOLED, if you can stomach the low-res, grayscale display.

Garmin Instinct 3: Design & display

• Its big, bulky design won't appeal to everyone.
• No touch screen, but the AMOLED display has great visibility.
• The Instinct 3 would've benefited from a crown for navigation.

The Garmin Instinct 3 AMOLED has double the pixels per inch as the grayscale Solar display. MIP displays are more readable outdoors but nearly illegible indoors. The AMOLED model is more readable at home while bright enough for outdoor treks, with no pressure to seek out sunlight to recharge.

Older Instincts (and new 3 Solar) tracked the same data, but their two-window, low-res displays lacked space for graphs, forcing users to use Garmin's mobile app to see their progress over time. This newest model solves that problem, making data more accessible.

The ten default watch faces all fit several data fields — like your steps, Body Battery, recovery time, heart rate, battery life, and the weather — saving you from searching for the data.

Unfortunately, you still rely on the Up/Down buttons to navigate the non-touch display. They're more consistent during workouts but feel slow when navigating through menus. Even the Forerunner 165 and Vivoactive 6 have touch controls, so it's probably about battery efficiency, not cost. Still, only long-time Instinct users won't resent its absence.

I can already hear the boos from long-time Garmin fans, but I'll still say it: the Instinct 3 should've had a crown for easier navigation.

Display aside, the Instinct 3 sticks to the trademark bulky design you'd expect from this lineup. The raised bezel and thick, shockproof polymer protect the display and components from falls, while the 10ATM water resistance ensures the roughest water sports won't break through its shell.

The Instinct design may appeal to G-Shock fans who don't need premium materials. The new aluminum layer bisects the bezel and case so it doesn't look like one uniform heap of plastic, like past models. And I like my limited edition Neo Tropic finish: its muted greens feel at home in a forest.

Most people will find the Instinct 3 too big and buttoned to be attractive. The Instinct 2X flopped in my smartwatch beauty pageant; even though the metal-edged Instinct 3 looks slightly better, it's still too bulky and athletic for most. Other Garmin watches can blend in more in professional contexts.

But if you ignore its looks, the Instinct 3 is more comfortable than you'd think. My 50mm model only weighs 59g, or 11g and 30g lighter than my Pixel Watch 3 45mm and Galaxy Watch Ultra 47mm, respectively.

Garmin Instinct 3: Hardware & battery

• Faster than the Instinct 2, but slower than other Garmin watches.
• Impressive battery life that lasts up to 14 days or 30 hours in SatIQ mode.
• Flashlight is a battery killer and feels superfluous.

One of my biggest complaints with the last-gen Instincts was how slow the processor was. Noticeable lag accompanied every button press, making menu navigation a chore, and simple feature updates caused problems because of limited memory.

DC Rainmaker warns that the Instinct 3 Solar shares this issue since the system software takes up most of its 128MB of memory. I'm glad the Instinct 3 AMOLED has 4GB of space, with plenty of leeway.

The Instinct 3 still feels slower than other Garmin watches, even if it's faster than the Instinct 2. The missing touchscreen aside, every button press or uploaded workout has a tiny delay. But this sluggishness is the price paid to help the Instinct 3 last longer.

For context, the Forerunner 265 and Venu 3 last 13 or 14 days, respectively, while the Instinct 3 45mm and 50mm last 18 or 24 days. These other models aren't slouches, but an extra week makes a difference.

More importantly, the Instinct 3 lasts up to 30 hours in SatIQ mode with multi-band GPS, beating the Forerunner 265 by 14 hours, though losing to the Fenix 8 51mm by 32 hours.

Garmin's watches typically fall a few days or GPS hours short of the official battery estimates. On paper, you should only burn about 3% of your Instinct 3 battery per hour of activity; I observed at least 5%. But that's still significantly better than almost any other fitness watch I've tested!

The only true battery killer is the built-in flashlight. It has four white-LED intensity levels and a dimmer red LED; you can set any intensity to various strobe patterns to flash your presence, signaling your presence to cars and cyclists at night.

I've never cared to use Garmin's torch much. It's nice to whip out with a quick double-button tap to stumble to the bathroom, illuminate your pathway, or navigate a tent zipper without blinding others nearby. However, its max brightness can't match a typical phone flashlight, while still burning through your battery quickly.

I'd rather have it and not need it than the opposite. If your phone dies in an emergency, this flashlight is much better than the display flashlight mode on most watches. But if you regularly run at night, you'll still need a knuckle light or headlamp.

Garmin Instinct 3: GPS & HR accuracy

• The Elevate v4 sensor is as accurate as recent Garmin watches.
• Instinct 2 owners should appreciate the boost in accuracy for location and heart rate.

Garmin gave the Instinct 3 the same Elevate v4 sensor as the last few years of Garmin watches. While its multi-band GPS is industry-leading for accuracy, it hasn't changed much in recent years, aside from the SatIQ mode, which saves battery by only using multiple satellites when there's signal blockage.

All that is to say, if you've read any of my dozen Garmin reviews since 2022, there's nothing new to say here. I'll run through my results briefly, but the Instinct 3 is about as accurate as any other recent Garmin watch.

The Instinct 3's optical HR sensor did fairly well keeping up with an optical arm band, with only a little lag, and ended with the same average heart rate. But for a track workout, there's a more noticeable gap for anaerobic sprints, and it ended 1 bpm short.

That's better than most fitness watch brands and not a substantial difference for everyday athletes, but the Elevate v5 sensor in the Venu 3 and Fenix 8 is slightly more responsive. And that's not to mention the missing ECG and skin temperature readings.

I ran five miles wearing the Polar Vantage M3 and Garmin Instinct 3 for a wrist-based comparison. The Vantage M3 lagged behind the Instinct 3 for most quick HR changes, but both ended with the same HR average. This test suggested that Garmin's sensor is slightly more responsive to changes, even though it's using older tech.

During the run, the dual-band Vantage M3 measured 0.01 miles or 16m more distance than the Instinct 3, which was using SatIQ mode. Polar's tracking was slightly more accurate at most points, while Garmin tended to drift off the trail a bit under light foliage while staying dead-on when unobstructed.

This is my typical experience with SatIQ mode, which doesn't always kick in with better accuracy quickly enough. But it also shows how Garmin's standard GPS tracking keeps pace with other brands' multi-band results, which is reassuring.

The map above shows me running three-mile-long loops on a set path with my Instinct 3. There's slight wavering at some points, whether because of foliage or having to run around people, but the tracking is dead-on in most cases.

If you own a GPS-only Garmin watch with older Elevate sensors, or if you switch from another brand, you'll be thrilled with this level of accuracy. Instinct 2 owners will certainly appreciate the location boost, but the heart rate accuracy is the same; invest in an HRM chest strap or COROS armband for better results.

Garmin Instinct 3: Software

• Garmin stables like Morning Report, Body Battery, and more are here.
• Lacks "smart" features like offline maps, music, and Bluetooth calling.
• You may need a Connect Plus subscription for extra features.

Garmin packs too many features into its watches to reasonably address one by one, so I've listed the highlights, bolding the features that the Instinct 2 lacked.

After a night of sleep, you'll get a sleep score and coaching on how to improve it baked into your Morning Report along with HRV status, Body Battery, training readiness, weather, and any calendar reminders.

Garmin is particularly good at judging heart rate variability, which measures your body's workout recovery and all-night blood oxygen levels. I just wish we had ECG and skin temperature readings.

Despite its extra memory and new display, the Instinct 3 isn't "smart." You won't find music storage, offline maps, Bluetooth calling, or commands. Its LiveTrack and emergency tools only work through your phone because it lacks an LTE option.

The Instinct 3's lightweight CPU helps it last longer, so I'm fine with most limitations. But I fully attribute its breadcrumb navigation to Garmin's rigid price tiers. Most recent AMOLED fitness watches in the $300+ range have started adding topographic maps, so you can download your regional data and follow nearby trails in an emergency. The Instinct 3 "adventure watch" should have done the same!

Thankfully, Garmin didn't hold the Instinct 3 back for general training guidance. You get the full training suite, including daily workout suggestions, low/high aerobic and anaerobic load breakdowns to help guide your training, and long-term Garmin Coach plans.

New advanced running and cycling dynamics analyze your form. Your grade-adjusted pace tells you how fast you're truly going relative to the elevation gain or loss. During intervals, the Instinct 3 can show your rest timer, allow for open repeats, or auto-detect starts — things the Instinct 2's tiny brain couldn't handle.

There are a few software perks on the Fenix 8 like hill & endurance scores, Strava Live Segments, diving tools, and (again) topo maps that you might wish the Instinct 3 had. But overall, the core Garmin experience is the same as ever. It's very easy to use this watch to get fitter or faster, and the AMOLED display exhibits your data in accessible charts.

As a final side note, the Instinct 3 doesn't come with a complimentary Connect Plus subscription period, which is a shame. No major Instinct 3 features are locked behind this paywall, but you may still end up paying for it.

Garmin Instinct 3: Competition

If money is no object, you may want to weigh the Instinct 3 against the Fenix 8. The latter has faster performance, offline maps, a touchscreen, and a speaker for voice commands and calling, with comparable battery life. You could also consider the Enduro 3 as a longer-lived (and much smarter) Solar alternative, but both watches cost hundreds more.

For a cheaper, long-lived AMOLED watch, consider the COROS PACE Pro, which lasts 20 days or 31 dual-frequency GPS hours per charge. You get perks like offline maps, MP3 music storage, and Strava Live Segments on top of COROS's similar training load tools and marathon training plans, though not a mic/speaker or contactless payments.

Garmin Instinct 3: Should you buy it?

You should buy the Garmin Instinct 3 if...

• You want a rugged, comfortable watch with weeks of battery life.
• You already know you like Garmin's training tools more than apps & smarts.
• You don't mind using your phone to follow trails.

You shouldn't buy the Garmin Instinct 3 if...

• You need a watch that'll blend in.
• You want a touchscreen, voice commands, music storage, or apps.
• You'd be fine with a cheaper Garmin that "only" lasts two weeks.

I loved the Garmin Instinct 2 and 2X for their longevity, but I barely used them outside of workouts. By adding an AMOLED display, the Instinct 3 is slightly more usable, even if the buttons and slow CPU hold it back.

The Instinct 3 AMOLED feels like a longer-lived, rugged Forerunner 265, but since that came out in 2023 — and the Forerunner 275 and 975 should (allegedly) arrive soon — I'm not sure if Garmin gave its new Instinct enough of a distinct identity, now that it's not an "unlimited" battery watch.

Garmin Instinct fans clearly don't care about the bells and whistles, however, so they won't care that the Instinct 3 doesn't have them! Ignore my nitpicks and enjoy the fact that it's objectively better than the Instinct 2 and 2X.

When a major race like the Boston Marathon ends, most people only focus on the finish times. But pro athletes only hit these insane 2-hours-and-change times by being painstakingly exact with splits, running form, and other stats you get from a fitness watch.

So when COROS sent me its Pro runners' Boston Marathon stats like per-mile heart rate, cadence, and effort pace, I knew I had a lot to learn from their approach!

You can't compare your flag football stats against Patrick Mahomes or pickup basketball results against Steph Curry. But all runners are on the same playing field, aiming for the same distance.

First, I picked through the runner summaries COROS sent for Yalemzerf Yehualaw (3rd place), Emma Bates (13th), Des Linden (17th), Charlie Sweeney (19th), and Reed Fischer (21st), all top-tier runners for one of the most famous races in the world.

All of COROS' Boston Marathon team wore either the $349 COROS PACE Pro (Linden) or $229 COROS PACE 3 (Bates, Yalemzerf, Sweeney). It's pretty cool knowing they use the same tools as everyday runners to analyze their own stats — and that you can directly compare your data against theirs to provide humbling context and insight.

COROS was also kind enough to send a spreadsheet of per-mile stats for Bates, Fischer, and Linden for their pace, cadence, average/ max heart rate, and the changes from one mile to the next — or lack thereof — is fascinating and enlightening.

Here's what I gleaned from looking through these pro runner stats!

Consistency is vital

From miles 2 through 16, Reed Fischer's pace never changed by more than 6 seconds. And from mile 5 onwards, his average heart rate stayed in the same 170–176 range — while his average and max HR were almost always within 1–2 bpm.

Des Linden's average cadence fell between 188–191 steps per minute for the entire race until the final 0.2-mile sprint to the finish. Even when her pace dipped and stride lost power, she kept the same speed of her form, and her per-mile pace was remarkably consistent even across elevation changes.

I don't have Yehualaw's per-mile stats, but it's very telling that the gap between her fastest and average kilometer is only 20 seconds. And Linden, a role model for running longevity at 43, only had a 5-second gap between her mile-1 and mile-26 times, and a 33-second gap between her fastest and slowest mile.

These stats are a great reminder that you don't want to let your fellow runners dictate your pace. Even when you're in the zone and feeling great, you must restrain yourself, stick within your capabilities, and keep your heart pumping to the beat of a metronome.

You're probably trying too hard

I don't know these athletes' actual max HRs or lactate thresholds, but the "220 minus age" estimate shows me that all these runners were probably running, on average, right at the border between Zone 4 and 5 for most of their run. That's certainly not easy, but they rarely approach their max effort.

In fact, their heart rate tends to dip in the final miles; they ease off their pace to stick to what their bodies are capable of.

COROS has an "Effort Pace" metric that combines grade-adjusted pace (GAP) with your ability level to judge how hard you're working to hit a pace and adjusting the speed accordingly. By and large, these runners' effort pace was almost always lower than their real pace; they didn't push harder than their usual abilities, even for the biggest race of the year.

Fischer's first four miles did show a higher effort pace than actual pace, which I'd guess stems from him trying to stick with the faster leaders for the first 5K. Once he fell behind, his pace became more efficient and within his means.

Our goal, then, should be to keep at a similarly consistent heart rate and foot speed for our races rather than trying to outperform our capabilities and burn out in the later miles. If you want to go faster, build up your speed and endurance until you can naturally maintain a faster cadence.

There's no shortcut for getting faster

I averaged about 25 spm fewer than Charley Sweeney (who is my height) in my recent half-marathon PR, or 14 spm fewer during a max-effort interval workout. That's not a surprise or anything; just like when I tried to match Olympic paces on my local track, I know my running capabilities are firmly amateur.

But it did tempt me to consider whether I should try to change my running form to aim for faster step speed...until I remembered the time I asked Garmin Forerunner product manager Joe Heikes how to improve my running form. He basically warned me not to.

Any self-correction to change your natural form will lead to "less economical running," Heikes said, and runners should instead use form data like cadence as a benchmark; the lighter, faster, and stronger you get, the less wasted movement and slow turnover you should see without any conscious changes.

If there is a way to improve your form, it's with strength training to make your muscles capable of the extra impact. COROS coaches suggest burpees, mountain climbers, and other bodyweight jumps for faster ground contact time and lower-body exercises like squats, deadlifts, and calf/heel raises for a stronger stride.

The main point being, if I want to emulate these athletes' foot speed, it's arguably just as much about strength as endurance. These stats were a bit of a wake-up call to stop neglecting my cross-training.

Emulating their approach (only slower)

Plenty of amateur runners will look at these stats and get discouraged, knowing they couldn't run one mile as fast as these athletes' slowest Boston Marathon mile.

I look at it differently. I know that I can't run that fast, obviously, but I can emulate their race tactics.

My per-mile efficiency or performance condition stats show the turning point when I have to start using more effort at a higher heart rate than I should; the goal is to push that point further back.

During a race, I need to practice consistent pace and heart rate habits. Rather than just sink into the zone and run at a pace that feels right until my legs give out, I can use my running watch data to stay at a pace I can manage, particularly in the early miles when it's easy to get carried away.

This week, I wore augmented reality glasses that showed my pace, heart rate, power, and other stats in the corner of my vision while running, the data ported over from my Garmin Fenix 8. While I don't think the hardware is quite there yet, it's enough to excite me about the future possibilities.

I need more time to review my ENGO 2 AR glasses properly, but the concept fascinated me when ENGO pitched their running HUD to me. Would seeing real-time stats with just a glance inspire or distract me?

The design is best suited to cyclists who need to keep their eyes on the road and off their watch or bike computer. However, there's a reason why so many runners rely on audio prompts to display their stats, without having to break stride and look down at their wrists.

So, I wore these smart glasses on some hilly runs and hikes, using stats like elevation gain and average ascent speed to motivate myself to keep pushing, plus my average heart rate to see if my training load focus would fall into low/high aerobic or anaerobic zones.

My main takeaways? Like most AR glasses, this running HUD's design and visibility require some improvement, as does the software. However, when we start to see glasses with lighter frames and wider field of view (FoV), fitness-focused smart glasses could become a real use case.

Running AR glasses have to find the right balance

ENGO knew that runners and cyclists wouldn't put up with heavy AR glasses. The ENGO 2 only weighs 36–41g, depending on the size, or a little over an ounce. That's lighter than Meta Ray-Bans (about 50g) without any holographic tech, and well below AR glasses like Meta Orion (90g) or Xreal One (87g).

It also has an all-day battery. It's rated for 12 hours, and while I haven't worn them that long, the percentage barely dipped after an hour of use. Compared to battery-guzzling AR glasses tethered to a phone or battery, that's pretty great.

Then again, these ENGO 2 glasses don't have traditional smart glasses features like cameras, speakers, or an AI assistant. They're highly specialized and rely on data from another device to work. In other words, they're only that efficient because of their simplicity.

My first real issue with the ENGO 2 is that its weight is centered on the bridge and nose pads, where the battery and HUD are located. The guts of the device block my center FoV and make the frames slide down my nose every few strides.

My second issue is that ENGO was so conscientious about keeping athletes' vision unblocked that the monocular holographic portion is small, blurry (to my near-sighted eyes), and becomes cut off whenever the glasses slide down my nose. I can read everything, but I have to take my eyes and attention off the trail to do so.

Plus, ENGO 2 glasses rely on a finicky motion control sensor to swipe between data fields. I'd find myself waving my hand in front of my face several times before it registered the switch, and since there's no "back" option, you must wave through your entire dashboard to return to the first set of stats. It's better than awkward button controls, but still more distracting than I'd like.

ENGO sent me the photochromic glasses that adjust to the current light. They're easier to wear in any conditions than the static sunglasses, but also a bit goofier looking without that reflective layer, so I might feel a bit self-conscious wearing them at a race.

Again, this isn't a review. I'm mainly using the ENGO 2 as an example of how challenging it is to get AR glasses right.

Why athletes should pay attention to smart and AR glasses (eventually)

The moment I reviewed Meta's Ray-Bans, I saw their fitness potential. So it doesn't surprise me that Meta sees it too: its next Oakley smart glasses will supposedly target athletes. It even added HR tracking to its research AR glasses, though I wonder how accurate it is compared to a smartwatch or chest strap.

Just like the ENGO 2, Meta Ray-Bans tend to slide down my nose while running, and the weight takes getting used to. However, the built-in speakers fulfill the same open-ear headphone niche as my Shokz OpenFit 2s, and the camera allows you to capture candid, first-person photos or videos of your races or activities.

Since smart glasses are essentially portable Bluetooth speakers, they can already read audio prompts from a Garmin watch for lap or mile data, or when you leave your target zone. However, that's not as dynamic as AR glasses, which continuously display this data.

What if someone — Meta, Google, Samsung, or someone else — can pull off the whole package? Could we see AR glasses with audio and AI capabilities packaged with holographic tech and HR tracking? Ideally, with a wider FoV that makes data more naturally readable without obstructing your vision?

Meta's upcoming Hypernova AR glasses will feature a monocular display in the bottom-right lens area, along with an upgraded camera and an sEMG band that detects finger gestures for controls. Imagine if you could tap your fingers together mid-stride to pull up your HR data in your vision, then tap them again to clear the display?

Meanwhile, Google and Samsung are developing Project Haean smart glasses with holographic capabilities that only weigh 50g or so. There's no guarantee that these glasses will support fitness use cases, but it's reasonable to expect that Android XR might offer turn-by-turn navigation for GPX routes or display your Fitbit or Samsung Health data for workouts.

Yes, these are just hypotheticals. However, I honestly believe that smart glasses brands will follow ENGO's lead and treat fitness as a major use case, once they're petite and long-lasting enough to appeal to users outside the hardcore tech sphere.

Now's the time to ask yourself: Do you want a HUD to display your health data, so you're always aware of whether you're sticking to your target pace or falling short? Or do you think your current fitness smartwatch or bike computer is enough?

Last year, I wrote about how I was done with heart rate monitor chest straps, for both comfort and accuracy reasons. Cut to 2025, and I still don't find them especially comfortable to wear. But after testing the new Garmin HRM 200 against the Polar H10 and COROS HRM across multiple runs, I'm happy to admit that I was overly harsh on chest straps.

Garmin sent me the HRM 200 with my Instinct 3, which I've been testing for months. By contrast, I shoved Garmin's chest strap into a drawer and subconsciously suppressed its existence, ahem, forgot about it until this week.

The Garmin HRM 200, like any chest strap, cuts out the wrist-based optical middleman and directly reads your heart's electrical signals for better accuracy. It's water resistant, highly affordable at $79, and lasts about a year before you need to swap out the batteries.

Unsurprisingly, I found it uncomfortable. But it did outperform my Garmin Fenix 8's Elevate v5 optical sensor for accuracy, for the sticklers who need near-perfect data. It's not standalone like the Garmin HRM-Pro, but otherwise, chest strap fans should love it.

I decided to test the Garmin HRM 200 and Polar H10 against each other — and against my COROS HRM armband that I much prefer — and give chest straps another chance to impress me.

My simple beef with chest straps

Chest straps aren't kind to people with dadbods. The strap naturally digs into my skin at the fit necessary to keep a consistent, non-slip connection.

I've lost enough weight in the past year that this is less of an issue than before, but my real complaint is how a chest strap keeps me out of the "zone." It hugs my chest with every breath, reminding me that my performance is being monitored and judged at all times, and making me self-conscious if my breathing rate gets high.

But I acknowledge that my dislikes may not apply to you. I think I'm more hypersensitive to tight clothing — like ties or skinny jeans — than other people. Just because I don't like chest straps doesn't mean I can ignore them; it's my job to give them a fair shake.

My more fundamental Polar H10 issue was how it produced bizarrely erratic results across several runs in 2024, no matter how well I adjusted the fit or wet the contact sensors.

Eventually, I discovered that my Polar H10 only worked as intended when connected to a smartwatch. I was using the option to track workouts directly in the Polar Beat app, and for whatever reason, the wonky phone-strap Bluetooth connection would sub in deflated readings at odd moments that badly skewed the results.

Once I started syncing my Polar H10 to a watch, it became a reliable control group for my accuracy tests. But I remained a bit suspicious that chest straps were overhyped.

Now that I had two chest straps, I decided it was time to see just how consistent these devices are, and if the accuracy gap is worth the trade-offs.

My Garmin HRM 200 vs. Polar H10 vs. COROS HRM accuracy test

My only way to compare all three straps' data was to wear three smartwatches — Garmin Fenix 8, COROS PACE Pro, and Polar Vantage M3 — connected to each, with the Garmin HRM 200 and Polar H10 stacked atop one another on my chest and the COROS optical sensor on my arm.

Aside from being a goofy-looking setup, I could only hope this close chest strap proximity wouldn't interfere with the results.

My hour-long, high-aerobic run started off shaky, with COROS' data elevated by about 30 bpm, Garmin taking a minute to catch up, and Polar having one early, random dip. But everything stabilized quickly, and there were no other issues for the remaining 58 minutes.

The chart above shows how all three devices compare, while the chart below focuses on the two chest straps. All three straps measured a 168 bpm average.

Typically, wrist-based optical sensors fall 1–3 bpm short in my tests, with a noticeable delay when I change my pace or climb hills. The COROS HRM still shows a bit of that lag, but it's minimal enough that only the most fussy of runners would notice.

As for the two chest straps, they're in near-lockstep for the majority of the run, which impressed me!

The bigger accuracy test, as always, was the track workout. I foolishly ran it the next morning when I was still tired, so I struggled to hit my usual max-HR levels. But I still got almost three miles of sprints, hard running, jogging, and walking, challenging my heart rate monitors to follow the rapid changes.

This time, there were noticeable gaps between the three devices. Both COROS and Polar lagged slightly behind Garmin's HR peaks and valleys instead of the two chest straps leaving the armband behind.

That doesn't mean Garmin's HRM 200 is more accurate, necessarily. The Polar H10 may have been slightly disadvantaged, placed beneath the HRM 200 so it wasn't as close to my heart. And I don't know if Garmin's spikier graph than Polar's steady one means it was faster at catching tiny HR fluctuations or was just slightly more inconsistent.

(Note: Ignore the Polar H10's one awkward flat-line near the end; it's a known issue where Polar's data freezes on the last HR result when you pause a workout. I tried to avoid pausing, but like I said, I was exhausted.)

Ultimately, the Garmin HRM 200 and COROS HRM both showed a 174 bpm average and 188 bpm maximum, while the Polar H10 fell 1 bpm short at 173 and 187, respectively. I'm happy to chalk that up to awkward chest placement, and it's much better than how my H10 performed in the past.

If I contrast that with every track workout test I've done with fitness smartwatches, some wrist-based optical sensors are better than others, but even the best will fall a few beats per minute short of the mark. I understand why people rely on specialized HRM straps for the best data.

I'm sticking with my armband, but you don't have to

I'm always happy to change my opinion when confronted with new information. After a week of dual chest straps and wearing multiple watches at once, I can state what most people would consider obvious: chest straps' data is more consistent than I gave them credit for.

But I'm not budging on the other part of my argument. Yes, the COROS HRM optical readings aren't as immediately responsive and accurate as the Garmin HRM 200 or Polar H10. But the gap is so minimal, and an armband vanishes from my consciousness after five minutes while a chest strap takes up mental real estate the entire time.

Basically, unless you truly need the best-possible accuracy, I'd point you towards a COROS HRM or Polar Verity Sense to improve on your watch's unreliable readings — and I hope Garmin considers an arm-based sensor of its own.

If you're not as hypersensitive to tight devices as I am, the Garmin HRM 200 is an excellent deal for Garmin watch owners.

Garmin Connect Plus is a surprisingly useful skeleton of a strong fitness subscription. The AI is mostly a retread of the Garmin analytics you know and love, with plenty of room to improve. But it's just window dressing next to the Performance Dashboard, coaching videos, and other features designed to give Garmin fans FOMO.

But the better Connect Plus gets and the more features it receives, the more it will piss off loyal Garmin customers already revolting over the service.

Garmin Connect Plus is arguably the most significant change Garmin has made to its business model in years. It joins the AI health and fitness trend alongside Fitbit, Samsung Health, and Strava (among others). In doing so, Garmin undermined its decade-long business model of free software paired with expensive hardware.

Rather than focus on whether or not Garmin should have made Connect Plus — or at least bundled it with recent Fenix 8 purchases or all recent Garmin watches to ease the transition — I'll discuss how Connect Plus works in practice, what needs improvements, and where things should go from here.

Active Intelligence has a ton of room to grow

Garmin Active Intelligence and Strava Athlete Intelligence invite obvious comparisons. Aside from the similar names, both analyze personalized fitness data and contextualize recent activities against past trends. Strava's AI recently left beta, while Garmin's may be in beta for some time. So let's compare them!

Garmin's AI is basically a time-sensitive chatbot that reacts to your most recent or relevant fitness data and trends. I've seen it discuss my intensity minute trends, current training status, most recent activity, elevated stress averages, and daily step trends over the past couple of days.

It ranges from insightful to nagging and sometimes repeats itself when it runs out of things to say.

Strava's AI focuses more closely on individual workouts. Each activity will compare your heart rate, HR zone breakdown, pace, elevation gain, and Relative Effort against your 30-day average. That's something I'd love to see Garmin emulate, showing a static AI breakdown in each run's "Overview" rather than a fleeting note in the Home page.

I will say that Garmin's AI seems a bit more polished than Strava's AI was in early beta; I still remember the latter telling me that my 140 bpm-average run was an anaerobic effort. On the other hand, Active Intelligence repeats info from the In Focus charts, watch face data fields, or Glance widgets on your watch. Basically, it's about reinforcing what Garmin considers important, not anything "original."

Maybe the AI will get more focused and specialized based on what tidbits you label as "Interesting" or "Not Interesting" in the app. At least, I hope it will!

I rarely sleep wearing my Garmin watch; people who closely follow their HRV Status or Body Battery data may benefit more from these text-based summaries. For the people who only wear Garmin watches for activities and Garmin Coach, I hope they can make Active Intelligence more focused on that side of things.

For instance, the Garmin Coach tab could show an AI summary of how you've improved since Week 1, or how well you're keeping up with your scheduled workouts. Or the Challenges view could note if you're behind on certain goals and what kind of workout you should do next to keep track.

I'd like to see Active Intelligence focus more on longer-term trends. The Performance Dashboard (see the next section) has a ton of useful insights and trends across years of data; maybe the AI can note which charts and fields you're tracking and update you on changing trends when you don't have time to log into the desktop app.

As it is, Active Intelligence is a nice, limited perk. Garmin watches were already special because people could trust the Firstbeat Analytics algorithm analyzing their data behind the scenes. This AI just puts that information into text form. So, let's talk more about the other Connect Plus features.

Performance Dashboard is the best part of Connect Plus

I haven't spent much time in the Garmin Connect desktop app, except to export GPX files for my HR and GPS tests; the mobile version is more accessible and doesn't trigger a 2FA code, no matter how often I check "Remember Me." However, the Performance Dashboard makes the desktop Connect app so much more compelling.

This new Connect Plus feature has 123 charts, and you can set up a max of 18 to be visible at any given time. There are far too many categories to list here, but you can track the basics like distance, number of activities, or training load, or more specialized stats like your running form, endurance/hill scores, cycling power, swim strokes, Body Battery, or race predictor over time.

For each of your 18 charts, you can set a custom date range like "this month" or "last 26 weeks," as well as add overlay stats so you can see (for example) how your total distance over time matches with your chronic load or average daily stress.

Basically, it's a treasure trove of data that you can fine-tune into a much better and personalized summary of your recent progress than Garmin can fit into its mobile "In Focus" section.

My immediate favorite? The "Comparison" charts that show how my 2025 number of activities, mileage, or elevation gain compares to my stats in 2024. It helps me see (without having to write down stats myself) that I've fallen slightly behind and need to pick up the pace in April.

It's incredibly comprehensive and customizable from my perspective as a semi-serious runner. So the only real complaint I can make about Performance Dashboard is, well, that Garmin held this back for its subscription service.

Garmin Coach's Training Guidance has the most potential

If you sign up for Garmin Run or Cycling Coach, you get a months-long training program with customized workouts; no subscription is needed. What's new is "additional exclusive expert guidance from Garmin coaches — including educational content and videos — for peak performance."

I haven't seen too much of this yet because you only get one video per day; I've seen a generic "Welcome to your plan" onboarding video and another describing why "base" workouts matter.

But Garmin has always talked about its Coaching algorithm being backed by real-life coaches, and I'd love to see daily videos tied to your current workout or general advice.

For instance, if you have an anaerobic sprint workout planned, a coach could explain why it's necessary for runners who prefer longer, slower runs; show footage of possible warm-up stretches before your sprints; or talk about different types of track workouts if you're bored with Garmin's usual options.

Specific to the new Garmin strength cross-training workouts, we could see videos related to proper squat form or how certain muscle groups translate into better running or cycling form. I doubt they'd have the production value of Apple Fitness+ workout videos, but it's a start!

I can't say whether these educational videos will live up to my hopes, but this feels like a natural way for Garmin to augment its free Coach with content that feels reasonable to pay for rather than a feature that should be free.

New badges: Fun novelty or pay-to-win mistake?

I don't pay much attention to Garmin badges except as a motivator to try and hit certain monthly or quarterly mileage and steps goals. Others take these badges as a point of pride, competing with friends on points leaderboards.

Now, Connect Plus is adding a bunch of new, gold-tinted badges that provide more variety in what you can track. Next month, you can aim to burn 8,000 calories, climb 500/1,000 meters while running or hiking, record 3 hours in HR zone 3, hit a high Body Battery score for 7+ days, or average a fast pace or higher HR across a few hours of walking.

Garmin badges have always felt too rigid and repetitive to me, so I see this as a fun novelty, especially if Garmin offers unique challenges every month. But I can absolutely understand how the more serious Garmin power users might see this as a pay-to-win change that upends the entire system because people who don't pay for Connect Plus can't keep up with those who do.

What comes next with Connect Plus

Garmin always felt like the exception to these subscription-driven companies, selling pricey hardware that would pay itself off by lasting for years with no post-purchase fees.

Connect Plus changes that, and while long-time fans might not care about the AI, they'll certainly resent not getting the Performance Dashboard and the other perks.

Some of the Connect Plus features feel like niche, power-user upgrades. It would've been nice if the new LiveTrack upgrades — a dedicated URL, auto-text alerts, and the option to embed your progress chart on a website — had been free updates, but I doubt the majority of Garmin customers use LiveTrack (correct me if I'm wrong!).

The new Live Activity tool feels much more like a "base" feature. You can see a few real-time stats in the mobile app during an activity, as well as trigger the next step in an indoor workout while checking the proper form for about 500 different exercise types. This has a lot of widespread appeal, both for regular gym-goers and for beginners, and it's a shame to see it behind the paywall.

Overall, I think Connect Plus would've always annoyed people on principle, but less so if Garmin had had the foresight to offer a longer trial period to recent watch buyers. Google and Apple give a six-month trial with a new device, and Samsung has made Galaxy AI free for a couple of years. If Garmin had done the same, it would've lessened the sting a bit.

As it is, we're going to have to watch closely to see what Garmin does with Connect+ moving forward. In most cases, people wait eagerly for new features; in this case, any new Connect+ features through the rest of 2025 will only worsen the outrage.

I'm not an expert on the EU Digital Markets Act, which, as of this week, requires Apple to make exclusive Apple Watch features available on third-party watches. Nor can I predict whether or not Apple will subvert or defy the ruling. But I can speak to how transformative this could be for fitness smartwatches — eventually — if Apple is forced to comply.

The DMA decision on March 19 lists out how Apple must provide "effective interoperability" to let any connected device "receive, access, use, respond to, and transmit iOS notifications as well as to select and manage which notifications are displayed."

Third-party watches would receive "background execution" access, so notifications and replies don't require the companion app running in the foreground as an intermediary. They'd also access faster data transfer (aka AirPlay) and settings like Do Not Disturb and priority notifications.

Apple will, of course, fight this tooth and nail. The Verge quotes an Apple spokesperson as saying, "Today’s decisions wrap us in red tape...forcing us to give away our new features for free to companies who don’t have to play by the same rules. We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns."

Just as Google failed to comply with the DMA, Apple may decide not to follow the ruling. But let's play out the hypothetical here and envision how fitness smartwatches (and non-fitness watches) could evolve with full iOS and Android access.

Garmin is the "smartest" fitness brand, and it can only do so much

Garmin represents the rare fitness brand that tries to sell "smart" mainstream watches like the Venu 3 or Fenix 8, with smart assistants, Garmin Pay, and a few third-party apps like Spotify and YouTube Music.

However, Garmin only pulled off a mini-walled garden of smarts and apps the same way Fitbit did before its Google acquisition. Both brands were so successful that they had the gravity to bring major apps to the bargaining table.

Garmin also used its higher cash flow to acquire businesses like Firstbeat Analytics and FitPay for a smarter training algorithm and contactless payments. Most fitness brands can't get third-party payment services to support them.

And because Garmin has an eclectic mix of iPhone and Android customers — its latest earnings show more than half of its sales come in Europe and Asia, where Android phones are more popular — it supports a couple of basic Android-only smart features, most notably quick replies to Google Messages and the ability to see images in notifications. Apple blocks both (for now).

But despite all that effort and its advantages, a Garmin watch isn't that advanced for messaging, turn-by-turn navigation, voice commands, and other tricks you get on watchOS or Wear OS. That applies double to brands like COROS, Polar, Suunto, and Whoop, which lack the same reach or leverage.

An open iOS means more non-fitness smartwatches

I'm excited to try the new Pebble watches, but former Pebble founder Eric Migicovsky had to "set expectations" on his blog about how Apple's policies hamstring them. Pebble watches on iOS can't offer to message, mark tasks as done, ignore notifications you've seen on your phone, support background execution, or create their own mini-app store for third-party watch faces and functions.

In his case, he says upfront that the definitive way to use a Pebble watch is to pair it with an Android phone. However, 40% of his interested customers use an iPhone; Apple's ecosystem is too large to simply ignore it.

Even most of the old Wear OS brands — Samsung Galaxy, Mobvoi TicWatch, and Fossil — were "compatible" with iPhones for years. But they had such limited functionality thanks to Apple's uncompetitive practices that they've mostly given up and turned to Google's semi-walled Wear OS garden to survive, or (in Fossil's case) given up on smartwatches.

They could only "work" on iOS because they had health and fitness tools independent of their blocked smarts. And every other non-Apple watch for iPhones has been funneled down this path.

I believe that Apple's policies have (unintentionally) helped make smartwatches much stronger for health and fitness across the industry. After Pebble shut down, brands knew they couldn't make creative lifestyle watches without close phone integration for apps and messaging. So they focused on a use case that Apple couldn't restrict and turned a weakness into a strength with low-powered watches that lasted weeks.

If this ruling takes effect, it would change the entire industry. Yes, fitness watches would be unleashed to encroach on rival territory. And smaller, health-focused brands like Masimo and Withings suddenly gain access to greater smarts. But we could also see watches that emphasize something other than fitness now that they can.

The obvious example would be a Meta watch with the Meta AI assistant and EMG band for contextual commands and gesture recognition, unrestricted by Apple's policies. But I'd hope to see more indie brands like Repebble shoot their shot and try smart gimmicks that I've never even conceived of without the same pressure to add reliable health data or fitness coaching.

A distant and unlikely interoperable future

I don't know how much fitness smartwatches will change if Apple obeys this ruling. Yes, background refreshes, closer syncing with your DND settings, interactive replies, and quicker file transfers would benefit any fitness smartwatch. But not every smartwatch is optimized to use messaging.

They'll need mics for voice-to-text or AMOLED displays with faster touch sampling. This probably wouldn't be possible on watches like the Garmin Instinct 3, optimized for long battery life with a slower processor. Maybe Garmin would restrict messaging to its lifestyle watches and prioritize battery life on its Forerunners and Instincts.

Crucially, Garmin (and other brands) would be able to decide to stick to their strengths instead of Apple deciding for them. If they prioritized faster performance, this would benefit both iOS and Android users; a better chip and more widespread assistant would make RCS messaging better, too.

Of course, the original point still stands. This isn't like changing from Lightning to USB-C or allowing sideloading; it would fundamentally change the entire operating system, and Apple could spend years disputing the ruling. Then, fitness watches would have to license more robust hardware and test the software. Who knows how long that could take?

But if it does happen, it would certainly make things more exciting and competitive for smartwatch fans, whichever smartphone they own!

Garmin-loving runners are eagerly awaiting a new Garmin Forerunner 975 or Forerunner 275. The last models launched in March 2023, but we've yet to see any concrete leaks despite the usual two-year gap.

The 5Krunner excited everyone by suggesting a mystery Garmin device at the FCC might be the Forerunner 975; a closer look suggested it's a rectangular, non-watch device, meaning the Forerunners still aren't imminent. But the mere suggestion set my brain racing on what the new 975 and 275 should offer whenever they do arrive.

I've reviewed about a dozen Garmin watches, and the Forerunner series has always catered directly to me as a runner and hiker. The Fenix 8 has obvious perks to justify the $1,100 price tag, but the Forerunner 965 remains my favorite smartwatch I've ever worn. I'm predictably excited for the next one!

Maybe Garmin thought March 2025 would put the new Forerunners too close to the Instinct 3 launch, or its schedule is still messy after the three-year wait for the MIP Forerunner 955, followed by a nine-month wait for the AMOLED 965.

Either way, I think it's fair to expect a Forerunner 275 and 975 in the next three months, and I think it'll be the most important launch Garmin has this year. Why? It'll show whether Garmin has any new ideas for serious runners and their training — or if it'll rely on incremental upgrades and gimmicks.

What's the post-AMOLED plan, Garmin?: What's next for Garmin's displays after AMOLED?

The Garmin Venu series started the company's AMOLED experiment, but it was really the Garmin Forerunner 265 and 965 launch in 2023 that, in hindsight, kicked off AMOLED as the new normal. Since then, the Fenix, Vivoactive, and Instinct lineups have transitioned partially or fully to AMOLED.

Garmin is working on MicroLED displays, but I'd expect them to be expensive add-ons for a Fenix or MARQ first. So what's the next defining change for Garmin watches?

Garmin spent the last few years pushing useful tools like multi-band GPS and improved Elevate health sensors across its sub-brands. Most recently, we've seen flashy hardware changes like the mic/speaker on the Venu 3 and the flashlight on the Instinct 3.

But there are signs that the rate of innovation is slowing down, especially for the mid-tier watches. Just look at the Instinct 3, which didn't get the new Elevate v5 sensors for ECG and skin temp readings, nor the Fenix 8's new UI or any kind of mapping support. It was a significant but safe upgrade over the Instinct 2.

The Forerunner 275 will clarify how Garmin's tiered system will work moving forward — whether Garmin continues to price-lock features that you'll see on much cheaper rival watches or not. The Forerunner 975 will show what Garmin has planned next to keep its core audience of serious runners and cyclists happy. Will it be flash or substance?

What I expect (and want) from the Garmin Forerunner 975: What features will the Garmin Forerunner 975 have?

I don't want the Forerunner 975 to be a mere Fenix 8-lite, but I'd certainly expect the 975 to get its Elevate v5 sensor suite, and Garmin may give it a flashlight, too. Maybe Garmin throws a mic and speaker in there, just to enable the same Bluetooth calling and offline voice assistant.

Otherwise, the Forerunner 975 should keep the titanium bezel on top of a light polymer body, and I'd be shocked if its AMOLED display gets any larger than 1.4 inches since even the Fenix 8 stopped there. Almost any other smartwatch at this price has sapphire glass, but I'd bet Garmin sticks to Gorilla Glass, unfortunately.

The Forerunner 965's 23-day battery life estimate is already excellent; the bigger priority for this generation would be increasing its SatiQ and multi-band GPS battery life above 22 and 19 hours, respectively.

I'm also curious if Garmin would debut a new GPS chipset or antenna design on the new Forerunners for better accuracy, but quite frankly, I'm already satisfied with the current tracking quality and think that might be overkill. But maybe Garmin will convince me otherwise.

My first big request is that Garmin finally bring back LTE for the first time since the Forerunner 945 LTE. Better safety tracking is just the start. If Garmin does give it a mic, then you get cellular calls and the option to message folks via Explore and voice-to-text. And in theory, Garmin could enable music streaming if that's your thing. This could be an optional upgrade at launch for $50–100 more.

My second request is that Garmin sell both 47mm and 43mm 975 watches, so runners with smaller wrists can benefit from the perks the 275 lacks. This is one of the few complaints I had with the 965, even though I prefer a larger size.

Since Garmin gave the Fenix 8 leak-proof buttons, that could theoretically benefit the 975 as a triathlete's watch, making it better suited for the swimming portion of your races.

I'm most interested in what kind of running or triathlete software Garmin could introduce or revamp.

The 965 has tools like chronic load, real-time stamina, endurance/ hill score, heat acclimation, and advanced cycling dynamics that you don't get on the 265 — not to mention maps. These vary from vital to novelties for athletes, and I'm curious if Garmin has any other improvements up its sleeve that can live up to training status and readiness for usefulness.

If Garmin has map-layer or route improvements for hikers, that'd certainly make outdoorsy types happy; for me, I just want faster zooming in and out, which would require Garmin to put more effort into its processor.

For my personal pet peeves, I've already written about how Garmin should revamp the training load so it splits out low/high aerobic and anaerobic portions based on time spent in each HR zone — not all to one category based on your HR average. I'd also like to be able to edit suggested workouts on the 965 based on how I'm feeling and to see my challenge progress on the watch, too. But that's more about nitpicking than finding a new "signature feature."

The Garmin Forerunner 275 probably won't rock the boat: Will the Forerunner 275 be a minor update?

The Forerunner 265 is an excellent running watch, but the main reason it's so useful is that Garmin artificially locks features like training load from the cheaper Forerunner 165. With the Forerunner 275, you can expect it to keep its mid-tier placement while maybe adding a couple of 965 exclusives like Endurance score or Strava Live Segments to keep things fresh.

Still, Garmin will keep some perks locked to the 975. I'd be shocked if Garmin gives it any materials besides polymer, though maybe it could add an aluminum bezel like the Vivoactive 5. The 275 should have music storage by default but no mapping based on Garmin's choice with the Instinct 3. And maybe Garmin will stick with the Elevate v4 sensors on this model, too (though I hope they don't).

In terms of flashy new features to excite the journalists, I wonder if Garmin is watching rival brands adding "AI insights" and LLM coaching and considering a "Garmin Coach" rebrand to make it a chatbot that inputs your fitness data and explains features for beginner runners.

I don't necessarily want this and am pretty happy with the current Firstbeat Analytics and daily suggested workouts, but AI is a fact of our daily lives now, and Garmin shareholders may want them to look into this option to appear cutting-edge in the fitness space.

Overall, though, I think the Garmin Forerunner 275 and 975 constitute such an important launch for Garmin because things do feel a bit stale right now, particularly below the $1,000 tier. These watches will represent whether Garmin watches still have some momentum in terms of innovation or if Garmin is starting to run out of fresh ideas.

But hey, if the Forerunner 975 and 275 are incremental upgrades, at least they can coast on the fact that their predecessors provide a fantastic foundation and already have most of the training tools you could ever want.

Strava may be the most popular fitness app in the world, with 135 million users and counting, 51 million logged activities per week, and 1 million communal clubs. But its new Athlete Intelligence shows Strava isn't resting on its laurels, and it wants you to know that its AI isn't "just an LLM," even if you might assume that.

On Wednesday, I watched cheerful Strava employees celebrate the opening of their new San Francisco HQ after a brief speech from San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie. He called Strava the "tip of the spear" to convince people that "San Francisco is open for business" and "the greatest city in the world."

Strava's multi-floor office focuses more on celebrating the world of fitness if anything. I toured the office with CEO Mike Martin and Chief of Staff Shelby Rhodes, who showed me meeting rooms named after internationally beloved segments like Central Park or Alpe d’Huez. I also saw a live Strava Photo Map that highlights photos that their AI labels as "beautiful" from around the world, as well as employees' bibs from their favorite races.

But my favorite exhibit focused on SF: a live, chronological map of the city that showed the live flyover progress of local Strava users' activity that day. It's an incredible effect, and I told the Strava execs that they should seriously consider upgrading its weekly heat maps to let users see the previous day's activity, at least in the big cities. They don't have any plans for it, but hopefully, I planted the seed for it to happen.

Add in the library of running books and wall art showing people's GPS-made art, and it was nerd heaven for a runner like me. But as much as I enjoyed the tour, my main objective was to sit down with CPO Matt Salazar and CTO Rob Terrell to dive into Athlete Intelligence — and figure out where Strava is going next.

Unsurprisingly, they couldn't say too much that's new about their "future roadmap," but I still got a sense of where Strava Athlete Intelligence could go next.

Athlete Intelligence has room to grow

Athlete Intelligence just left beta, and Strava claims "80+% of users say that Athlete Intelligence is very helpful" based on in-app feedback. I myself have noticed a definite improvement in the accuracy of the data, but I asked Salazar and Terrell what their vision of Athlete Intelligence is and how it benefits users.

Terrell explained that "it was important to me that Strava do something that was much more significant" than the "low-effort" LLMs out there that spit out vague answers and can only give generalized advice from Google.

Even if "from the outside, it looks like it's just an LLM," their goal was to "really synthesize the granular data that we have about the users' activity and do deeper analysis with machine learning to understand the context of that data."

Salazar, in turn, noted that "not all people are at the same experience level to interpret heart rate zones or their pace." Their AI makes this data "much simpler and easier to understand" for beginners who might not understand the impact of anaerobic activity or who don't want to check back at old activities to see how their pace has changed.

Strava's AI primarily focuses on runs, hikes, walks, and cycling. I asked about their plans to expand to other activities, and Salazar explained that even as they "make sure it covers everything," eventually, they want to ensure first that "when we put out something, it's a sufficient quality," and that other sports might need more internal testing before it's "fully baked."

I then noted that Athlete Intelligence is very responsive rather than proactive: It tells you how you did after the fact but doesn't necessarily recommend a training plan or target pace for future runs as you get on Garmin watches. Will that change?

Salazar said that they're not specifically looking for "the next AI thing we can do," but rather "how do we help users achieve their goals?" Up until now, that's been through incentives like challenge badges, monthly goal targets, and kudos from friends. But AI is one "particular tool that we're looking at" that could come into play next.

Terrell agreed that Strava "historically has been a backward-looking product" that largely leaves planning in users' hands and that while they're "not announcing any products" on this front at this time, they are "interested in...being forward-looking."

Even without any specifics, a more proactive form of Athlete Intelligence would make it more useful for beginners and serious athletes, so consider me hopeful that this evolution comes next.

Strava knows you're mad about race distances

The most passionate response I got from Terrell, Salazar, and even the CEO was when I jokingly mentioned the time I didn't get credit for a half-marathon PR because my watch didn't measure the full 13.1 miles. Apparently, a lot of users want Strava to "fix" this and aren't at all amused about it.

I frequently test the GPS accuracy of smartwatches and know how fallible they can be. But plenty of Strava users don't realize that — as Terrell put it — the app is "limited by the accuracy of devices that users are using" and that they want to be "as accurate as possible" rather than "fudge" the data.

Strava itself said in its Year in Review 2024 that 72% of Strava activities come from users' phones, which aren't necessarily as optimized as smartwatches when it comes to GPS accuracy.

Users can trim activities if they forget to pause before driving home, but letting users add distance to a run is a slippery slope. Yes, sometimes GPS inaccuracies give you the wrong data, but sometimes, it's the course itself that's short. Strava's team wants to be "truth tellers...when folks are trying to compare themselves against each other, especially at a pro level," Salazar explained.

"When we first joined, Matt and I were like, 'Let's just fix it. This is easy!' And then we dug into it, and it's like, oh yeah, there's nothing—," Terrell said, with Salazar jumping in with, "there's a lot of steps, yeah."

"We understand the user pain here, and we're looking for ways to solve it, but there's not an easy answer," Terrell concluded.

Strava could help you 'celebrate' your race triumphs better

I also asked if Strava would ever consider using its segment leaderboards to create official race leaderboards on Strava. They themselves said that more than half of runners at major marathons like NYC, Boston, and London logged their races on Strava last year, so what if runners could see how they ranked among Strava users and compare their race times against previous years?

Salazar answered very carefully that they "can't speak towards future roadmap, but...all I can say is that that use case is very important for us, and it's very much present in our minds. So I'm thinking about how we can help users celebrate that moment; we know it's a moment they want to celebrate."

While this isn't exactly a confirmation, it does make me optimistic that Strava might be working on race leaderboards that make it easier to connect with fellow racers you met. Labeling races and grouping times might make it easier for Athlete Intelligence to rate your effort compared to others in your age group and gender, which would be enlightening!

Where Strava goes next

Just in 2024, Strava added Athlete Intelligence, weekly and night heatmaps, a dark mode, and closer integrations with Oura and Apple Fitness Plus. So far this year, they've improved leaderboard integrity, made it easier to share your workout flyovers to brag on social media, and just this week added 3D FATMAP terrain data designed for winter sports athletes to see gradients, aspects, and even the nearby danger areas for avalanches.

Strava didn't have any other future info to share yet, aside from telling me about FATMAP the day before its reveal. But I did get Strava's execs to hint at "future stuff that we shouldn't talk about," in their words.

When I asked if Athlete Intelligence — which currently seems to focus on your last 30 days of activities for relative effort — would ever look at older data or take into account goals like "training for a marathon," Terrell circled back to his initial point:

"We're not just stuffing a prompt into an LLM; we are building custom models that will allow us to do different levels of interesting analysis. And what we can feed into the LLM will be much more specific to the users, sort of their lifelong fitness journey. So the LLM is going to be able to speak to a much broader array of aspects of your active life."

Salazar jumped in to agree that they're always asking "how can we develop more sophistication in what insights we can give the users," and that Athlete Intelligence "is not done by any means." They'll continue to grow and smarten up the feature, making it more useful for a wider range of athletes.

It'll be fascinating to see how Strava's AI efforts compare against a hypothetical Gemini Coach in Fitbit or the Samsung Health Coach coming to Wear OS 6. At the moment, Strava has a head start on Android watches and doesn't intend to slow down.

The Android Central team reviews dozens of smartwatches, smart rings, wireless earbuds, and other fitness-related accessories every year. But which devices do we buy for ourselves or keep using after the review ends?

I asked my Android Central colleagues, both full-time and freelance, to share their fitness insights. I asked which fitness apps they rely on as they switch from Samsung to Garmin to Fitbit — the baseline software that keeps their training on point while juggling different hardware for editorials and reviews. And I asked about their favorite wearable hardware.

Unsurprisingly, they had trouble picking just one watch or app as their favorite. I also told them to keep it short and sweet, so you can see from these lengthy answers how enthusiastic our team is about fitness tech!

Below are the fitness watches and fitness apps that we prefer when we don't have a deadline, the devices we trust to keep us healthy, lose weight, or get stronger or faster as an athlete.

Brady Snyder: Nike Run Club app, Garmin Enduro 3, and Samsung Galaxy Watch 6 Classic

I’ve used Nike Run Club to run over 1,500 miles across a decade and countless devices. There are a few reasons I’ve stuck by Nike Run Club over the years, starting with the app’s compatibility. It’s available on the App Store and the Google Play Store, and there are watchOS and Wear OS apps, too. On top of that, Garmin watches can automatically sync their run data with the NRC app on your phone.

NRC handles the basics excellently, with the bright and bold Nike font making your pace, duration, heart rate, and more visible at a glance. It supports media playback controls, and its post-run breakdowns are both data-rich and easy to understand. Like other running apps, NRC is as much a social media app as it is a fitness tracker. Luckily, these features are actually neat, and they prioritize friendly competition with other users (with weekly challenges) and yourself (with awards and milestones) while reminding you to rest. There are also training plans and guided runs, if you’re into that.

Whether I'm using my Garmin Enduro 3 for battery life and training insights or my Galaxy Watch 6 Classic for better phone integration, I’ve yet to find a running app I like more than Nike Run Club.

Tshaka Armstrong: Strong app, Nike Run Club, Samsung Galaxy Watch 7, Pixel Watch 3, Amazfit T-Rex 3, Apple Watch Series 10, Withings Body Scan, and Beats Powerbeats Pro 2

I’m not the runner that folks like Brady and Michael Hicks are, but ever since writing an article on VO2 Max and how to increase it, I’ve developed a masochistic joy for running (on the treadmill, mostly). For that article, I received professional advice and some coaching from world-class, elite Olympic coaches, and I’ve been obsessed with cardio training using periodization. In three months, I raised my VO2 Max by five points, which is important for me because exercise is the most impactful medicine I use to combat my Type II diabetes. To that end, Nike Run Club has been an indispensable tool for helping me continue progressing and increasing my heart health.

I generally spend more time “pumping iron” than running or rucking. None of the smartwatches’ companion apps do all the things that my favorite workout journal, the Strong app, does. The Strong app helps me track historical data, but more importantly, it helps me focus on lifts and the mind/muscle connection by removing the mental load of having to remember my strength training routines for different days (leg day, push/pull, etc.).

For those days of dynamic, high-intensity workouts or when I’m lying on a flat bench, Beats Powerbeats Pro 2 are my “go-to” workout earbuds. They don’t move. They sound great. On days that I choose to hit the heavy bag, I don’t have to worry about a watch not tracking my HR because the HRM in the Powerbeats Pro 2 has been rock solid so far, even keeping up beat-for-beat with my chest strap HRM.

The numbers on your scale are kaka unless those numbers are your body composition data. BMI is a terrible metric for many people, and your weight can be misleading as you start a workout regimen. That’s because muscle is more dense than fat, and as you put more of it on, it can actually look like your weight is going up! So, my favorite way of measuring physiological progress, which includes muscle gain, and fat loss, is the Withings Body Scan. The price isn’t for casual users, but using your health insurance’s FSA makes it accessible if it’s the kind of tool you need.

Derrek Lee: Gamin Venu 3, Pixel Watch 3, Oura Ring 4, Jabra Elite 8 Active, Withings Body Cardio, Strava, MyFitnessPal

When it comes to tracking my workouts, I often switch between a few devices. However, the one I come back to most often is the Garmin Venu 3. It just does everything I need it to, despite its rather cumbersome UI. I’m not much of a runner, which is Garmin’s bread and butter, but the watch tracks weightlifting rather well — at least better than I’ve seen on other smartwatches I’ve used. I like that it actually attempts to count reps, automatically ends sets when it detects certain movements have stopped, and doesn’t need to be charged as often as my other devices.

What’s also nice about the Garmin app is that it syncs to Strava, an app I’ve been using more often over the past several months. It’s a great app/network that lets me share my workouts with others and helps me stay accountable. Strava integrates with many different apps, so it’s easy to share activities from whatever app I use to track a workout, whether it be Garmin Connect, Oura, or Samsung Health. It’s also great because people who follow you can give you kudos whenever you post a workout/activity, which often gives me a little confidence boost.

Nicholas Sutrich: Google Pixel Watch 3 and OnePlus Watch 3, Yuka app

I've relied on the Google Pixel Watch 3 (and its two predecessors) for keeping track of my heart rate while working out. I aim to keep BPMs in the 160s when doing more stressful cardio-heavy workouts, so wearing a watch like this is helpful to know when I need to take a small break to cool down. I also love the size and shape, as it's the most comfortable watch I've ever used when lifting barbells or bending my wrist using other equipment. Most smartwatches are just too big for this purpose and cause discomfort.

My runner-up is the newly launched OnePlus Watch 3, which has crazy good GPS tracking and unbelievable 4-6 day battery life. So far, I've found the heart rate monitoring to be on par with the Pixel Watch 3, making it a great alternative for when I forget to charge the Pixel Watch. It's also got substantially better metrics and software, including graphs and data that I find easier to read. While Google requires you to have a Fitbit subscription to get all the Pixel Watch's features, OnePlus gives you everything for free and does all the AI analysis and processing on your phone through the OHealth app.

Aside from smartwatches, I've also found apps like Yuka are super helpful for a healthier overall lifestyle. Yuka helps me quickly identify foods at the grocery store that I should avoid by giving me a clear and easy breakdown of all the good and bad stuff in a product. Yuka sports a massive database with information for most foods, making it easy to avoid allergens or additives I don't want to be eating.

Andrew Myrick: Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra, Samsung Health, Home Assistant

Maybe I should take some notes or something, as I think I'm one of the few at Android Central that doesn't actively work out. The only exception to that is chasing around my one-year-old so he doesn't end up getting into things he shouldn't. With that, I've spent the last month or so with the Galaxy Watch Ultra, which I picked up ahead of the Galaxy S25 Ultra launch.

Two big reasons why I opted for the Ultra over the Watch 7 were battery life and durability. As I've mentioned previously, I'm kind of addicted to seeing how much sleep I get every night. Looking at it every morning gives me a pretty good gauge of how the day will go or how late I can work before my brain turns to mush. Because of that, I'm not really one for charging their smartwatch overnight, as I'd prefer to wear it in order to provide more accurate results than relying on my phone.

Again, since I'm not much for working out, my other favorite app is Home Assistant, although until recently, it was just Google Home. When the little one is finally ready for a nap, trying to turn off the Hue bulbs in his room with Assistant can ruin any hopes of some quiet time. Thankfully, I don't have to worry about that, as I just turn off any lights I need to right from my wrist. And with Home Assistant, it just gives me control over practically all of my smart devices, even if there isn't a Wear OS companion app.

Shruti Shekar: Apple Watch 10, Oura Ring 4, Sonos Ace headphones, Ride Cycle Club video service, Peloton app

I use a range of devices and apps that I have enjoyed over the years. Ironically, I gave up wearing an Apple Watch about 3 years ago as it really affected my mental health, but then recently got one for Christmas and started using it only during workouts. I have enjoyed it because I am only using it while working out and for monitoring my workouts, which has been great.

For me, however, my ultimate item has been the Oura Ring. I started with Gen 3 and now on Gen 4. It has dramatically changed the way I look at my body. Some of my favorite features are the detailed information under your Readiness Score and my Sleep Score. I can really monitor what affected both of these categories based on my habits. And I find that overall it really has helped having a much more balanced lifestyle.

For working out in general, I do a variety of things. I used to go to a spin studio in person a few years ago, and then, over the pandemic, they came up with online classes. I use their video service with the bike I have at home for those, but additionally, I’ve consistently enjoyed the Peloton app. It gives so many amazing workout options like kickboxing, running classes, walking classes, yoga, pilates, and HIIT workouts. I’ve genuinely enjoyed figuring out who my favorite instructors are and the type of classes.

Michael Hicks: Garmin Fenix 8, Coros Heart Rate Monitor, Shokz OpenFit 2, Withings Body Smart, Strava, Google Docs

I run about 60–70 miles a month, so I need a fitness watch with long battery life, accurate GPS and heart rate, and useful training insights. While brands like COROS and Polar fit that criteria, I keep going back to Garmin watches because of its training load focus metric that tells me if I have enough low aerobic (HR zones 1–2), high aerobic (zones 3–4), and anaerobic (zone 5) training load to improve my VO2 Max. This New York Times article about Zone 2 training confirms the Garmin philosophy that you need a balance of easy and max-effort training to improve, so it doesn't matter if I use my Garmin Forerunner 965 or Fenix 8; I just need the daily nudge to focus on the zones I've neglected.

I've used Strava for years after Runtastic became Adidas Running, which drove me to switch. But I mostly used it as a log so I could check my monthly and annual stats, not caring much about its challenges or social elements. I've become more enthusiastic about it since it added and smartened up its Athlete Intelligence tool. Still, its AI insights and segment leaderboards are mostly novelties for me.

When it comes to tracking my progress, I'll die on the hill that a fitness app makes things too complicated and is too interested in selling this broad, life-changing experience. All I need is a Google Doc to track my monthly mileage; I keep it open in a Chrome tab at all times so I can look at my goals — both fitness and non-fitness — to motivate me on what I need to do next!

When Casio first announced its smart ring, I almost thought it was an early April Fool's joke. Never having owned the Casio GMW-B5000 that it's based on — or any Casio watch — the nostalgia factor never affected me. I never expected Casio to offer to send me one, nor did I expect to like it so much. But here we are!

The "Casio ring watch" isn't a traditional smart ring, which sets it up for easy ridicule. The stainless steel design is impressive, but all its heavy components are designed to tell the time and start/stop a stopwatch with tiny buttons, on a screen too small to read easily. It's not breaking new ground.

Compare that to an Oura Ring 4 or Ultrahuman Ring Air that tracks heart rate, stress, workouts, sleep, and a dozen other metrics while weighing significantly less (16g vs. 3-5g). Putting it in the same conversation with a novelty mini-watch isn't really fair to Casio, especially since both smart rings cost $230 more, but it's a natural comparison to make as smart rings grow in popularity.

Now that I'm seeing Casio's ring in person — instead of looking at press photos that emphasize the display — I have to admit that it's cute, even without the nostalgia factor. It's about the size of a high school class ring, only less garish (apologies to everyone I just offended), and the ridged steel look draws the eye.

It only ships in one size, but it comes with a few translucent inserts to shrink it down; thankfully, it fits snugly on my right ring finger with one. It's on the noticeably heavy side, so I don't wear it while running. But Casio must have decided it was a necessary trade-off to get the steel, watch-like look and two-year battery life.

The grayscale screen only catches the eye at a direct visual angle; otherwise, it just looks like a flat, glossy layer above the metal, so it's not distracting. I assumed people would side-eye me for wearing a dorky mini-watch, but you don't notice that aesthetic unless you're quite close. Even then, the one or two comments I've received are more out of interest and curiosity than open derision.

My recent smartwatch fashion contest proved that I don't really know what regular, non-techy people think is attractive in wearables; maybe people are silently judging my tastes. But this ring will certainly appeal to a niche crowd that loves the bulky Casio or Garmin Instinct look and already has heart rate tracking from another device.

Frankly, most smart rings besides Casio's look the same to me; their designs are in a race towards getting as skinny and low-key as possible, but they're all these 1-inch-wide metallic bands with a few gold or silver palette swaps. Even this $1,500 luxury smart ring looks fairly generic, aside from the 18K gold or PT950 platinum materials.

I've also noticed how many smart rings are pushing to become medical-grade devices, with FDA-approved health sensors meant to target B2B sales and impress doctors instead of consumers. Basically, smart rings aren't fun; they're meant to be taken seriously and to blend in. Everything they give you is passive data that requires staring at your phone.

In that context, the budget-priced Casio "smart" ring feels like a nice change of pace. I don't need a stopwatch timer very often; a countdown timer would be more useful. But I certainly don't mind having a way to check the time whenever I get smartwatch fatigue and take mine off for the day. It does one gimmick; otherwise, it's just there to look pretty, not sell health subscriptions.

I don't think it's worth getting too philosophical about a 50th-anniversary, limited-time device that's already sold out (though you can sign up for in-stock alerts at that link). We may not see anything like this again, and I'm sure most people would find it more dorky than cool. But I wouldn't mind if we started seeing more limited smart rings that emphasize unique designs over functionality.

Look at Circular Ring, the rare smart ring with a haptic motor for silent wake-ups, notification buzzes, and even subtle guidance for meditation. We liked the concept, but Circular had to ditch haptics in the Ring 2 to add an FDA-approved ECG, until they find a way to fit both. That might be the right business decision, but the need to offer competitive health and wellness data above all else makes the field more monotonous.

Everyone thinks of smart rings as mobile, 24/7 doctor's offices. But we should shake off that impulse to judge any rings that don't offer health tracking as useless. After all, many people think smart rings are pointless because their smartwatch already tracks the same things.

I don't know what these new, non-health smart rings would do, necessarily, besides this mini-stopwatch ring. Off the top of my head, we could see ones with phone-connected haptics for alarms and notifications, NFC-based contactless payments, UWB to unlock a specific digital car key or house smart lock, fall detection for seniors and the disabled, and so on.

Because they'll focus on one or two key things instead of offering every health sensor and the kitchen sink, maybe smart rings can be (A) more affordable and (B) more aesthetically distinct, like the Casio ring. And these niche models won't be in such strict competition with fitness smartwatches.

Smartwatches and smart rings are "wellness" devices. They may have some FDA-approved sensors, but there's always fine print saying to take worrying readings with a grain of salt. But smartwatch and smart ring makers are aiming for medical-grade accuracy at all costs (literally). Not necessarily for your peace of mind, but because there's profit to be had if the healthcare industry buys in.

The OnePlus Watch 3 dominated headlines last week because of its 5-day battery, so you probably missed the news about OnePlus opening a €13.5 million 4,840m² Health Lab in Guangdong, China. Run by "medical professionals and multidisciplinary software and hardware engineers," it's designed for "long-term research collaborations" with over 30 medical companies and research institutions to study athletes' physiological data.

As a side benefit, OnePlus will use lab sensors to "improve the ability of self-developed algorithms, allowing smartwatches to better monitor exercise capacity and cardiopulmonary health."

That may all sound a bit intense, but it's no surprise. Dive into the career pages for Apple and Google, and you'll find open jobs related to clinical studies, health sensor development, data center construction, health privacy, biophotonics — the list truly goes on and on. Cardiologists and smartwatch engineers have intertwined career paths in Big Tech.

Some of this research goes into new health data points; Apple is reportedly closing in on blood pressure tracking, while a Samsung exec hinted last month that non-invasive blood glucose monitoring is coming soon. Pulling that off takes serious R&D.

Other research focuses on better HR algorithms for athletes, like Google claiming the Pixel Watch 3 has the "most accurate heart rate for running yet" to try and pull customers away from fitness brands like Garmin and Polar. This watch was also the first with a "Loss of Pulse" feature.

But to be frank, courting athletes or consumers with health issues won't justify this investment. Google didn't buy Fitbit for $2.1 billion just to make its future Pixel Watches more accurate, and OnePlus's new sports lab isn't really about the casual athletes that wear its watches.

I believe a business-to-business (B2B) battle is coming for smartwatches (and smart rings) that are all trying to be the clinical, portable option for other industries. They're all racing to collect your data and use it to self-improve their results until they can aim their sights higher. And you getting heart health warnings or daily workout recommendations is only a side effect.

Big Tech x Healthcare = profit?

The other smartwatch health news that prompted this column was Apple announcing its latest Health Study on how to use technology to "predict, detect, monitor, and manage changes in participants’ health," across "a number of health and disease areas, including activity, aging, cardiovascular health, circulatory health, cognition, hearing, menstrual health, mental health, metabolic health, mobility, neurologic health, respiratory health, sleep, and more."

This ambitious, holistic study isn't being handled in a creepy way: It's an opt-in program with options on what you share with researchers, and Apple itself doesn't get identifying information.

What it will get is the overall results, from potentially millions of customers, showing which data its watches successfully track and which areas it fails at, adding context that it can't normally find out on its own.

That kind of data can be incredibly valuable for preventative care, if it can analyze your health and workout trends and warn you of potential changes to your physiology or mental capacity. That could help you, but it'll certainly help Apple keep you in its device ecosystem if it keeps marketing its Watches as life-saving.

Everyone is intrigued by blood pressure and glucose, but we're seeing right now how smartwatches are analyzing your AGEs Index, arterial stiffness, and other niche bodily health information that's tied to long-term health warning signs. I don't think any consumers were asking for this; I think it's a proof of concept for doctors to prove how useful these devices can be if they join forces.

Imagine if Apple partnered with your healthcare provider and could key in its watches to look out for specific biomarkers related to your condition or genetics. Some smartwatches can already collect data to send to your doctor, but perhaps these apps could automatically send reports, either at regular intervals or whenever there's a sustained issue with a given metric.

'Wellness' is becoming old news

Smart ring sales are so niche that they're barely worth mentioning compared to smartwatches. But I think it's relevant that so many smart ring brands at CES pushed their medical-grade accuracy and brought up unprompted the idea of B2B sales to medical companies.

The Circular Ring 2 ditched the company's trademark haptic engine for an FDA-approved ECG; in the CEO's words, they're transitioning from wellness to an alternative for "expensive" and "invasive" medical checks. The Evie Ring got FDA approval for blood oxygen readings, and its CEO also labeled it as a "clinical-grade device for B2B channels." Ultrahuman wants you to send them blood so they can compare your smart ring data against your biomarkers, and Oura has its new Symptom Radar to link your biometrics with possible causes.

These new companies want to leapfrog wellness straight into the health industry for a reason. Either they think it's a market ready to be tapped, or they think "wellness" alone will be seen as less marketable or profitable very soon. Whether smart rings are successful against Big Tech brands with more resources to throw into this gambit, they're shooting their shot.

Is this a good or a bad trend? Yes.

There's nothing inherently wrong with Apple Watches, Android smartwatches, or smart rings becoming so accurate that they can be relied upon for clinical trials. You can be skeptical that they're as accurate as these companies want them to be, but I won't censure them for striving for something potentially unattainable instead of coasting on "wellness" estimates.

What I worry about — and I've written about this before — is that it's genuinely tough to be confronted by bad smartwatch readings on a daily basis.

Anyone would want their watch to catch signs of a heart attack so you can call your doctor. But if they start tracking your body's poor health markers that signal potential issues years or decades down the line, will that help you turn your life around, or just send you spiraling into stress and fatalism?

I know someone who spotted a potential kidney issue because their smart scale told them they were constantly dehydrated no matter how much water they drank. This was vital information to know, but in the aftermath, the smart scale app continued to warn them. They started checking this data more often, hoping lifestyle changes would immediately fix the problem; when nothing helped, they felt hopeless.

Of course I want to know if I have arterial stiffness or high blood sugar, but once I do know, I'll continue to be confronted by this information. Smartwatches have all these gamefied tools like daily rings meant to encourage you to become healthier, but some health issues can't be solved by a gung-ho attitude.

I won't be surprised if, within the next five to ten years, we start seeing more doctors prescribing smartwatches and smart rings for at-home monitoring as an affordable alternative to expensive equipment, with these brands offering a spinoff healthcare app that highlights specific information shared with you and your doctor.

The current AI revolution will play into this, of course. Medical journals are already being fed into specialized AIs; the next step is for your actual health data and testing results to power future insights. Apple's research study and OnePlus's specialized lab will only become increasingly common, feeding AI data that (again) these companies can sell to healthcare providers.

The side effect of this is simple: You're going to get bombarded with more and more health and wellness information the moment you put on your smartwatch. And some people will be overwhelmed by it.

You can mentally prepare yourself for bad news before visiting a doctor; it's harder to do the moment you wake up and see a health warning in your smartwatch's Morning Report.

Having worn the Garmin Instinct 3 50mm AMOLED for a week, it's difficult to decide how to label it. A rugged Energizer bunny? A missed opportunity? A palette swap of the Instinct 2X Solar? Another nail in MIP displays' coffin? A "budget" pick that still costs a lot? Maybe it's all of the above!

Many Garmin users spend years between upgrades. Since I've reviewed the Instinct 2 Solar, Instinct 2X Solar, and a dozen other Garmins, it's easier to take the flashlight, dual-band GPS, and other cool upgrades for granted, where last-gen users will be excited by the innovation.

When Garmin offered me the Instinct 3 AMOLED or Solar to review, I chose the AMOLED at once. Aside from my deep dislike of MIP displays, I couldn't believe that Garmin still gave a $450 watch the same 1.1-inch, 176 x 176 resolution display just to prioritize "unlimited battery life" and an epic 260 GPS hours over everyday usability. Not to mention the return of the frequently misaligned second window.

The full-res, 1.3-inch AMOLED display looks lovely on my Neo Tropic Instinct 3, decently bright in direct sunlight and accentuated by the glossy orange aluminum bezel that catches light along its edge. You dip from over a month or two of solar battery life to 18–24 days. But at least your notifications and data graphs are more readable, and it remains longer-lived than the Venu 3 or Forerunner 265.

Still, I think the Garmin Instinct 3 AMOLED needed a trademark feature, similar to the Solar version's "unlimited" battery shtick. Garmin probably thought the flashlight and ruggedness qualified. But I think finally putting offline maps or LTE on a mid-range Garmin watch would've been the real game-changer.

Instead, Garmin made compromises with the Instinct 3 software and features that feel designed to upsell you to the $900 Enduro 3 to get the real 2025 Garmin adventurer experience.

Everyone except Garmin got the offline maps memo

Garmin may have kicked off the MIP-to-AMOLED transition among running watch brands, but its rivals quickly followed suit. And when you look at the $399 COROS PACE Pro, $399 Polar Vantage M3, or $449 Suunto Race, you'll find they all added offline maps to go with their new AMOLED displays.

Most running watches let you download a GPX route from Strava or create one from your watch's companion app, then follow turn-by-turn directions with a line showing a breadcrumb trail of GPS data points you've hit in case you need to retrace your steps. That line appeared on a blank screen, with no visual context for trails, streets, or hills.

Then, the higher-end watches started adding downloadable offline maps that contextualized your route. You could see how the GPX route and GPS breadcrumbs aligned with real-world geography, making it easier to know where you're going or if you've strayed from the proper path.

Garmin restricts this feature to its Fenix, Enduro, and other $1,000-range series, except for the Forerunner 965 or Forerunner 955. Maps were Garmin's bargaining chip to upsell runners from the Forerunner 255/265, and they weren't necessarily a priority for the indoor-focused Venu 3 or the no-altimeter Vivoactive 5.

Still, the Instinct series is designed for people spending weeks out in nature, who might need an offline map backup in case their phone dies and they haven't pre-downloaded a route. But this would've required giving the Instinct 3 a more robust processor, an actual touchscreen, and (for the Solar series) ditching the low-res, two-window solution.

Instead, Garmin cut corners and costs: the Instinct 3 has noticeable lag and button-only input to navigate through menus. You'll have to buy the Enduro 3 for solar charging and maps.

When you consider that the freaking $99 Amazfit Active 2 has offline maps, it makes Garmin start to look out of touch in this area, even if it's well ahead of its rivals in other ways. Brands like Apple and Samsung may price-lock the best sensors and tools out of their cheaper SE or FE watches... but those watches cost half as much as the Instinct 3.

Coasting on last-gen sensors

The Instinct 3 has the same heart rate sensor as the Instinct 2 when it launched three years ago. Does that matter?

You could argue that most healthy Garmin users don't need the Elevate v5's ECG tool, but outdoor sports like hiking are very popular with the middle-aged to elderly crowd that might want to occasionally check on their heart health. And skin temperature is becoming increasingly common as a metric to judge everything from possible sickness to period symptoms.

At the very least, you can rest assured that the Garmin Instinct 3 heart rate data is as accurate as most other Garmin watches. I gave it my traditional anaerobic track workout test, which most wrist-based optical sensors struggle with. Despite the rapid HR changes and cold (for California) weather, it stayed relatively close to my COROS HRM data, only falling 1 bpm short on average.

For a more "normal" run, it's also about what you'd expect: The Garmin Instinct 3 is very close to the armband data at all times with a minimal 1 bpm gap at almost every point and the same HR average at the end.

Of course, you could certainly wish that there wasn't such a frequent gap, small as it is! But to be fair, the Elevate v5 sensor on the Fenix 8 isn't perfect either, though it does tend to course-correct to match my arm or chest monitor data a little faster.

The fact remains that Garmin shouldn't have coasted with last-gen sensors while charging current-gen prices. If the $299 Garmin Instinct E had used last-gen sensors, that would've been a reasonable compromise.

As for GPS data, I'll save the satellite maps and lines for my review. But you can rest assured that its multi-band GPS data is as accurate as what you get with the most expensive Garmin models — and most people will be perfectly satisfied with SatIQ or GPS mode accuracy.

This is why I'm trying to be cognizant that I take certain things for granted. Anyone coming from an older Garmin watch or switching from another brand will be thrilled by the accuracy. It's only power users and tech reviewers who might ask, "But what have you done for me lately?"

The Garmin Instinct 3 is missing something

I don't want to downplay the Instinct 3's new features. I love training load focus for planning my next workout; nap detection and sleep coaching are useful for daily insights; running and cycling dynamics provide some niche info, and the AMOLED display is such a relief to my eyes.

But these are 2023 Forerunner and 2024 Venu perks essentially ported over. What is the Instinct series' specialization?

If this is for hikers or winter sports enthusiasts who need a rugged, long-lasting watch, I think they'd be more interested in built-in cellular support for emergencies, a rucking mode, or an estimated hydration and electrolyte loss widget during activities. Yes, I wanted offline maps, but it'd be easier to swallow their absence if the Instinct 3 had dazzled us with other new tricks.

The Fenix 8's massive success proves Garmin users will pay a small fortune for the best features. But this means Garmin has less pressure to keep its mid-range models as competitive. Want better features and good battery life? Pay double for the Enduro 3 or Fenix 8!

I wish Garmin didn't restrict software so rigidly by price, but that's just how they do business. And its customers — who might grumble about missing features and massive software crashes — won't abandon Garmin over a disappointing launch. They'll just wait for the inevitable Garmin Instinct 3X.

In my case, just like I felt underwhelmed by the Fenix 8 even as I acknowledged how great it was, I'm side-eyeing the Instinct 3's stagnation while recognizing that, in a vacuum, this is a great fitness watch for anyone who uses their phone for maps and prioritizes battery life, durability, and "normal" Garmin smarts over any flashy new tricks.

The Shokz OpenFit 2 wireless earbuds were designed specifically for me. I don't know how Shokz's engineers managed to pander to my lifestyle so perfectly; I suspect they hired spies, or my fiancee is a sleeper agent.

Ever since I reviewed the first-gen Shokz OpenFits in 2023, I've worn them for hundreds of runs, walks, and hikes, no exaggeration. My ear canals have had an unprecedented break from workout earbuds jammed into them, saving me from buds falling out during hard runs (which causes the sound to get worse), impacted ear wax, and the artificial hissing of transparency modes.

But using them for over a year made me well aware of the OpenFit's many flaws, from an obnoxious charging issue to finicky touch controls and average sound quality. So, I'm thrilled that the Shokz OpenFit 2 immediately fixed or improved on almost all of my complaints.

Shokz is best known for its bone conduction headphones, and I'm no audiophile to judge how the Shokz OpenRun Pro 2 sound quality compares to the OpenFit 2's air conduction. All I know is that I prefer the latter's "natural" sound while still giving me (mostly) unimpeded situational awareness during runs and races. And now, I'm much more likely to use the OpenFit 2's multipoint pairing and wear them in non-fitness contexts.

More comfortable than ever

My appreciation for the original OpenFit was how its ear hook placed the speaker directly over my ears without impeding them; I could safely hear approaching cyclists or "on your left" runners and even the sounds of nature if listening to quieter content like audiobooks. They've never once fallen off. I forget they're there aside from light pressure on the back and side of my ear, and the audio quality was good enough.

The Shokz OpenFit 2 retains the same concept and target audience (athletes) but with minor tweaks that began with the Shokz OpenFit Air — which were more comfortable but too budget-focused to be "better" than the originals.

The OpenFit 2 has a thinner outer hook that rounds into a softer, wider silicone edge than the original model. It's hard to describe the difference between the two, but the OpenFit 2 somehow sits more naturally in its over-ear position, while the original OpenFit feels as if it's pressing harder against my skin to stay in place. Plus, the thinner hook makes it take less ear-top space, sliding gracefully under my glasses temples without the same pressure as before.

Basically, you got used to the Shokz OpenFit's fit for abbreviated workouts, but you'll enjoy wearing the OpenFit 2 for longer stretches.

The Shokz OpenFit design has no ANC and minimal passive blocking, but that's the whole point. I wear these while reading or doing chores around the house because I never miss my partner or cat calling for attention.

There's some noise pollution for bass-heavy songs if you put the volume loud enough — so it may not be the best fit for an office environment — but at the normal 25% volume I use indoors, people only hear something if they fully disregard my personal space and lean in.

Shokzingly rich sound

Equally important to comfort is sound, and the OpenFit 2 needed an upgrade. I noted that you "shouldn't necessarily expect a symphony for your ears" with the original OpenFits, defaulting to the Bass Boost option to offer reasonable low-end oomph and tolerating having to pump up the volume to the upper levels just to hear phone calls or podcasts clearly. At least for "normal" music, the sound sounded better than you'd expect, thanks to the "DirectPitch" tech.

Shokz directly addressed these issues with the OpenFit 2, adding a larger low-frequency driver and an independent high-frequency unit for "DualBoost Technology."

Ditching the marketing speak, I feel much more comfortable using the stock EQ setting because it hits highs and lows in a balanced, rich way; "luther" by Kendrick Lamar & SZA sounds rich and harmonious for both the deep and high portions, while Tommy Richman's "MILLION DOLLAR BABY" hits those falsetto notes and low beat with equal quality.

For folks seeking that alternative (or emo) feel, Billie Eilish's "WILDFLOWER" or Bon Iver's "Holocene" no longer sound quite as tinny as they did on the first-gen earbuds; in fact, the OpenFit 2 hits hard enough that even 50% volume is too loud for me for these quiet songs (unless I'm outside and dealing with ambient noise).

Now that I've started using these earbuds for my daily work grind, I do use the Treble Boost or Voice EQ settings for my instrumental & lo-fi soundtracks or my YouTube Let's Plays, but they generally sound quite lovely.

Honestly, the only negative to this audio boost is that when the music is loud enough, it'll get in the way of hearing your surroundings a bit. But as long as you're not blowing up your eardrums, you'll be bopping to the beat, and you'll remain alert.

What else the Shokz OpenFit 2 fixed

Other key OpenFit 1-to-2 changes include a more energy-efficient Bluetooth chip, new physical buttons for touch controls, and one IP-level boost to water resistance.

The jump from Bluetooth 5.2 to 5.4 lets the OpenFit 2 sit in a low-power mode for much longer in case you forget to put them in the charging case, as well as stay strongly connected in busy signal areas. The original OpenFit earbud had the same capacity, and yet the OpenFit 2 is rated to last 11 hours, a four-hour jump. In my experience, they did last easily across an entire workday of streaming, and ultramarathoners can depend on the OpenFit 2 more.

By improving from IP54 to IP55 protection, Shokz made the OpenFit 2 capable of withstanding water jets; they're shower-proof and easier to safely clean under a strong sink, in other words. Your OpenFits are going to get gunked up with sweat over time, and the better resistance might make them last a bit longer before the speaker and mic quality are affected.

My favorite upgrade is the new physical button, however. The first-gen OpenFit solely used touchpad controls, and I can't tell you how often they failed to recognize double-taps or made me accidentally hang up on people when I merely wanted to adjust their fit.

By contrast, the new elevated buttons are easy to find and activate — but no longer something you'll press by mistake. They blend into the silver finish of the earbud, so they don't look tacky or old-fashioned. And most importantly, the touchpad only has one optional-on feature for Gemini or Siri, eliminating any confusion and frustration.

The most important Shokz OpenFit 2 change isn't something Shokz put in its specs sheet. After my initial review period, I noticed that the OpenFit would stay connected to my phone inside the charging case, meaning they weren't charging. I can't tell you how often I'd find one earbud dead and the other fully charged the next day. I'd have to wipe down the magnetic pins and shift the buds around, then close the case and check the app to see if both had successfully disconnected.

I asked Shokz about this issue since many OpenFit owners had similar complaints. They assured me that the OpenFit 2 had fewer contact points (2 vs. 3) and a much stronger magnet than the last-gen buds. You're still supposed to "keep the pins dry and clean during use to avoid any residue affecting proper contact," and it'll take months to see if a similar problem pops up; for now, though, I'm very optimistic, as I can feel how securely the OpenFit 2 snaps into place when inserted.

Should you buy the Shokz OpenFit 2?

I still have requests for the Shokz OpenFit 3, most notably wear detection — so they turn off and don't take calls when sitting outside the case — and a way to ping the charging case. If you buy the black OpenFit 2, choose a consistent place to put the case after workouts, or you will lose them constantly. Plus, the Shokz app should ideally notify you when the case hits 0%.

But these complaints feel more nitpicky compared to the fundamental issues with the first-gen OpenFit. By and large, the Shokz OpenFit 2 sound fantastic, feel natural when worn with glasses, and let you keep your ear canals open instead of having hard plastic shoved into them for hours at a time.

The Shokz OpenFit 2 won't match your wireless headphones or even normal wireless earbuds for surround-sound quality or ANC, so they may not be the right choice if you're looking for an all-day choice for every scenario that closely syncs with your smartphone. It's still a niche and fairly expensive product.

That said, I fall within the target Shokz OpenFit 2 niche, and I'm supremely happy with them!

Over the holidays, I held a smartwatch beauty pageant with my family. On Christmas, I drove to my parents' house with a plastic Safeway bag carrying 13 smartwatches and asked my bemused relatives if they wanted to help me with an article. Most of them had never worn a smartwatch, which made them perfect for my little experiment.

I poured out a messy pile of Android watches, fitness watches, and an Apple Watch onto my mom's festive tablecloth. Then I told each judge to place them in a row, with the "prettiest or coolest" watches on the left and the "ugliest or most boring" on the right, focusing on which devices they'd "actually want to wear."

All told, I got 21 participants across generations, ranging from my 80-year-old great-aunt to my teenage nephews and niece. After each vote, I'd mix the watches back into a pile so that the previous person's choices wouldn't influence their decision.

Why did I rope my relatives into this little experiment? Even though I try to make my smartwatch reviews as objective as possible, focusing on battery life, performance, and fitness accuracy, a lot of people will choose a watch solely based on looks, comfort, and vibes. And I think that can be a blind spot for me.

I'm happy wearing bulky, sporty watches or heavier models to get better battery life, and I think tech reviewers have gotten used to smartwatches' thick, machine-cut look. But when my mother told me that my Garmin watch looked like a "spaceship on my wrist," it got me thinking that I should try and recalibrate my mental image of a good-looking watch. Hence, the smartwatch beauty pageant!

CES 2025 kept me busy after the break, but I finally got to tally up the votes this week. And I bet you'll be as surprised by the results of my smartwatch beauty pageant as I was!

How I chose and prepped the 'contestants'

I chose 13 smartwatches for my test: the Amazfit Cheetah Pro, Apple Watch Ultra 2, Coros Pace Pro, Fitbit Charge 6, Fitbit Sense, Garmin Fenix 8, Garmin Instinct 2X Solar, Google Pixel Watch 3, OnePlus Watch 2R, Samsung Galaxy Watch 5 Pro, Galaxy Watch 6 Classic, Galaxy Watch Ultra, and Withings ScanWatch 2.

I tried to have a fair split between "sporty" and "mainstream" watches, as well as expensive and affordable ones. I made a point of including the Charge 6 and Sense to see how a fitness band or a generic-looking squircle would compare in people's minds to fancier or traditional rounded smartwatch designs.

I wasn't sure whether to include the hybrid ScanWatch 2, as it seemed too different from the rest with its classic look, but I was curious how much non-techy people would care about an old-school impression or if it would feel too old-fashioned for the Gen Zers.

While I had more smartwatches I considered including, I didn't want to overwhelm my family with too many choices. They came to party and socialize, not do an unpaid survey.

I chose not to charge my smartwatches before the test; would you want to spend Christmas morning charging watches? I had a justification for it: I wanted people to focus on the watches' physical designs, and I thought brighter displays or prettier watch faces might subconsciously sway their votes. Still, you might disagree with the decision since it's hard to judge how a smartwatch looks without the display turning on.

Finally, I told my relatives to try and ignore the color of the smartwatch bands when the first couple told me they hated the orange bands on the Fitbit Charge 6 and Galaxy Watch Ultra. I assured them that these straps could come in different colors.

The results of my smartwatch beauty pageant

The table above shows how many votes each smartwatch received from 1st to 13th place. The table below shows the total points, with the contestants ranked from most to least points. I gave a proportional amount of points for each vote: First place is worth 13 points, second place 12 points, and so on, down to one point for 13th place.

As you can see, the Withings ScanWatch 2 crushed the competition, somewhat predictably. Many family members didn't like what most of the smartwatches looked like and told me that the hybrid watch might be the only one they'd seriously consider wearing.

But you might be somewhat surprised to see the budget OnePlus Watch 2R come in second. Everyone seemed to love its distinct scale bezel and flat look, preferring its rounded aluminum case to the fancier titanium of many rival watches. Considering the ScanWatch 2 is barely a smartwatch with its tiny OLED display, you could call the Watch 2R the real winner of the pageant.

Almost no one liked the Garmin Instinct 2X Solar, the last-place pick, but I fully expected that. It's a massive, niche watch for outdoorsmen. One person told me it looked like something Master Chief would wear and that she expected Cortana to hop out of it.

What surprised me more is how little people cared for the three most expensive smartwatches: the Garmin Fenix 8 (7th), Apple Watch Ultra 2 (8th), and Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra (12th). They all lost to the Fitbit Sense (6th), which one family member called "so generic-looking that it makes me mad." The Sense looked light enough that my female family members, in particular, thought it would be the most comfortable and "ordinary."

That's a pretty big knock against all the tech reviewers like myself who gave these flagship watches glowing reviews and praised their unique designs. People didn't mind the Fenix 8 because it was flat and "normal-looking," but it was simply too big for a lot of them, and they didn't like how many buttons it had. As for Apple and Samsung, their hard-edged, square-ish looks made them look both artificial and "too massive."

Samsung's older smartwatches did better; the Galaxy Watch 6 Classic (4th) divided the voters, with some loving its unique rotating bezel and others finding that it made the watch too big. The Galaxy Watch 5 Pro (3rd), which Samsung has all but abandoned, captivated people with the strength of its unique sunken bezel and metallic look.

Honestly, I can't discount how much people liked the Pro simply because of its shining silver in a sea of black watches. But the white Coros Pace Pro (10th) and titanium-bezel Amazfit Cheetah Pro (11th) discount that theory a bit. Their brightness only highlighted how "cheap" and "unattractive" they looked, with only a few of my more active relatives appreciating the Pace Pro's lightness for workouts.

The most polarizing candidate was the Pixel Watch 3 (5th). It was ranked top-four for nearly half of the voters, with three first-place votes from family members who loved its rounded, relatively light look. But other voters had visceral reactions to it looking "like nothing," like a "creepy water drop," or "like a naked chicken breast without any seasoning." My family has a unique way with words.

What I learned from my smartwatch beauty pageant

21 people is a decent focus group, but this test was hardly definitive or properly controlled. In a perfect world, I'd have ensured each watch case and strap was the same color, that the displays were active, and that people weren't peeking at other people's votes out of interest before they voted themselves.

Still, I feel like I learned some lessons from my experiment:

1. Size matters. Most people didn't like the tiny Fitbit Charge 6, but they also cared more about a comfortable fit and thin case than a large display.
2. People don't care if a big watch is proportionally light thanks to titanium; they'd rather it be compact and won't notice if it's aluminum.
3. They cared much more about how the watch looked from the top-down (what they'd see) than from the side (what others would see), which makes the bezel (or lack thereof) extremely important.

This test reminded me why Apple Watches outsell every other brand, beyond name recognition and iPhone dominance. They're thin and petite and safe-looking, and they don't invite unflattering comparisons to non-smart or hybrid watches like rounded smartwatches do.

Android smartwatches can't help but look "too big" to people outside of the tech space, though the 40mm Galaxy Watch 7 or 41mm Pixel Watch 3 might escape that label. So even though I prioritize larger displays and batteries and so on, I need to remember when reviewing smartwatches that a lot of people might see my positives as negatives.

New Year's resolutions have taken on a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. Cold weather and returning to work sap your motivation. Then you hear excuses about Quitters Day — how "most people" abandon their resolutions by the second Friday in January — and settle back into your old routines because your resolutions were always doomed to fail. Convenient!

Apple referenced Quitters Day in its latest commercial, promising that its Apple Watch will give you "a little extra motivation" to "quit quitting." It's a nice idea, but as someone who's tested most of the best fitness smartwatches, none of them can fundamentally change how you act by buzzing your wrist.

Watch alerts like hourly move reminders or having to log meals in your health app quickly become a source of guilt and annoyance because you feel like you don't have the bandwidth or energy for them. It's far too easy to turn these features off or stop using them until the guilt of abandoning your 2025 goals ebbs away.

Smartwatches are only built to reinforce habits and hobbies that you already enjoy, not magically make you love exercise or counting calories.

Despite all that, I believe in using tech and New Year's resolutions to motivate myself. They work for me! I lost 30 pounds last year, ran more miles, hiked more steps than in 2023, and finished more personal projects — all with a Google Doc of resolutions and a smartwatch to motivate me. Believe it or not, I had fun following my resolutions.

Keeping in mind that I don't know what your New Year's resolutions for 2025 might be, let me help you "quit quitting" by running through a resolutions template that I think anyone can easily follow and that you can start any time or month, not just January.

Set monthly goals with moving goalposts

I'm no psychologist, but I think it's pretty obvious that people with the weight and pressure of a year's expectations will quit when they can't keep up with ambitious goals. If you want to walk 10,000 steps a day to lose weight and then fail to do so a few days in a row, you won't bother restarting because you've already failed!

Now look at my personal walking and steps resolutions for 2025, above and below. Each month has a main gold-medal target — I love the Olympics — with bronze and silver offramps for months where I fall short and a level above gold in case I'm feeling especially motivated that month.

Why organize my goals this way? Simple: Whether your goal is related to steps, calories, or whatever, you're going to have sick days, tough weeks at work, or even whole months where life's roadbumps derail or distract you. So, you need to plan for failure if you want to succeed.

Even if I'm off my target pace for a given month, I can still hit my lesser targets, so I have a reason to persist. If I have a bad month, I still have 11 other months to shoot for gold; why quit?

If you're trying to read more books or cook new recipes, it's less daunting to aim for two a month than 20 that year. Maybe you skip a few months or only hit your backup silver goal with one book/recipe that month. But it doesn't matter: you're still outpacing last year when you gave up entirely.

The same goes for vaguer goals like making an effort to see friends more often or trying to drink or vape less often. Use an artificial monthly goal (only drink X times in January, plan a board game night for February) until it feels more natural without handrails, and don't give up entirely just because you chickened out the first month.

Eventually, these monthly goals will build a foundation of habits, so you do these things without needing to track them.

Treat your resolutions like a living document

One reason to make your resolutions monthly instead of annual is that you can change your targets if you realize you made them too easy or difficult but still want to keep at it. Plus, you can add new goals at any time.

It's hard to think about a goal like "swim more at the local pool" or "go hiking more" when it's snowing and the trails are too muddy to climb. Some ideas don't apply — or won't come to you — until months from now.

My advice is to make more short-term resolutions, like an aspirational to-do list. If you want to try homebrewing beer or joining a local sports league, add it to your resolutions doc with a generous timeframe for when to start or sign up so it doesn't fade out of your mind like other past fancies.

Adding new resolutions that you can quickly achieve throughout the year — and then moving on to something new — is the best way to keep things fresh. Otherwise, you'll get bored tracking the same stats and goals month after month.

Make your resolutions fun

People don't like to think about difficult things, and most resolutions are difficult because they require changing how you lived your life in the past months or years.

I'm the kind of weirdo who loves running, so aiming to run more miles or beat my fastest half-marathon PR in 2025 is aspirational rather than painful to consider. You should associate your goals with positivity, not a chore or burden, or it's much harder to stick with it.

If you're invested in difficult resolutions like budgeting or cutting calories, make your overall New Year's resolutions more positive by throwing some fun gimmies onto your list, with no monthly timeline or difficulty curve.

Some of my resolutions are "beat 20 new video games in 2025" and "finish 12 new seasons of TV shows." It's no effort for me to finish these "resolutions," and I probably would have done so anyway! But that's the point.

My resolutions Google Doc is full of movies, shows, games, and books that I've been looking forward to. Checking them off my list lets me feel like taking care of my mental health is an accomplishment, and it feels more satisfying than sitting around watching YouTube or TikTok.

Plus, while I'm deciding which fun thing to do that night, I also scroll through my harder fitness or home improvement goals. Bribing myself with a fun resolution first makes it easier to plan out a difficult workout or project the following day.

Use tech that reinforces your goals

I wrote late last year about using fitness tech to shed Thanksgiving pounds, and while that holiday is long past, my advice still applies. Hourly stand reminders, walking more steps, using calorie apps like MyFitnessPal, and other tech tools are accessible ways to get healthier.

In my case, I use my Garmin watch to guide my runs and then check my monthly stats like mileage, steps, and race times in the app to transfer over to my resolutions doc. It doesn't have to be Garmin; if your smartwatch of choice doesn't organize stats monthly, export to Strava or another fitness app that does because it's too easy to lose track if you log every activity manually.

Some fitness apps (like Garmin and Strava) have monthly challenges, but I think those are cherry-on-top rewards for working hard, not real motivators. If you start slacking off and stop closing your daily rings or see your VO2 Max fall, it's too easy to refuse to open the app because you know you won't like seeing your results.

A Google Doc or another note app can always remain open more easily, and you can highlight the stats you care about instead of getting overwhelmed with irrelevant data.

As we say farewell to a 2024 filled with new smartwatches, smart rings, and other fun wearables, I'm using my year's experience as Wearables lead for Android Central — and insights from key wearable analysts — to predict what 2025 has in store for us as smartwatch fans.

We had a very strong year for smartwatches in 2024, but some trends, like an increased focus on AI insights and better health tools on mainstream smartwatches, were half-baked. They were the precursor to what should be a greater push in these areas with the next generation of Android watches, Apple Watches, and other wearables.

Below, I'll break down the surefire predictions, likely possibilities, and wishful guesswork for smartwatch, smart ring, and smart glasses trends in 2025.

A wider range of smartwatches, especially flagships

Garmin was one of the first to get away with selling a smartwatch that costs as much as a smartphone with the Fenix series, but Apple brought that idea into the mainstream with its Ultra series, and then Samsung happily followed Apple's lead and ditched its mid-tier Classics and Pros for a Galaxy Watch Ultra. In 2025, look for more brands to start testing loyal users' willingness to spend more on pricier status-symbol smartwatches, says Jitesh Ubrani, research manager for IDC's Worldwide Mobile Device Trackers.

"Samsung (thanks to Apple) kicked off the Ultra tier, and we expect more vendors to also launch higher-priced models," he predicts. That could mean a Pixel Watch Ultra, OnePlus Watch Ultra, or a titanium TicWatch. And that could easily apply to other fitness brands that have typically tried to undercut Apple/Galaxy Watch prices.

At the same time, Ubrani also thinks the inverse is true: We're going to see "more options for more consumers," especially thrifty watch buyers. The Galaxy Watch FE and OnePlus Watch 2R started that trend this year, and we could see even more budget or mid-level watches with strategic downgrades next year.

2025: The year of smartwatch AI?

I already brought up this point in my Wear OS 2025 predictions column, but I suspect that Apple, Google, and Samsung will shove their big-name AIs into smartwatches in 2025 with the same urgency and eagerness as they did with phones this year. That means Gemini (or Bixby AI) on Android watches and Apple Intelligence on Apple Watches, in some form.

Anshel Sag, principal analyst for Moor Insights & Strategy, agrees in principle that AI will become "the connective fabric between all of our wearables," from watches and earbuds to rings and glasses. "Apple Intelligence and Gemini will be big drivers, but so will Meta AI and possibly even ChatGPT."

However, he also cautioned that he thinks Google "still needs to figure out a way to get Gemini to run smoothly on such performance-limited hardware," noting that it "could come with RISC-V or some other more capable platform."

He's particularly excited about RISC-V's potential for Android watches, saying "the payoff could be huge" for its custom chips. But even if new chips like the Snapdragon W5 Gen 2 have more compute power, the tokens needed for a conversational LLM may simply be too much for the watch form factor right now, and RISC-V itself could "take a bit longer" to arrive.

Ubrani seemed to agree that "AI will make a splash [in 2025], though this may not exclusively be on-device." Instead, just like we got cloud-based AI analysis like Samsung Health's Energy Score and Wellness Tips in 2024, we'll see "more personalized experiences" for health and fitness in 2025.

Smartwatches will become even more of a mobile doctor's appointment

You know how much data smartwatches can track already, from heart health and sleep apnea to skin temperature and AGE index. The Pixel Watch 3 added Loss of Pulse Detection, while most mainstream watches warn you if you've fallen or catch if your heart rate is higher or lower than normal. So, what's next?

Stop me if you've heard this before, but blood pressure might roll out more widely. Samsung has offered it for years but without FDA approval. Apple might add it to the Ultra 3 in 2025 (via MacRumors), though leaks have suggested this for years now. Ubrani predicts that the feature will "come to more devices and more countries" in 2025.

Otherwise, he believes that we'll start to see a "more holistic approach to health tracking" in 2025, incorporating data from third-party devices into first-party health analysis. For example, we could see "glucose monitors working with smartwatches or in-home devices that track environmental impact on sleep and recovery."

I myself would love to see better hydration and sweat tracking on watches in 2025, so you know when you need to refuel — or if you're close to passing out — during tough activities.

Smart rings will keep growing — then plateau

Ubrani shared IDC's sales estimates and projections for watches and smart rings. Smart rings sold about 880,000 units in 2023 and doubled to 1.77 million in 2024. By 2025, they believe the number will climb to 2.54 million, a significant 43% boost.

No doubt, the best smart rings will keep getting better with new health insights. But IDC predicts that the subsequent jumps for 2026 (15%), 2027 (9%), and 2028 (5%) will decrease, with smart rings probably not growing much beyond 3–4 million anytime soon. That's a far cry from smartwatches (156.8 million in 2025) and fitness bands (35.3 million). Even smart glasses are expected to grow faster (more on that next).

When I asked Ubrani why he thinks smart rings won't grow to supplant other wearables, he blamed "supply challenges inherent to the form factor," like the need for a sizing kit and the challenge of different inventory for every size and finish of a ring.

Also, "from a consumer perspective, pricing is a barrier," and "the market isn't huge because many would find a smartwatch to be good enough."

"I personally use [a smart ring] every day," Sag says, but "they are more of a niche product that's predominantly focused on health...rings simply don't replace smartwatches, they are mostly complementary."

He specifically praised the Samsung Galaxy Ring and how it can "enable better UX" but argued that "its limitation to Android only hampers its potential." I argued that exact point last year about Galaxy exclusivity, so it felt a bit vindicating.

As for what I want to see from more smart rings in 2025, I covered that in a previous column: haptics for alarms and notifications, better "find my ring" tools, NFC support, more health vectors like passive AFib detection, and more unique styles than the typical thick-band look most of them share. And generally speaking, I just want more smart rings from mainstream brands; give me an Apple Ring, Pixel Ring, Garmin Ring, and so on.

Smart glasses break out into the mainstream

Smart glasses might not fit your typical vision of "wearables," but they're actually quite similar to smart rings. Hear me out: They're something you typically buy based on your fashion sense and taste. They offer features already available in other popular smart tech like audio (earbuds), cameras (smartphones), and AI (phones again). And you have to design them for multiple styles and finishes, making them harder to sell and distribute.

Ubrani pointed out many of these concerns, saying that "most consumers don't need" AI, music, and photography in one $300 package on top of an expensive smartphone cost. People who already wear glasses "might be delighted to have additional features built-in," but these electronic tech companies "don't have the expertise to sell eyewear," especially through traditional channels. And those who don't wear glasses "might not want to wear glasses unless it's solving an unsolved issue."

Yet despite all these roadblocks to success, IDC projects that smart glasses' sales will jump from 2.5 to 3.5 million in 2025 and an additional 1 million each year through 2028, making them the fastest-growing wearable category.

"Smart glasses are not going to remain niche," Sag argued. "They will continue to grow because they are the most natural platform for AI and I believe that Meta's sales will continue to grow as it starts to co-market with EssilorLuxottica." Meta won the bidding war for EssilorLuxottica, allegedly beating out Google's bid, giving them the edge with their popular Meta Ray-Bans.

Beyond Meta, Google recently announced its Android XR platform that'll power mixed-reality headsets, AR glasses, and smart glasses. Samsung also announced its "Project Moohan" XR headset, but we've also seen leaked reports about Samsung AR glasses arriving next year.

Unlike displayless smart glasses, it's hard to say whether AR glasses are ready for massive sales. We like brands like Xreal that use AR glasses as extended displays for gaming — and we're excited for the spatial Xreal One Pro coming next year — but we're still years away from the wide-FOV Meta Orion AR glasses meant to be worn outside or all day.

We'll see whether AR glasses prototypes like Google's Project Astra will make an appearance in 2025 and whether they will take the world by storm like Google Glass (temporarily) did. Sag was much more bullish about the prospects of AR glasses in the next few years, while Ubrani said an AR display would "change some of this conversation, but distribution will remain a challenge."

No need to be greedy

I wrote last week about how surprisingly good smartwatches have gotten in 2024 in terms of speedy app performance, reliable health & fitness data, and a wider range of designs and brand options. Whatever happens in 2025, we'll still have that baseline of quality to count upon.

My personal wishlist for new smartwatch features in 2025 is very niche: I'd love to see more rucking sports modes that let you input your pack's weight and take it into account for training load, and the leaked Garmin Instinct 3 might do just that. I want customizable Google Maps courses you can download to Wear OS watches for offline turn-by-turn navigation during hikes and workouts. And I want all watch brands to continue to improve their heart rate algorithms and sensors so they're not all so mid-tier when it comes to anaerobic track workouts, so I don't need to wear a chest strap.

What are your hopes and predictions for smartwatches, smart rings, and smart glasses in 2025? I hope whatever they are, they come true in the new year.

When it came time to reflect on my first full year as Wearables lead for Android Central, I thought about how I've been run ragged (literally) trying to test and review one smartwatch after another, but also how I didn't mind because, by and large, most of the watches I assessed were so darn good.

I reviewed (or will finish reviews for) watches from Apple, COROS, Garmin, Google, OnePlus, Polar, Samsung, Suunto, and Withings, plus my first-ever smart ring. And unlike my freelance days reviewing TVs, smart home tech, earbuds, and other hit-and-miss gadgets that I used and forgot about, there weren't any smartwatch "duds" where I had to find the silver lining amid the mediocrity.

None of my smartwatches were perfect, and several were good rather than great. Sometimes, they underwhelmed me despite being great. But all the brands I'd tested before improved in marked ways, and they all have a level of reliability that you can trust their sleep stats, heart rate zones during runs, GPS tracking, recovery time estimates, and other data that would've been erratic guesswork just a few years ago.

Basically, anyone short of a pro athlete can count on the health, fitness, and sleep data being good enough — and several options are trending toward true consistency. That's easy to take for granted! But for me to run a 20-miler wearing four watches and have all four watches' results be so similar is pretty amazing, showing that the core data can be trusted if you choose the right watch.

And outside of fitness, Wear OS watches are better than ever, while Apple continues to dominate the sales charts, keeping its fans happy by tweaking its familiar design to be thinner and improving its health analysis.

Smartwatches and rings played right into my expectations this year

Of course, it's easy for me to feel happy about the state of Android watches in 2024; these smartwatch brands catered to my needs and made me look prescient with their newest features.

At the end of last year, I argued that traditional smartwatches and fitness watches were trying to morph into each other, with Apple and Samsung focusing more heavily on fitness and brands like Garmin trying to make their platform more accessible to mainstream people.

This year, you had the Pixel Watch 3 lean fully into running coaching, cardio load, and other running perks that sure made me happy, if not my gym-loving colleagues. The same goes for the Galaxy Watch Ultra's dual-band GPS and extra HR LEDs for better running data, or the Apple Watch Series and Ultra watches adding training load. They played right into my expectations and made fitness the centerpiece of their marketing.

I argued that most fitness watch brands would stop using MIP displays and transition to AMOLED at lower price points. And just like that, the Garmin Forerunner 165, COROS PACE Pro, and Polar Vantage M3 all used AMOLED, abandoning MIP tech that was great for outdoor use but annoyingly low-res and dim indoors. It's obvious that these brands see better visual accessibility as the future.

In January, I also argued that Garmin needed to offer indoor workout coaching on par with its Garmin Coach for running and cycling. Wouldn't you know it, my Garmin Fenix 8 added a strength coach with auto-generated multi-month training plans, and the tool has since come to more affordable models like the Forerunners. Now, I have a useful way to get cross-training guidance using at-home weights.

Not every prediction and hope for wearables in 2024 came true; Google ignored my pleas for a "Fitbit renaissance" and effectively canceled Fitbit watches for good. But it certainly was the "year of the smart ring," with total sales literally doubling from 880,000 to 1,769,000, according to numbers IDC shared with Android Central.

We've only just begun to see the uptick of "AI on your wrist," as analysts assured me would happen, but Samsung's Energy Score, Wellness Tips, and auto-suggested replies on Wear OS 5 certainly qualify! And I'm confident that 2025 will be the year Gemini and Apple Intelligence make it onto smartwatches in some form.

Smartwatches have become essential to a lot of people

In 2024, companies sold 154.1 million smartwatches and 36.6 million fitness bands, per data shared by IDC. Canalys shows that fitness bands have bounced back slightly from 17 to 20% market share thanks to popularity in Latin America and EMEA. However, they've massively declined from their 50% share in 2020, falling short of smartwatches and basic watches.

Economically, companies like the bigger profit margins of smartwatches and have largely abandoned fitness trackers to Chinese brands like Xiaomi and Huawei. Generally, people prefer the look of smartwatches more than cheap fitness bands, and the stats show they'll pay for style.

But beyond that, I think the growing smartwatch sales numbers — and higher sales of premium "Ultra" watches — is the result of smartwatches being marketed so effectively as being life-saving. They signal 911 if you fall, notice if your pulse is erratic, tell you how long you need to rest after a run to avoid serious injury, and catch if you have sleep apnea or (for some brands) a fever.

It's not fun when your watch tells you something's wrong. But even if ignorance is bliss, I'd rather know about a problem ahead of time than have it blindside me when the problem gets worse. And I think consumers would rather pay $300 for a watch that's 90% accurate than a $50 band with hit-or-miss stats.

I'm excited to see what new tricks fitness smartwatches pull off in 2025. Some of them will undoubtedly be gimmicky, and not everything will work well. But the core experience is better than ever, and I'm happy that I'm privileged enough to keep testing those features and sharing my thoughts, guesses, and rants about wearables with you.

It's easy for tech categories to fall into ruts, and just a few years back, it felt like most smartwatches were these squircle clones of one another with little innovation. But now, a bunch of different brands are playing to their strengths and giving consumers a wealth of options.

Since my job is often about nitpicking or complaining about smartwatch features, it's nice to reflect once in a while that things are, on the whole, good.

I don't typically use alarms because I hate being jolted out of REM sleep, as if the noise punched me awake and left me sullen and sluggish. Waking up on my own isn't usually a problem, but on days I can't risk oversleeping, I'd sure love my phone alarm to have a target wake-up range, using my smartwatch or smart ring data to hold off until I'm in my light sleep stage.

[Infomercial voice] But wait, now I can!

I own the Ultrahuman Ring Air, one of the best smart rings for dependable health and sleep accuracy without needing a subscription. On Wednesday, the Ultrahuman team announced the 2024 holiday update, including an upcoming "Smart Alarm" PowerPlug feature.

The feature is still "coming soon" in the app, but Smart Alarm will "sync with your sleep cycles, gently waking you up during light sleep, with wake-up tunes crafted with sleep and music science — ensuring the perfect start to your day."

Ultrahuman PowerPlugs are essentially optional widgets for Ring Air owners to add niche data like AFib detection, jet lag tracking, Vitamin D, ovulation, heart adaptability to stressors, or pregnancy insights to their normal Today tab. But this new Smart Alarm tool, as the name suggests, is more of a traditional "smart" feature that you'd get on a watch, which I appreciate.

I'm confident Ultrahuman's Smart Alarm can work. Why? Because I've already tried it...with the Fitbit Charge 6, which — like most other Fitbits — has a Smart Wake alarm setting that begins looking for a light-sleep stage 30 minutes before your target wake-up. Even though I hate wearing watches to bed, I tried it during my Charge 6 review and found it worked as intended, avoiding any sudden jolts awake.

But since I'm the Wearables lead, I switch brands from week to week. Most brands don't offer a similar feature, and Fitbit itself won't make any more smartwatches. Google, which owns Fitbit, hasn't ported Smart Wake to the Pixel Watch 3, only offering basic alarm scheduling. Most watch and band owners don't have a tool like it.

Nearly any Android smartwatch (or Apple Watch) will have detailed sleep-stage breakdowns within a few minutes of waking up. So I'd imagine some simple if/then conditionals would make this feature possible: If the time is during the requested wake-up window, check the current sleep stage; if deep or REM, wait 1 minute, then check again; if light, trigger the alarm; and if users hit the end of the wake-up window while still in REM, trigger alarm anyways so they don't oversleep.

Ultrahuman's Smart Alarm also has the option to trigger an alarm once the user clears their sleep debt, which I find very cool. My partner doesn't like setting alarms because she has occasional anxious, sleepless nights, but other nights she'll oversleep until she has an hour of negative sleep debt. Ultrahuman's conditional "only wake up when you're rested" alarm would be perfect for her.

So many brands today emphasize things like sleep coaching or daily energy scores. Imagine if your Garmin watch had a conditional alarm that only buzzed your wrist when you hit a high-enough Body Battery score. The same would apply to your Oura Ring 4 and its Oura Readiness score, your Galaxy Watch 7 and its daily Energy Score, and so on.

I know some smart alarm clocks detect your stage by picking up movement, but those don't work as well for couples since either person could trigger the not-dreaming state. Apps like Sleep Cycle that pick up movement noises with your phone mic may have the same problem, and wouldn't work as well if you use white noise apps to sleep. Basically, I'd rather use a watch's direct heart rate and movement data, and cut out the guesswork.

Since my partner and I both own Ultrahuman Ring Airs, we don't need to worry about other smartwatches or rings; we're getting this feature soon. But it's my job to care about my readers' needs, too, and I think a lot of people — and the loved ones suffering from their wrong-side-of-the-bed grumpiness — would benefit from more graceful wake-ups. Here's hoping that by the end of 2025, more brands will follow in Fitbit and Ultrahuman's footsteps with smarter alarms!

Whether you picked up a new Pixel Watch 3 during the recent Black Friday/ Cyber Monday hullabaloo or are simply looking for tips and tricks with your months-old watch, I'm here to help.

Based on my time reviewing the Pixel Watch 3 and other Wear OS watches, I've created this Google Pixel Watch 3 beginner's guide to run through our favorite features that Google itself doesn't fully explain during setup.

None of these features will be groundbreaking to anyone who's fluent in Wear OS watch software, but it'll hopefully prove useful to have it all listed out in one place. That way you won't forget to set up Emergency SOS, Watch Unlock, and other handy tools with your new watch!

Switch up your watch faces

As always with Wear OS, you tap and hold your main watch screen to swap between default watch face options. Tap the pencil icon to change the colors, layout, complications, and boldness of the main clock.

By default, the Pixel Watch 3 has 13 different watch faces installed. In the Pixel Watch companion app, you'll see a Watch faces option directly under the watch icon, where you'll see more options (about 25 different types in total, each with different "flavors"). My favorite is one tied to Google Photos, where you pick up to 30 photos and can tap between them by tapping the main watch face, swapping between them at your leisure.

Unfortunately, the Pixel Watch 3 can't use any watch faces without the XML Watch Face Format (WFF) — it's a Wear OS 5 restriction — which means you can't add them from Facer anymore. For the few compatible third-party options, open the Play Store on your phone, tap Search, select Watch apps under "Explore apps," select Pixel Watch 3 under "Your devices" at the top, and finally tap Watch faces. You'll see XML watch faces for you to buy and download to the Pixel Watch 3.

Filter your notifications

Nothing drives me crazier than getting an endless buzz of unimportant notifications on my wrist. One of the first things I did with my Pixel Watch 3 was open the Pixel Watch app on my phone, tap Notifications under Settings, then tap Mute notifications from phone so I'm not buzzed in two places if I'm currently using my phone. I also like to Mute phone calls while wearing my watch, since I know I'll be buzzed on my wrist anyways.

Most importantly, I tap Watch apps and disable any notifications from apps I know I don't care about seeing urgently, knowing that I can check my notification feed on my phone later.

One thing I wish Android and Wear OS offered was a way to disable multiple notifications from the same source in quick succession, like when a group Telegram chat buzzes my wrist thirty times during a run. So I found the Buzzkill Notification Manager app so I can set a cooldown on repeat notifications within a certain span. It doesn't have a Wear OS app, but its effects trickle down to the Pixel Watch 3, and it's worth the small cost if you're similarly bothered by back-to-back buzzes.

Lastly, remember every night to swipe down from the watch face and tap the Crescent Moon icon to turn on Bedtime Mode, which filters all calls and notifications except for starred callers and alarms. By default, the Pixel Watch 3 has Auto-Bedtime mode enabled based on your sleep zones and heart rate, and syncs with your Pixel phone's DND settings — though not other phone brands like Samsung, frustratingly. Either way, the display will still blind you if you move your arm in a dark room before you first fall asleep, so I turn it on manually.

Dive into the settings

This is a bit of a boring and obvious entry, but it's still worth mentioning. Swipe down from the main watch face view, tap the Cog icon, and spend five minutes running through the options, enabling or adjusting things as needed. Here are my specific Pixel Watch 3 settings recommendations:

• Display: Change the text size if you're near-sighted; make sure Adaptive brightness is turned on; change the screen timeout to 10 seconds but the Go to watch face to either 2 or 5 minutes so you don't have to navigate back to things if you're distracted and the screen turns off; and turn off always-on screen if you're trying to save battery life.
• Sound: I leave sound off for calls and notifications in favor of vibrations, but you can change the volume here if you want both.
• Vibration: Lower the force of the haptics if, for example, you want to be gently jostled awake by your alarm instead of buzzed awake.
• Battery: Change Battery Saver to trigger at a higher or lower percentage, depending on your priorities.
• Accessibility: Useful features like TalkBack, color correction, or the option to vibrate the current time are available here, for anyone with visual impairments.
• System: Aside from checking for system updates and restarting or turning off the watch, this menu has a secret method for turning on developer mode. Tap About > Versions and then tap the Build number seven times.

Under Developer options, you can enable niche tools like having your watch stay awake while charging on your desk, or to Force full GNSS measurements to improve location accuracy during workouts (theoretically). As I noted in my Galaxy Watch Ultra beginner's guide, many people use dev options specifically to reduce the animation time when swapping between or opening apps, so that you see information more quickly.

Control your Google devices

Depending on what other Google devices you own, the Pixel Watch 3 can act as a hub to control your smart home or Pixel phone, thanks to some new tricks added with Wear OS 5.

If you have a Nest Camera or Doorbell associated with your Google Home account, you'll receive notifications on your wrist when motion is detected; tapping it will send you to the live feed for that camera. Otherwise, you can tap the Camera device tile in Google Home and select a specific camera.

If you tap the triple-line icon underneath the feed, you can tap a mic icon to enable 2-way talk and speak to whoever's there, or the chat icon for Quick Responses like "We'll be right there." On the feed itself, you can double-tap the display to zoom in, then swipe left or right to pan your view.

In terms of other Google Home functions, if you have an Android TV or Google TV dongle on your account, tap and hold any tile on your Pixel Watch, press the + button, and add the TV tile to your carousel; you may need to remove a tile to make room if your carousel is full.

If necessary, select the specific Home and TV you want to control; for most people, your one Google TV device's controls will become visible by default. You'll be able to play/ pause, check how much time is left, skip forward or backward on a playlist, or change the volume. If you need to select options on screen, tap the Remote button, which has a D-pad and select button.

Otherwise, any other Google Home devices and automations like smart light routines or Nest Thermostat controls are controllable on your watch; that linked guide will walk you through building a Google Home ecosystem, if you're interested!

Download offline Google Maps

Some fitness watches can download specific GPX maps and courses to follow for workouts in areas with no signal. The Pixel Watch 3 isn't one of those watches, but Google Maps can at least store offline maps for whole areas so that you can search for directions in a pinch. It's a good idea to save whole areas like national or regional parks where the signal is poor, and to have these offline maps on your watch in case your phone dies.

To add offline maps to your Pixel Watch 3, start on the mobile Google Maps app, search for a specific place, tap the top-right ellipsis, and then download offline map. Scroll or pinch to select the right rectangular area, then Download it. It'll save to your phone.

Next, make sure your Pixel Watch 3 is connected to WiFi, then place it on its charger. Google auto-syncs your offline maps from your phone to your watch, but only when it's charging and on-network.

Set up Google Wallet and transit passes

By default, double-tapping the Pixel Watch 3 crown pulls up Google Wallet, with your default card ready to be tapped for contactless payments. Setting it up is relatively simple, but adding Google Wallet cards will require a PIN or Pattern for security reasons; you should only have to enter it every time you take off your watch for charging, but if you forget your pattern you'll have to reset the watch to factory settings.

Double-tap the crown, then create a PIN if prompted. The app will then tell you to continue on your synced phone in the Watch app; assuming you already have Google Wallet on your associated account, you will simply need to enter the CVV for the card you want to use, agree to certain terms and conditions, and wait for the bank to verify your information. Then a double crown tap will prime the default card for payment without having to select anything.

If you haven't used Wallet before, the app will use your phone camera to scan your card details, or else you can enter them manually. Plus, you can add a transit pass to Wallet if you live near Puget Sound (ORCA), the SF Bay Area (Clipper/BART), Toronto (PRESTO), or D.C. (SmarTrip/Metro) and want to tap past turnstiles with your phone in your pocket.

Sync your Pixel and Pixel Watch

Google gave the Watch 3 a few Pixel-exclusive features rewarding those who buy within its family of devices. The first is the new Recorder app: Anyone can record things on their wrist, but Pixel owners will have their recordings auto-sync to their Pixel phones, where they can copy the AI transcripts as needed.

Perhaps the most important tool is Call Screening, which is only available to U.S.-based Pixel Watch owners with a Pixel 6 phone or later. In your mobile Phone app, tap the top-right ellipsis > Settings > Caller ID & spam and make sure you auto-filter spam calls and make caller ID available by default.

If you want to prop your Pixel phone to take a remote photo, the Camera app acts as a viewfinder for your Pixel phone. With this view, you can tap the Camera or Video icon to switch the type, double-tap the main view to swap between front and rear cameras, slide the magnification up and down, and tap the triple-line icon to change settings like the Mode and Timer.

Lastly, you can use your Pixel Watch 3 to unlock your nearby Pixel phone with UWB, so long as you have a watch passcode set up — and are okay with using a little extra watch battery life. Open the mobile Watch app and tap Watch preferences > Security > Watch Unlock, then enter your phone PIN and hit Confirm on the next page.

If you enable this, your phone will unlock with any upward swipe or tapped notification on the lock screen. Your watch will get a phone-unlock notification any time you do this; tap the notification to re-lock your phone in case someone else grabbed your phone and unlocked it nearby.

Turn on Emergency SOS and fall detection

The Pixel Watch app prompts you to set up Emergency SOS and fall detection in the Watch app after setup, but I imagine plenty of people dismiss the notifications in their initial unboxing excitement and then forget about it...until an emergency makes them regret their short-sightedness.

We have step-by-step guides on setting up emergency SOS and turning on fall detection on Pixel Watches, so I won't waste space recreating those steps here.

The main thing is that you need to choose in advance which contacts will receive an emergency alert and make sure that the Personal Safety watch tool has access to your location so that emergency services know where to find you. Look in your app drawer for the Personal Safety app, where you can choose emergency contacts and set up things like Car Crash Detection or add your Medical Info for EMTs.

Another lesser-known feature you may want to try is Safety Check, which broadcasts your location to your emergency contacts if you don't check in after a certain time period. This is a useful preventative measure if, say, you're going for a nighttime run.

Plus, if you got your hands on the Pixel Watch 3 LTE, you automatically benefit from Safety Signal, which allows Emergency SOS, Fall Detection, and Safety Check to work even if your phone isn't around and you haven't added it to a carrier. The default Google Fi connection will send your crisis info where it needs to go.

Use Fitbit Run Coaching to get healthier

Google put major emphasis on improving Fitbit's running software on the Pixel Watch 3. Using your six-month free trial of Fitbit Premium, you'll get daily AI-generated run recommendations based on your current fitness level and training plan.

My how-to guide for Fitbit run coaching goes into depth, but essentially you need to open the Coach tab in the mobile Fitbit app and tap the banner about personalized workouts. You'll choose whether you're a beginner, intermediate (regularly run 5Ks), or advanced runner (run 10Ks, half marathons), then choose a plan based on whether you want to improve your Endurance, Pace, or both (Balanced).

At that point, you'll be given a daily recommendation like "tempo run" or "sprint intervals" that you can send to your watch and follow; the activity will have you stick to a specific heart rate zone, so it's less about hitting a specific pace and more about working hard for your ability level.

If you'd rather choose your own workout pace, you can easily create your own custom workouts. In the mobile Fitbit app, tap the bottom-left + symbol, then build a run and then the + sign next to Intervals. You can create a running interval based on criteria like distance, time, calories burned, or a "time trial" to finish X miles in Y minutes. You can also set a target to stay within a certain pace or HR range, with your watch buzzing your wrist if you stray outside of the target zone.

Once you're done, tap Save and start on watch, and it'll cue up the activity you just made and start connecting to GPS. If you want to create a workout but save it for later, simply exit out of the app after exporting it; it'll be saved permanently in your watch workouts. Simply start a Run activity, tap the right stack icon, then choose the workout from the list.

Build up your Fitbit Cardio Load

Fitbit Run Coaching is great, but it doesn't help non-runners build workouts and it requires a Premium subscription. Fitbit Cardio Load is a free metric that scores your activity level for any type of workout, as well as non-workout activities like lifting heavy boxes at work or walking around town that still elevate your heart rate.

You'll get Cardio Load scores by default, appearing in the main Fitbit Today tab. But to get the most out of Cardio Load, you need to wear your Pixel Watch 3 for sleep tracking for two weeks. This will help the watch figure out your health and sleep baseline to generate a Daily Readiness score, then give you a daily Target Load for the amount of cardio load you should try to hit that day, based on your past workouts and fitness level.

All of this to say, just start sleeping while wearing the Pixel Watch 3, and eventually your daily Morning Brief will show screens like the photo above with a target load score. Your AI-generated runs will take that Target Load into account, but you can also look at past workouts to see how much load you generate from a typical run or HIIT activity, and design your workout accordingly.

Buy backup watch bands

Google uses a proprietary watch band system, so most of the bands comparable with other watches won't work with it. We have a guide on the best Pixel Watch 3 bands that'll spice up your watch's look or give you a more comfortable band than the default Active band.

Unfortunately, we don't have many good third-party options because Pixel Watch sales aren't as high as Galaxy or Apple Watches. Still, we've found various rugged, woven, steel, and solo loop options that'll give you some variety and won't cost as much as Google's first-party bands, which are excellent but quite expensive (especially for leather or metal).

Whichever you choose, make sure that you buy the right size; the 41mm and 45mm Pixel Watch 3 use different band sizes, though your Pixel Watch 2 bands will carry over to the 41mm PW3.

Unpeel your Pixel Watch 3's layers

I didn't cover everything the Pixel Watch 3 can do. Fitbit Premium has other perks like Peloton workouts, meditation guides, and video coaching that may get you working out with your Watch 3. You can use Tiles to take an ECG reading or follow your Body Responses (aka stressful moments) throughout the day. And I didn't even bring up Google Assistant, which you call by holding down the back button above the crown.

Not to mention, you should open the Play Store on your phone, tap Other devices in the top menu, and look at the "top free watch apps" to see what third-party options will be helpful for you. Don't just stick to Google apps!

The Pixel Watch 3 is one of the best Android watches available today, thanks in part to its new Wear OS 5 tricks. And I have no doubt it'll get even smarter, since Google gives its watches three years of updates. Hopefully by the time Wear OS 6 arrives next fall with the Pixel Watch 4, you'll have mastered what your Pixel Watch 3 has to offer.

If you're like me, stuffing down turkey, candied yams, and, uh, stuffing over the past few days while sitting at home looking at Black Friday deals, then your body probably needs a technological kick in the pants, courtesy of your fitness watch.

Whether you plan to buy a Cyber Monday smartwatch deal or already have your trusty fitness watch, it's already time to use it. Don't wait until New Year's to make fitness resolutions after spending a month setting yourself up to fail.

Instead, now's when you familiarize yourself with your smartwatch's health and fitness tools, to help you lose those Thanksgiving pounds — and preemptively keep yourself active during the cold winter months! I'll start with my "easiest" advice to follow, then progress to the harder stuff.

Turn on those obnoxious move alerts

For anyone with a desk job, there's nothing more annoying than being reminded every hour how sedentary you're being. Apple and Galaxy Watches have Stand rings, while Fitbits or Pixel Watches tell you to walk 250 steps per hour. But most people I've asked say they turn off those reminders immediately.

Your first December pledge is simple: Turn those move alerts (back) on for the month. Sitting all day is extremely unhealthy; that article links to several studies showing that sitting 8 hours actively undoes the health benefits of an hour-long workout the same day. So if you want to start working out to lose weight, you also need to stay active outside of workouts.

Taking just 1–2 minutes every hour to walk around your cube farm or do squats by your desk won't specifically lose weight — you need a sustained walk to actively burn calories — but I guarantee that staying limber will help prevent you from putting on more weight and get you ready for workouts later.

I specifically recommend a Pixel Watch 3 or Fitbit Charge 6 for move alerts, because they require you to move around for a specific 250-step goal, not just stand and wave your arms around. But an Apple Watch or Galaxy Watch's ring-closing goals are also great motivation.

Add X,000 steps to your daily average

Speaking of steps, I'm sure you've all heard the cliche about walking 10,000 steps a day, which began as a marketing gimmick. But even though that number is arbitrary, the need for steps isn't. The medical consensus is that 6,000 steps a day will actively improve your health, with younger people requiring a higher daily average.

When I walked 10,000 steps a day for a month, I lost seven pounds and 2.4% body fat, lowered my resting heart rate and blood pressure, and improved my cardiovascular fitness. I admittedly ran as well during this month, but the extra walking was the cause; case in point, I gained weight throughout 2023 despite running about 40–50 miles per month, up until that point.

For the next year, I continued to walk more frequently each month, and it helped me lose 30 pounds in 12 months — weight that I've since kept off. Seriously, walking works. But it's also a subtle, long-term solution; don't expect it to have the same impact as some unhealthy crash diet.

It's harder to walk so much in winter when the days are short, so I'm not insisting you follow my lead exactly. Instead, look at your current average daily steps in your fitness app of choice, and pledge to add 2,000 steps, or 4,000 steps, or whatever number you can handle. Each extra mile will either counterbalance or subtract your weight gains from overeating, without being too difficult.

For me, it usually takes about 15 minutes to walk a mile, or 2,000 steps, at a brisk pace; I know in advance that 6,000 steps is about a 45-minute commitment. Figure out your average time, find a safe morning or evening walking route near home (or buy a treadmill), and commit to walking a mile+ more per day (as much as your schedule can handle) at least five days per week. Make it a group activity with family members, if you can.

Any fitness smartwatch should count steps more or less accurately, while a smart ring is accurate during walks but gives lots of false positives while you're sitting and typing. I prefer a Garmin watch, not only because they're extremely accurate for step count, but because they have step incentives. Every month has a 10,000-step "Challenge" to hit 300,000 for the month, helping you track your progress; plus, there is a weekly steps leaderboard where you compete with other random Garmin users to get the most steps that week.

Count calories (the right way)

I'm not a dieting proponent. It's important to cut back on unhealthy foods and use portion control for your favorite snacks — like only one slice of pie at Thanksgiving — but everyone I know who counts calories tends to hyperfixate on feelings of hunger and devolve into binge-eating before too long.

That being said, calorie counting is the best way to determine if you're overeating and which foods are directly contributing to your weight gain. And I know other people who swear by apps like MyFitnessPal as a way to keep themselves honest and lose weight, so I'm including it here.

First, you need to figure out your body's basal metabolic rate (BMR), or the maintenance calories your body typically burns per day to sustain itself. You can use an online calculator, or buy a smart scale like the Withings Body Scale that auto-calculates it based on every weigh-in.

Once you know your baseline, your caloric goal is simple: If you cut your intake by 3,500 calories, you'll lose a pound. So you need to either decrease what you eat below your daily BMR to slowly add up the deficit to 3,500, or increase your daily maximum by working out (or walking).

Someone with a 2,000-calorie BMR can try eating 1,500 calories every day — which would hypothetically add up to four pounds of weight loss in a month — but you need to be realistic about what your mind and body can handle over a sustained period, especially with so many tempting opportunities to overeat in December. So set yourself a reasonable goal to (at the very least) break even by reducing bad calories, and raise your threshold with workouts and walking.

Available on both Apple Watches and Wear OS watches, MyFitnessPal is the best smartwatch-based tool to keep track of this. It lets you log your most frequent meals, snacks, or drinks with a few taps, then see your daily carbs, fat, calories, or other bodily stats on a Tile view at any time, to make sure you're not overdoing it on sugar or slacking on your daily protein intake.

Start running (responsibly)

Walking is a safe, low-impact, and monotonous way to burn calories. If you want to really kick things into overdrive, you should start your couch-to-5K journey and start jogging more regularly. The problem is that most people who start running overdo it, hate the experience or injure themselves, and give up quickly.

That's why I recommend finding a watch that'll calculate your body's VO2 Max, or the ability to convert oxygen into energy effectively, and then give you recommendations for how much your body can work out on a given day.

More and more smartwatches now track your weekly or monthly training load, then tell you if you're improving or worsening your fitness, or if you're overtraining. Apple, Pixel, Garmin, and even Amazfit have differing tools for judging when your HR rises above resting, creating a TL score based on how high and for how long, then judging how your TL effort compares to past days and weeks.

On top of that, some watches like the Pixel Watch 3 or Garmin Forerunner 165 will use your training load data to generate automatic, daily run suggestions. Garmin gives you a specialized workout based on whether you need more low-HR or high-HR activities, with a specific time and pace. Fitbit generates a few different types of runs per day and has you stick to a particular heart rate zone instead, so it's less about results and more about individual effort.

If you're new to running, the Pixel Watch 3 is an excellent option; two other Android Central editors who aren't regular runners have told me that its Cardio Load and auto-generated workouts make running more accessible to them. Otherwise, people looking to get seriously into running should look into the Garmin Forerunner series — especially since several of them are discounted for Cyber Monday right now!

The Polar Vantage M3 is the brand's first affordable AMOLED watch, after the $599 Vantage V3 and $749 Grit X2 Pro first shed off the old MIP standard. The $399 M3 shares their 4th-gen Elixir OHR and dual-band GPS, meaning it should offer reliable accuracy on par with Polar's flagships.

I decided to put this to the test! Despite the rainy weather and coming down with a cold, I took the Polar Vantage M3 on several runs, long walks, and a track run over the past couple of weeks, comparing the results against the Garmin Fenix 8's dual-band GPS, the COROS HRM armband, and the Polar H10 chest strap.

When I pitted the Vantage V3 against flagship Garmin and COROS watches, it fell a bit short for GPS accuracy (while still doing better than a GPS-only watch) and was fairly accurate for HR data compared to a chest strap. So I was curious to see how the mid-range Vantage M3 would do with similar hardware.

Turns out the Polar Vantage M3 is quite reliable for GPS, but a little less reliable for heart rate accuracy in some cases. Still, the mid-range M3 is already making the flagship V3 look a little overpriced by offering the same experience for less.

Polar Vantage M3 GPS accuracy

I used the Fenix 8 as a location accuracy control group because Garmin's dual-band GPS tends to lead the industry for dependable results in my tests. The mid-range COROS PACE Pro did surprisingly well against it in my accuracy test earlier this month, so I had high hopes that the Vantage M3 could do equally well.

I'm sorry that so many of my tests were short jogs — which tend to be too short to reveal discrepancies — or long walks that are usually too slow-paced to challenge the antenna's full abilities. I didn't get to go on a hike for proper elevation testing or accuracy on a tree-obscured route, either.

From what I was able to test, however, the Vantage M3 did respectably well, always falling closely within the same margins as the Garmin watch for a long run.

If you look more closely at the GPS map between the Vantage M3 (orange line) and Fenix 8 (blue) for my most recent 10K run above, there are a few instances where the Vantage M3 drifts slightly into the street or buildings, with the same unprompted zig-zagging and hard angles as the dual-frequency Suunto Race, as well as some issues with underpasses that the Fenix 8 didn't encounter.

Thankfully, the Vantage M3 has fewer gaffes than Suunto and does perfectly well in normal conditions, sticking to the correct side of my local trail. And for my track run below, it didn't stick perfectly to the first lane, but that's something every watch I've tested struggles with; Polar's result is actually among the best I've seen among dual-band watches.

While I couldn't do a proper hike, my walk along another nearby trail was illuminating. In the screenshots below, you'll see how the Vantage M3 (now the blue line) does perfectly well on the unimpeded stretches, but under tree cover, you'll see a lot more wavering in short stretches where I was walking straight ahead (and Garmin's orange line is usually more consistent). My total distance was only two-hundredths apart, though, so most people won't mind.

Overall, I think people will be happy with the Vantage M3's location accuracy, especially for its price. What's perhaps more interesting is how Garmin and Polar consistently track running power, training load, and steps per minute differently.

I'm inclined to trust Garmin over Polar for steps; Garmin has won several step-counting accuracy tests, and Garmin, Apple, COROS, and Fitbit all closely matched on total steps and cadence across a 20-mile, four-watch test.

But I've noticed in the past how Garmin training load seems to underestimate walks and overestimate track workouts, while Polar separates cardio and muscle load in a way that feels more sophisticated and accurate to my effort level — aside from the grossly-underestimated track load. And running power has always felt like an arbitrary metric that varies by brand, so I don't put much stock in it.

Polar Vantage M3 HR accuracy

My Polar Vantage M3 heart rate results gave me whiplash. For most normal runs, it delivered consistent HR averages, if all slightly below my external HRMs. But my track run results were disappointing and my walk data showed the correct averages but was bizarrely wild on the graphs.

For every run except one two-mile jog, the Polar Vantage M3 was 1 bpm short of my optical arm band or my Polar ECG. In the two HR graphs below (hit the magnification button), you can see how the purple Garmin graph sits slightly above the pinker Polar one at most points, aside from when my effort dips and Polar is slower to drop.

There's normally a delay between wrist- and arm-based optical monitors or chest straps, but a solid fitness watch should still average out to the same result in the end. I'd like to see Polar figure out its algorithm to close the small gap, but 1 bpm isn't a major issue and it's still in the right ballpark.

What's slightly weirder is looking at my two walking activity charts. Polar really struggled to stay close to my fluctuating heart rate for both activities, with a 5–10 bpm gap above or below my actual HR for sustained stretches.

They ended up averaging out to identical or close bpm averages for 6- and 4-mile walks; so again, perhaps you won't care about the difference. But that may have been luck more than everything else; I noticed this 5Krunner HR accuracy test did fine for most runs but had bizarrely inflated HR totals for a calm walk. So I'm hoping this is an area where the Polar algorithm can improve with time.

As for my track workout, I can only show a portion of the graph because it somehow got fully misaligned in-between lap pauses about halfway through, so the results were needlessly confusing. This portion gives you a glimpse of what to expect, though: a few beats short at most points, dipping as low as 20 bpm under at one point, and overestimating my max by a few beats. Basically, it's all over the place.

I'm going to do an unpaused track run for my full Vantage M3 review, to avoid any weird issues with flat, skewed results. But even with this incomplete test, I feel like the Vantage M3 could have done much better in that initial snapshot. If I were a serious athlete trying to track anaerobic effort, I'd probably buy an external monitor to pair with my Vantage M3.

The Polar Vantage M3 holds its own

There's a new category of AMOLED running watches that cost about the same as an Apple Watch or Pixel Watch but offer a serious leg up for training metrics, battery life, and accuracy.

If I had to choose between the COROS PACE Pro ($349), Suunto Race S ($349), Polar Vantage M3 ($399), and Garmin Forerunner 265 ($449), I'd have a seriously tough decision on my hands — but I'd also feel like I couldn't go wrong with any one choice.

With the Vantage M3 in particular, I appreciate its lightweight and thin design, Strava route and Komoot directions integration, full suite of sensors like ECG and skin temp, and default topo maps.

Its 7-day battery life is on the short side for a running watch, and I'm not the biggest fan of Polar Flow as a companion app, but it doesn't feel like a major downgrade from the pricier Vantage V3, with similar perks like its useful VO2 Max and orthostatic tests and comparable accuracy. While I've yet to review it fully, the Vantage M3 looks more compelling than the V3 for sheer value.

I just wish it was a little more accurate for anaerobic runs or low-effort aerobic.