When I buy a gadget, I expect it to work as advertised. This sets me up for a lot of disappointment. Inaccurate GPS trackers, counterintuitive interfaces, and—most frustrating of all—batteries that die well before they’re supposed to leave me forlorn.

Thus��it was with much trepidation that I decided to try the ��($299). The solar-powered activity monitor launched on last September with a simple promise: never worry about battery life again. But could a small startup crack the all-day-use problems that still plague giants like Apple and Samsung?

In bright, sunshiny New Mexico, where I live, the answer is yes.

The watch needs only an hour of daily light exposure to go on working forever—and the company says artificial indoor light works just as well as the sun. Now, don’t expect the Lunar to replace your training watch just yet. There’s no heart-rate monitor, and in place of a display, a pair of hands tick around a face behind a transparent solar panel. Vibrations alert you to texts and calls on your synced phone, while an LED array flashes when you hit activity targets. But for the convenience of never having to charge again, I’ll take it.

The post Forget Batteries. The Lunar Smartwatch Runs on Solar. appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

The wearable space has a problem: people just don’t like using activity monitors. They’re fun and cool at the start, but they end up in drawers collecting dust.

That’s why��the San Francisco-based��Spire wants to make them disappear. , a thumb-sized sensor that attaches to your clothing with adhesive and measures everything from breathing to heart-rate to sleep quality.��The tags are sold in packs of three, eight, or fifteen: stick them to the clothing you wear most often, and forget about it.

Like the Apple Watch and most other high-end fitness trackers, the tag has an optical heart-rate sensor (read: it doesn’t require an additional chest strap monitor) to measure heart rate and heart-rate variability. And like the Stone, Spire’s first product, it uses proprietary sensors and algorithms to monitor your breathing. Most of all, it’s designed to be stupidly��easy to use: simply attach it��to your clothing (bra or boxers, ideally) once, and that’s it. The battery lasts for 1.5 years, the adhesive about two years, and the device itself is washer and dryer safe.��

The tag links up to an intriguing-sounding app built around your health and wellness goals. If you’ve ever used the meditation app Headspace, you’ll understand the vibe. Pick an outcome—better sleep, staying active, reducing tension—and the Health Tag will create a tailored training program to help you achieve it by suggesting an exercise or breathing routine.

Because the device is��on 24/7, it can monitor activities like exercise and sleep over the long-term to provide actionable takeaways. It’ll spit out readings and advice like, “It took you 26 percent longer than usual to fall asleep last night. Got time for a quick breathing exercise before bed tonight?”

To be clear, I haven’t yet gotten my hands on the Health Tag and can’t confirm the company’s claims. But I had the chance to speak with Spire CEO and co-founder Jonathan Palley before the product launched. “We are taking wearables to next generation,” he told me. The Health Tag “just makes the device disappear. It’s no longer about the device itself but what the device does. You don’t have to remember anything.”

As an avid consumer of wearables, I’m genuinely excited about the Health Tag’s promise. If this product works as advertised, it will rightfully shift the focus on outcomes—what tech can do for you.

The post The Spire Health Tag Will Make Wearables Invisible appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

There’s no point in feigning objectivity. I love the Apple Watch—so much so that I’ve bought four of them and have worn one almost daily since it was first released in 2015. With watchOS 4.1, Apple has made an even more compelling device. Within the month, Apple Music users with the LTE-enabled Series 3 will be able to stream music without a phone over their cellular network. It’s a relatively minor update, but one that will nonetheless have a noticeable impact on my daily use of the Watch.

I’ve been testing the Apple Watch Series 3 for about a month and a half. As was my experience with the original Watch, I’ve liked its fitness-related features best. But ever since I bought AirPods, music has moved into a close second. Until now, I’ve been able to listen to music stored locally on the Watch. It was an easy process that entailed me pre-selecting playlists on my��iPhone, which then��synced��to the Watch.��

With watchOS 4.1 and streaming, which I've been using over the last few days, the music experience has changed substantially. There are now��two apps that handle audio, so long as you have a decent cell signal:

• Music: Use Music to listen to locally stored songs, and to stream anything in your library.��
• Radio: This is where you navigate to stream live (Beats One, ESPN, CBS Radio, and NPR)��and curated stations (matching what's on the Apple Music app), plus anything else not in your library.

This new setup may sound a bit confusing, and it can take getting used to when you’re navigating the Watch’s touchscreen.��While Music loads quickly, Radio can take a moment longer to start playing a song, and jumping between the two apps��can sometimes feel slow.��In practice, I’ve found myself using Siri most of the time to select and play music. In those instances, the Watch just worked, and I didn't worry about which app I was using.��

So how good is Siri? It’s worked well, and it’s capable of parsing complex tasks, like knowing to play SZA when I asked for some “romance-inducing hip-hop.” That said, it isn’t flawless. While writing this piece, I asked Siri to play something by The Stars, and ended up getting the Moby song “The Stars,” on Apple Music. I tried again, asking for music from the band The Stars, which pulled up the album Vangelis, through Radio. At this point, I realized I needed��to drop the��and requested music from Stars, and got what I wanted on Radio.

Such, I suppose, are the minor frustrations of having an intelligent DJ on your wrist.

The post Music Streaming Comes to the Apple Watch appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

To really understand why the Apple Watch Series 3 matters, you have to recall a bit of recent tech history: the announcement of the first Apple Watch in 2014 was a very big deal. For the first time, a leading technology company was plunging headfirst into the smartwatch space. While reviews of the Watch were mixed, . And the product . Because the Watch had fitness-tracking capabilities, many analysts predicted that it would mark the the end of brands like Garmin and Fitbit.��

Instead, the opposite happened: the Apple Watch made entire wearables market better. Sales of smartwatches and trackers . Garmin introduced the Forerunner 225. Fitbit��launched the Blaze. Meanwhile, software developers like Strava made wearable-friendly apps.

A similar scenario played out in 2016, with the release of the Watch Series 2. Apple added��health and fitness capabilities, but once again the competition responded with their own upgrades, most notably improving build quality, continuing to roll out optical heart rate monitoring, and adding smartwatch features.��

After a week of testing the $399 Watch 3��on an abbreviated fitness circuit—bike rides, long walks, navigating cities—I can safely say that Apple will��once again��have an outsized impact on the smartwatch industry. The Series 3 isn’t perfect, but at least in the short-term, it’s going to make every other smartwatch on the market feel obsolete.��

What Is This Thing, Anyway?

In our preview of the Series 3, we declared it a watch that athletes will want. This earned us scorn from some Facebook readers who were underwhelmed by the Watch’s battery life and insisted��that it should not be categorized as a high-performance fitness tracker.��

They’re right. But Apple has never presented the Watch as the most sophisticated fitness tracker on the market. The first version was a smartwatch with some solid fitness-tracking features. In version two, it became a bona��fide fitness tracker with strong smartwatch capabilities. Version three is a stellar fitness tool, and hands��down the best smartwatch available for iPhone owners.��

By design, the Watch is not supposed to be the perfect gift for your Ironman-obsessed sister-in-law. There are some great high-end, sport-specific products that already do things like sync with SRM power meters. Instead, it’s meant for the much larger number of us who want a device to track our hikes and rides but that can handle��smartwatch functions like streaming music and responding to texts. This review is written with those readers in mind. If, like some of my ���ϳԹ��� colleagues, you demand a tracker that holds a charge for five days and has tactile buttons for workouts, feel free to stop reading here. ��

The New Hardware

The Series 3 looks and feels just like any other Apple Watch, and it's compatible with all your old bands. Complete��details are on Apple’s website. And you’ll find them thoughtfully dissected and explained on sites like The Verge. For our purposes,��there are two main considerations:��

Cellular connectivity. That’s the big headline. You can now (actually, coming next month), stream music from your Watch, make calls (directly on the Watch or by using Apple’s AirPod earbuds), receive texts, and let friends and family track your location without your iPhone. This all happens seamlessly from your current phone number. And it works better than advertised: the calls are crisp and the Watch is responsive. I expected that I’d find myself missing my phone. I rarely did.

(Note: Other reviewers with the Watch's cellular connectivity. In our experience, a few texts did fail to send on the Metro and Siri��wasn't talking back. But calling worked just fine in D.C. and Santa Fe.)

Beyond the cellular upgrade, there’s the addition of a barometric altimeter. This tool helps the watch accurately measure elevation gain. There isn’t much else to say beyond: it works, and that’s something that will make athletes happy. You can now ride and run without your phone and get accurate climbing data.

What about GPS and the heart rate monitor? Given the plus its performance throughout the test, we��won't be��touching on those��previously reviewed feature. We will however briefly praise the new Sport Loop. It's comfortable, looks fun, and it allows you to wear the Watch more tightly around the wrist. That snug fit helps the optical heart rate sensor perform at its best.

The New Software

The biggest fitness upgrades come courtesy of watchOS4, the new operating system available to all Watch owners. This is a radically simplified interface that puts your health at the center of the experience. Practically speaking, it means you get a refreshed Workout app, plus some exciting new heart-rate monitoring features:

• Heart-rate variability tracking. This stat can be used to understand how well you’re recovering and if you’re about to get sick. The Watch measures this when you initiate the Breathe��app (Apple's mindfulness tool) and during other times the Watch detects to be suitable throughout the day.
• Resting heart rate: The beats per minute of your heart at rest, a measure of overall fitness and fatigue.
• Walking average: A new tool from Apple that measures your average heart rate while walking.
• Heart rate recovery: How your heart rate responds after a workout, another potential measure of fitness and fatigue.
• Elevated heart rate: An opt-in system designed to notify you if their your rate goes above a self-selected��threshold��when you've been inactive for ten minutes or longer

The above upgrades are significant enough to warrant a software update.

How Does It Work?

For this review, I went on a handful rides and spent several days trekking around Washington, D.C. on a trip. I didn’t get a chance to test the Watch in the pool or on a trail. For our long-term test, we’ll be putting the Watch through a more thorough battery of workouts.��

Exercising with the Watch��

I got the watch at about 4:45 p.m. on Tuesday, September 12. I jumped in a car with ���ϳԹ��� executive editor Michael Roberts at about 6��p.m. While he drove away from the Apple Park to escape traffic, I set up the Watch, gossiped about coworkers, and ate an energy bar. By 7:30 p.m., I was ready to ride. And while my original Watch died partway through the excursion, the Series 3 kept its charge.

During our hour-long��ride, I simultaneously tracked my activity through the Workout app and on a secondary phone (that wasn’t paired with the new Watch) using Strava. I didn’t listen to music or text my friends while riding, but the Watch’s new hardware was a difference maker. It made me feel that I would have been comfortable exploring without a phone. And it allowed me to track an elevation gain of 1,200��feet. These seem like small things, but a product like this is about small advances and upgrades.

On my second ride, back in Santa Fe, the Watch showed an incorrect elevation gain recording, likely the result of a thunderstorm that blew in while I was out. The drastic change in air pressure would have have affected any barometric altimeter. As expected, it was an issue I didn’t experience on any other rides or walks.

Choosing between using Strava and Workout is a common Watch experience, and one that predates the Series 3. You need to think��about how you’re tracking your workouts and storing your data or you’ll end up with a��confusing training log. There are also real tradeoffs to be made depending on what app you use.

Let’s start with the Apple ecosystem. For those new to Watch, it works something like this: on the Watch you record your workouts in Workout and track your overall activity (hours of the day with standing, overall movement, and minutes spent exercising) in Activity; on the phone, all your data is presented in Health with workouts specifically appearing in Activity. That makes Health your default training log. If you’re new to training or activity tracking—or if you’re comfortable storing everything in Health—this isn’t an issue. Your data is all in one place.��

For people with years of data stored in apps like Training Peaks, or for folks who want a robust desktop interface for reviewing their stats, it’s a bit problematic. Apple doesn't have a web��app��or any desktop interface for viewing Health data (and because of the company's privacy stance, there likely isn't��one on the horizon). And while exporting your data is��doable, it isn’t convenient—a sizable drawback for a device designed to make health and wellness easy. Practically speaking, it means that��if you want to record everything through Workout—because you prefer the interface or just like keeping everything within Apple—and then have that data automatically export and sync to, say,��Strava, you're out of luck.��How big of a deal is this? For ���ϳԹ��� readers, it hasn’t been a frequently voiced concern. And for me, it just means that I should eventually pick one primary platform.��

Overall, the Watch—from a sensor and software perspective—accomplishes��what I currently need from a fitness tracker on the bike. It shows me distance and duration in real time. And if I'm using Strava, it uploads my ride��when I’m done.��It has replaced my Garmin computer in almost every situation (save for ultra-endurance death rides). But the Watch form factor is not the ideal tool for cyclists. To view any of the stats, I have to raise my wrist from the handlebars. And to adjust music or fiddle with settings, I have to take both hands off the bars. To be clear, these are criticisms of all watches. But they’re more pronounced with the Watch. Some watches have an always-on screen that make the glancing easier. And other brands come with handlebar attachments. Runners I’ve spoken with have expressed skepticism about the lack of buttons and the screen’s ability to respond in rain and through sweat. This is a valid concern, but one I haven’t really noticed on the bike (except while wearing long-finger gloves). The touchscreen always—even in light rain—has worked fine for me. I've also found it to be visible under bright sunlight.

(As someone who once fancied himself a decent cyclist, the most Watch-specific issue is that it doesn’t currently sync with ANT+ devices, such as power meters. That pertains to a small subset of cyclists, but if you don’t leave home without your power meter,��the Watch will not be your all-in-one fitness tracker.)

Texting and Calling on the Watch

I underestimated just how impactful the Watch’s cellular connectivity would be. On short rides, it gives me the comfort to go without my phone. If something were to happen, I’m confident that I could call for help. When paired with the AirPods, the call quality was clear. Likewise, being able to quickly send a text was a surprisingly important feature. Running late? Instead of leaving someone on the other end worrying, I could quickly shoot a message. While I didn’t test the GPS mapping functionality on the bike, I did use it to get home from a concert after my phone died. And I��could see it helping me navigate��a new city while on a run or ride.��

Music on the Watch

There are��legitimate��reasons to stay within Apple’s ecosystem. On the Watch, their apps tend to just work a little bit better, at least right now. The biggest example of this for me is the integration of Music and Workout. When I ride on quiet roads, I like to keep one earbud in to listen to music and the other dangling so that I can better hear approaching cars. My AirPods plus Watch have replaced a full suite of devices I used to ride with: a phone for connectivity, wired headphones, and a Watch for fitness tracking. In Workout, it’s simple to change the song or volume: just swipe and then use the controls as usual. You stay within Workout the entire time. It’s not so easy in Strava. You have to exit out of the app, open Music, make the change, and move back in. Again, it’s a seemingly minor complaint. But when you’re in the middle of a run or ride, those inconveniences matter—both in terms of pacing and also keeping your attention on traffic. Again, pay attention to the apps you use and how you like to use them. Spotify offers an app for AndroidWear but doesn’t have one yet for the Watch (though there is one coming).

Testing the Battery

Everyone wants to know about battery life. The problem with measuring battery life is that usage can vary dramatically between people. To provide the most accurate possible assessment, I conducted a variety of tests:��

• Go-till-you-die with heavy use: Almost 16 hours. I started using a fully-charged Watch at 7 a.m. I used it all day while traveling to respond to Slacks and texts. I turned it off at night for about eight��hours. I turned it on the following morning��and it made it until about 11:00 a.m.
• Go-till-you-die with Workout: About three hours. This was the most surprising result of the test. I started a walking Workout, used the Watch to text and navigate, and played music. It didn’t last long. To confirm the result, I tested it again but spent less time playing with apps on the Watch. In that case, I got over four hours of Workout tracking—in the context of a full day of use while traveling—before getting the 10 percent battery remaining warning.
• Workout Power Saving Mode: Full day. I launched this mode, which disables the cellular connectivity and optical heart rate monitor (but maintains GPS functionality), and initiated a walking Workout. I kept the session going for about five hours. Then I turned off power-saving mode and went about the rest of my day without running out of charge.��

If you’ve owned a Watch previously, there isn’t much new here. Using more features drains the battery more quickly. Expect this Watch to last about as long as the old one, so long as you’re not constantly calling or texting people. If you’re new to the Watch, though, some��explanation: for most workouts longer than two hours, I use an external heart-rate monitor and disable the optical HRM. That helps preserve battery.��

What do I make of the above? For 95 percent of my use cases, the Watch will have enough battery to make me a happy user. Long rides? Check. Long hikes? Check. Ironman triathletes won’t be in luck, but they may want another device specifically tailored to triathlons anyway.��

In-house, we’ve devised a holy grail test for fitness trackers: riding to a campsite, camping out, going for a short hike, and then riding back home. The Watch should theoretically be able to hold a charge for that (something I’ll confirm in the long-term review). More than any other aspect of the Watch, this is one that I am eager to continue testing.

Activity and Workout��

If you already own an Apple Watch, the new software will dramatically transform your device. The changes to Workout and Activity are subtle, but they reveal so much about Apple’s understanding of health and wellness.

When I interviewed Jay Blahnik, Apple's director of fitness for health technologies, in 2015, he synthesized Apple’s wellness stance as follows: there are three key trackable elements to activity, including standing, all-day movement, and exercise. The Watch is designed to measure all three—and to nudge you into making smarter choices. To track each element, the Activity app features three rings, one for each of the above elements. Your daily goal is to close all three rings.��

In recent years, Apple has added sleep, nutrition, and mindfulness to their health mix. While the Watch now has a built-in Breathe app to encourage mindfulness, sleep and nutrition are notoriously difficult to track and absent from the Apple native app ecosystem (save for third-party apps). Many studies and anecdotes have .��And calorie counting requires user active user participation: you have to actually input what you’re eating.��

This understanding of health is surprisingly hack-free and accurate. That’s where the latest version of watchOS comes in. The device is slowly but steadily gaining the ability to influence behavior. Until now, Apple largely accomplished this through the ring interface. But with smarter Activity coaching, Apple is taking a big step forward.��In the morning, the Watch will prompt you to stay more active by identifying a streak you’re on and urging you to keep it up.��If it can’t find something forward-looking, the app will pick out one good thing you did the day before and urge you to do it again. The smarter coaching shows itself in two other situations. If you’ve closed your ring on a run, the app will give you an in-the-moment notification. This brings the reward a lot closer to the action. And, perhaps most importantly, if you’re not on track to close your rings, the app will prompt you to get up and go walk at a brisk pace. It’ll also tell you the exact amount of time you need to move to hit your goal. Apple picked walking because it’s something almost anyone can do in almost any situation. (It sends the notification early enough in the day that you can take action. There’s another notification if you’re a hair away from hitting your goals.)��

I admit that the above doesn’t sound particularly impactful. Will a notification actually make anyone healthier? In my experience, the answer is yes. While I know some Watch owners who never took to the rings and don’t find them motivating, I’ve had the opposite experience. The Watch helped me become the healthiest version of myself, in a time period when it was most difficult to stay fit. And on the flip��side, when a broken band kept my Watch out of commission��for over a month, I found myself gaining weight, moving less, and ignoring my body. Coupled with the , I firmly believe that the Watch can have a significant impact—if your personality is primed to respond to its prompts. For this population, I think the new notifications will be a significant step forward. They’re gentle enough to not be annoying,��but also actionable enough to change the trajectory of a day. Their impact is something I plan to track carefully over the next few months of long-term testing.

It bears mentioning that while Activity is the epicenter of change in watchOS4, the Workout app is also much improved. You can move from workout to workout seamlessly (say, if you’re transitioning from running to biking). And the app itself is just much cleaner and easier to use.��

Heart Rate Monitoring

It’s too early to say how helpful and influential Apple’s foray into sophisticated heart-rate monitoring will be. But I get the sense that it’s about to turn a large subset of Watch users into biohackers.

Historically, the Watch did essentially one user-facing thing with heart rate: it provided an average following workouts. That was it, and it was a lot less sophisticated an output than what most other apps and watches provided. With watchOS4, Apple has opened up so much more data. For the purposes of this review, I’ll segment it into two buckets: performance and health data.��

Let’s start with performance. Measures like heart-rate variability, resting heart rate, and recovery heart rate have long been used by athletes across an entire spectrum of sports. When in serious training, I’ve found recovery heart rate and resting heart rate to be surprisingly effective tools. In combination, the two measures have predicted common colds and helped me tailor my training load (in conjunction with measuring training stress score through Training Peaks). I’ve also found the measurements to be helpful for athletes I’ve coached, particularly in convincing them to listen to their bodies (people tend to trust a heart-based number more than perceived exertion). While I never before had access to Apple’s walking heart rate average, I did have my own version of it. I’d start each indoor workout with a 10 minute interval at 200 watts, or a brisk pace. Tracking my average heart rate during this interval and then measuring the recovery period afterward was the single most effective metric I had in training. And it’s something that Apple is trying to replicate with walking heart rate.��

When it comes to evaluating these metrics, it’s worth keeping a few things in mind: there isn’t consensus on their use, but plenty of people find them helpful. That may be why Apple has chosen to steer clear of providing actionable insights from the stats. If your resting heart rate has risen for a week and your heart rate isn’t recovering like it used to, the Watch won’t tell you to take a preemptive sick day. But there’s nothing stopping an app-maker from using that data to provide such insights. While I’ve criticized fitness-trackers for the lack of useful recommendations in the past (), I think Apple made the right move. This type of biometric data is too likely too personal to provide population-level takeaways from. I’d prefer for a third-party app that specializes in this type of analysis take the lead. This is better for the Watch’s credibility and for users.

Given the above, the following may come as a bit of a surprise: I’m very excited to see where Apple goes with��its Heart Study and the elevated heart rate notification system. The former is a study designed to help spot things like irregular heart rhythms. The latter is something you can start using now. If you opt into the monitoring, Apple will notify you if your heart rate��goes above a set threshold of 100 to 150 beats per minute during a period in which you've been inactive for 10 or more minutes. This is designed to help you flag potential health issues like panic attacks and tachycardia. In a team meeting post-keynote, a handful of�����ϳԹ��� editors��debated the merits of such a system. Would it create a wave of false positives leading to needless and expensive testing? Would people simply ignore it?��

The exercise and health sources I reached out to about the technology were cautiously optimistic about the functionality, but were hesitant to go on record without using the device or speaking with Apple. In my experience with the Watch, I had one notification. After looking at the surrounding data, I concluded that it was an odd mix up versus��something to��call my doctor about. Given that the warning is opt-in and relatively muted, it’s hard to imagine the technology leading to a series of false positives and needless interventions.

The Watch as Your Phone

Will the Watch allow��you to go all day without your phone? If you use your iPhone largely as a phone, the Watch is a perfectly good all-day replacement; if you use your iPhone as a smartphone, you will want to use something more powerful than the Watch at some point during the day. Essentially, the Watch does things like responding to quick texts, placing calls, and surfacing urgent email really well. In many ways, it works better than the phone. Many users set up the Watch to screen out all but the most crucial notifications. This brings the important into greater relief. Because the only folks who can reach me on my watch are immediate family and my boss (and his boss), I jump when it buzzes. Since anyone can reach me on my phone, I don’t pay as much attention to the notifications. But for most everything else, the phone is unsurprisingly a better device.��

The Bottom Line

When the Series 3 was announced, we put together a brief post with our initial thoughts. Essentially, we tried to locate the product’s audience by saying: it’s good for the health and wellness set, really good for the fitness set, and OK for the hard-core athlete set. We stand by that overview. This Watch is a device that most readers could benefit from. If you’re still using an original Watch or are looking to buy your first wearable, the Series 3 is the tool Apple always wanted to build: a fitness tool with smartphone capabilities too useful to take off.

The post Testing the Apple Watch Series 3 appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

When Apple CEO Tim Cook introduced the Watch in 2014, our first big question was: What is this thing? A productivity tool? A phone replacement? A fad? We gave it our Gear of the Year award despite not having clear answers.

Fast forward over two years, and Apple has has clearly settled on a vision. The cellular connectivity and barometric��altimeter��in the third iteration of the Watch coupled with the suite of fitness-centric features added in 2016 cements it as the wearable to beat in the mass-market health and wellness space. This is a monumental change for a product that was once derided as too complicated and .��

The fitness devices we test are typically designed for one of three audiences: people interested in getting a little more exercise (the step-counting crowd), consumers who dabble with data (they maybe use Strava but don’t export activities), and serious athletes who depend on tech tools to perform at a high level (SRM power meter owners, we're talking about you). The first edition of the Watch did a really good job catering to the first group. It could prod you to move more and sit less. , which is no small feat. But it lacked GPS and some of the specific measurement abilities—say, power output for cyclists—that ambitious competitors require.

Some of that changed in 2016 with the introduction of GPS in the Apple Watch 2, . Easy to use and attractive, it performed as well as most activity monitors on the market. But the watch still had major shortcomings: it didn’t measure elevation gain for outdoor workouts and restricted access to your workout data.

The newest Watch will soon��start winning over serious athletes. While it��lacks the��long-rumored glucose-monitoring abilities, watchOS4 packs��a handful��of crucial software updates for the fitness-minded: automatic resting heart rate measuring and recovery heart rate tracking.��These two features are true game-changers for athletes looking to modify their training in real-time. Notice your resting heart rate rising or that��it's taking longer for your heart rate to recover to rest post-run? You now have the information to update your training on the fly.��Apple is also launching a heart study with Stanford Medicine to help users potentially spot��atrial fibrillation, a surprisingly common condition in athletes. (The Watch will also now update users when their heart rate is elevated when not exercising. This could be crucial for spotting emerging health issues.) These updates come on top of a rebuilt Workout app that features high-intensity interval tracking.

The biggest open question marks for endurance athletes about the new Watch are battery and data sharing. On longer rides—over five hours—or when I forget to bring an external battery pack while��camping and hiking, my generation one��Watch will often die. Most athletes aren't training for ultra-length events, but taking even a half-day hike on a partially charged Watch can kill the battery. Sure, you could turn off the heart-rate monitor to conserve battery, but you're going to want that data. (Another option is to wear a chest heart-rate strap instead of using the watch’s monitor, but most hikers I know aren't exactly dying to do that.) If Apple has figured out how to substantially lengthen the Watch's run-time, or if LTE has the opposite effect, its utility will be unfortunately limited for many endurance athletes. (For now, Apple claims 18-hour battery life in real-world conditions.)

Then there’s the data. While most GPS fitness trackers allow you to export your data to��third-parties,��Apple has resisted opening up the Watch’s Workout app.��Start a ride in Workout, and you won’t be able to export��that data to Strava. (Strava can however record data directly.) For the average user or even casual athlete, that’s not a huge problem. But for anyone serious about training, it’s a major drawback. Use the Workout app and your data is walled off—. That said, Apple seemed to tease��new data access for skiing and snowboarding apps. Let's hope it's a first step toward more data sharing.

That said, the LTE connectivity is a game-changer for bikers and runners. It's obvious, but being able to reach someone in an emergency could save your life. As a cyclist, I usually ride with my phone and bring along a SPOT emergency transmitter on more remote routes (hey, I live in New Mexico). Despite knowing how to fix pretty much anything on my bike that could break, I end up calling a friend or my girlfriend for an evac at least once a year. But many runners don't run with their phones. Holding onto one for 20-mile training runs isn't all that pleasant. If you're a runner who'd like some peace of mind, a cyclist who wants to leave the phone at home but still be able to call for help, or want to stream music while you're training without your watch, LTE makes a real difference.

The new Watch isn't for everyone. It costs $399 (with cellular connectivity). And in many instances, even for athletes, a smartphone or sport-specific watch is a suitable if less convenient alternative. But it’s a far more capable and appealing fitness tool than��the first two editions. In many ways, it’s the realization of the original promise of the device: a wearable that you’ll want to wear all day long. For the majority of us, it’s the only sport watch you’ll ever need.

The post Apple Makes a Watch Athletes Will Want appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

We need to stop overthinking wellness.

Stories like “” or the “” are fun to write and even more enjoyable to read. But they distract all of us from the fundamentals to living a healthy life. That’s why news of a scandal at the Cornell University Food and Brand Lab may actually be a good thing, the shock we all need to return to the basics. In a piece published this week,��Science of Us��. ���ϳԹ���, along with most major health and wellness publications, has reported on the lab’s made-for-web-headline-writing studies, like “How to Navigate the Maze of Temptation That Is Your Local Grocery Store” and “Eat the Same Breakfast Every Day.”

My first reaction was to write a piece declaring that everything we know about fitness is a lie. That’d certainly get some traffic. Instead, the Cornell scandal led me to some soul searching. Wellness is fairly straightforward in theory, if not practice. We don’t need catchy headlines or complicated formulas to stay healthy. There’s a reason Michael Pollan : “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” That thinking isn’t reserved for food science alone. In an email, Michael Joyner, a physiologist at the Mayo Clinic, told me that we overcomplicate everything when it comes to health. He then pointed me to , a researcher who, the Times reported, “gave mathematical proof to the notion that people can live longer and healthier by changing habits like smoking, diet and sleep.” Breslow identified seven key factors to living a healthy life:

Do not smoke; drink in moderation; sleep seven to eight hours; exercise at least moderately; eat regular meals; maintain a moderate weight; eat breakfast.

There’s no arguing against Breslow’s habits for a healthy life. The difficulty is in figuring out how to live by them. As always, the devil is in the details. I know—I’ll ride for five hours on the mountain bike but follow it up with several margaritas and a large slice of key lime pie.��If you only have time to ride on the weekends or can’t afford to buy healthy ingredients for meals, Breslow's guidelines become less attainable. But for the average ���ϳԹ��� reader, things really are shockingly simple:

1. Spend most of your day moving. Over the past year, we’ve written about 50 stories touching on the topic. The science is sound. The consensus real. Sitting all day is bad for you, even if you exercise intensely on the weekends. So take a break from your desk. Go for a lunch ride. Then take a walking meeting. We even have a story that can show you how to make it happen.
2. Between runs and rides, eat vegetables to stay at a healthy weight. Everyone from��Pollan to Matt Fitzgerald, the author of , says so. The reasoning is pretty straightforward: it’s easier to maintain a healthy weight by focusing on diet instead of exercise. The best way to eat a healthy diet is to eat mostly vegetables. When I reached out to Fitzgerald, he agreed, and said we should be spending more time watching how healthy people behave. “Not surprisingly, these patterns aren't radical or sexy,” he wrote. “But a recreational athlete who adapts these habits to his or her own circumstances is much less likely to get bad results than is an athlete who adopts a radical diet based on some study described in an article with a sexy headline.”

Over the last half-decade, I’ve written and edited hundreds of stories on health and fitness for multiple publications. No matter the study or advice we discuss in the newsroom, we almost always come back to the same conclusion: this stuff isn’t all that complicated, it’s just really hard.

The post A Longtime Fitness Editor Does Some Soul Searching appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

The newest crop of wearables��are cleverer than ever.

Spire

The Spire won’t measure heart rate or really anything beyond the number of steps you’ve taken. But it will analyze your breathing, providing a constant record of your stress levels. When the pebble-size sensor notices you’ve gone awhile��without taking a deep breath, it vibrates and prompts you to open the app. From there, it walks you through either a breathing or meditation exercise.

Price $99.95

Polar��M600

The M600 is a souped-up Apple Watch for athletes. It’s got built-in GPS, can put together training plans, and, because it runs on Android Wear, will work with more than 4,000 apps, including Strava and Runtastic. And it boasts productivity��enhancers like calendar notifications and call handling.��

Price $330

Fitbit��Charge 2

A smartwatch and fitness-tracker hybrid, the Charge 2 can do everything from automatically detect when you start a workout to estimate VO2 max. But it’s meant to be a daily driver, with a clean, customizable design (other bands easily swap��in for a different look) and the ability to display phone notifications. Plus, it can go five days between charges.��

Price $150

Under Armour UA��HealthBox

Wearables often don’t play well with one another. Just try getting your Fitbit scale to talk to your Apple Watch. The result of these squabbles: we’re deprived of big-picture health insights. Enter the HealthBox, which consists of a scale, heart-rate strap, and activity monitor. The devices all sync to one app, called UA Record, which can pull data from almost any tracker.��

Price $300

Jawbone UP3

The UP3’s hardware is nice enough—the slim band tracks heart rate and movement and sleep patterns. But what really sets this tracker apart is its app. Think of it as a health coach that lives in your pocket, analyzing your data and providing personalized takeaways such as when to drink more water.��

Price $130

Garmin��Vívomove

This is the fitness tracker you put on and never take off. It’s comfortable, stylish, and subtle, displaying just three metrics on its screen: time, progress toward your step goal, and inactivity. Best for those who don’t want to drown in a deluge of data.��

Price $150 and up

The post The Best Fitness Trackers of 2017 appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

I have a confession to make: I was sent two boxes of ��in July to share with the office and I didn’t tell a soul. All summer, I’ve kept my stash a secret. I’ve successfully hoarded all 36 servings of the stuff.��

It’s not because I’m a coffee snob. I’d almost just as happily be drinking servings of Allsups gas station brew (look ‘em up, they’re a New Mexico thing). Sometimes, and especially when you’re editing stories until midnight, coffee is coffee.

It’s not because I’m selfish, either. I don’t hoard gear—unless we’re talking about the Cannondale Slate that online associate gear editor Jakob Schiller “loaned” me back in May (it’s safely stashed in my bedroom). I hardly ever review products for the site or magazine. I want other folks here to have the opportunity to test out the latest and greatest. Usually.

My psychologist, I’m guessing, would probably have a very convincing explanation for why I failed to share even a drop of coffee from the 32-serving , which was clearly created for conference rooms. But I haven’t brought it up with him.

To be entirely honest, I would never have brought this up if Chameleon Cold Brew’s public relations firm hadn’t reminded me of National Coffee Day (September 29). I re-evaluated. I finally admitted to myself that at this point, I think I can even detect the claimed notes of cocoa and toffee. So here I am: admitting to several million readers—along with a soon-to-be-very-angry office—that I hoarded the best coffee I’ve ever tasted.

The post An Ode to the Best Cold-Brewed Coffee on the Planet appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

On Wednesday, July 13, Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that, if passed, would reverse the nationwide ban on mountain biking in wilderness areas in favor of local decision making and permit the use of “small-scale motorized equipment or method of mechanical transport” in the maintenance of wilderness trails. It’s a big deal.

What's the Point of the Bill?

Mountain bikers are banned from all wilderness areas. And local land managers (think: the officials in charge of U.S.��Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, or Fish and Wildlife Service headed lands), don't have the ability to grant exemptions. So bikes are banned. Period.��

This bill aims to give these on-the-ground officials the right to permit mountain biking. Practically speaking, managers would have two years to determine if bikes are allowed. If they fail to make a decision��within the time frame, bikes would automatically be permitted.��

The bill would also��allow the use of motorized tools and mechanical transport (think: chainsaws and wheelbarrows) in the��maintenance of wilderness trails, something that is not currently allowed.

Why You Should Support This Bill

If you’re a mountain biker, the appeal is obvious: access to miles of previously off-limits singletrack. It’s certainly appealing. According to a , 96 percent of cyclists believe that at least some wilderness areas��should be open to bikes. Even if you're not a diehard cyclist, you may think that giving local land managers more discretion on this topic is a good idea, too. After all, what works in quiet Santa Fe, New Mexico, may not work in busy Boulder, Colorado.

…And Why You Might Not Want To

Not everyone has such a favorable view of the legislation. There are fears that the bill could create a rift between cyclists and the environmental movement with the inadvertent effect of empowering pro-extraction interests. ���ϳԹ���’s Grayson Schaffer when 275,000 acres among��the Boulder and White Cloud Mountains were signed into federal wilderness:

Most dangerous of all is that the fragile coalition of recreation interests that’s critical to wilderness advocacy will have to spend time and political capital shoring up its own ranks instead of actually fighting for conservation. If hikers and bikers are at each other’s throats, the only interest group that will benefit is the one that would prefer extraction and development.

��

These fears are undoubtedly exacerbated by the bill’s sponsors: two Republican senators with (Lee and Hatch both have a lifetime score of 10 percent, compared to a Senate average of 45 percent.). Recent headlines circulating about the new Republican platform probably aren't��alleviating these concerns: “.”

And many outdoor advocates, including Schaffer, believe that mountain bikes—not to mention motorized tools—have no place in wilderness. In February, opposing the effort to introduce bikes into wilderness areas. ��(If you're looking for a primer on the��meaning of wilderness, Kenneth Brower's “Leave Wilderness Alone” is a good place to start.)

Or��you may simply believe that mountain bikers don't belong on trails, regardless of wilderness��designation.��

OK. So It's Not So Simple. Why Were Bikes Banned in the First Place?

It’s complicated. When the 1964 Wilderness Act was signed, it stipulated that “there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport…” At the time, mountain biking as we know it didn’t exist and mechanical transport was defined to mean a cart, sled, or any other vehicle “powered by a non-living power source.” As the sport began to emerge, the Forest Service updated its rules, with the most influential change coming in 1984, when the agency banned the “possessing or using a hang glider or bicycle.” Note, however, that��wheelbarrows did exist in 1964.

That Happened a Long Time Ago. Why Are Cyclists Still Upset?

Because lots of great trails are on wilderness land. But it’s more nuanced than that. When new wilderness areas are designated, cyclists lose access to trails they’ve long enjoyed—and often helped maintain, build, and protect (see��Schaffer's above piece). That’s frustrating, especially if you're someone who believes in the importance of wilderness and also loves to ride a bike. Cyclists are also frustrated by the arguments used to��exclude them��from wilderness areas. Critics claim cycling is damaging to trails, all about speed vs. the enjoyment of the outdoors, and is simply an activity that doesn’t belong in the slower-paced world of wilderness. In turn, cyclists cite studies showing the sport to be low-impact (and far less damaging than horseback riding) and argue that everyone should have the right to enjoy wilderness.

Give Me Some Background. How'd This Bill Get Introduced?

You can thank (or blame) the , a new cycling access group started with the stated goal of battling “needless access restrictions.” The organization was formed after a five-year campaign to reopen the Pacific Crest Trail to mountain bikers failed. Since then, they’ve raised more than $120,000 and have put that money toward lobbying for this bill.

Want to Know More?

We suggest starting with these stories. Then write to Congress!

���� ��•���� ��The New Golden Rule of Playing ���ϳԹ���: Place First

���� ��•���� ��

���� ��•���� ��

��

The post Congressmen Introduce Bill to Allow Mountain Bikers in Wilderness Areas appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

Step one: toss those saggy sweats.��

Fjällräven��Gear Duffel��

Your gym bag should be organized, well ­appointed, and just big enough for everything you need. This 23-liter duffel delivers, and it includes an internal zip pocket to hold the small stuff.��

Price $130 

Ten Thousand Foundation Shirt

Ten Thousand eschews loud and gimmicky in favor of . The proof is in the detailing, like the sleek underarm vents and tailored fit.��

Price $48 

Beats by Dr. Dre Powerbeats2��Wireless Earphones

The well-rounded sound and bounce-­limiting ear hooks helped motivate us through grueling weight sessions. And six hours of battery life kept them bumping long after we’d left the gym.

Price $200 

Brooks City Chariot Shoes��

Two years ago, Brooks resurrected its classic Chariot running shoe. Now the company expands the offering with designs inspired by iconic skylines. (Favorites: New York and Sydney.) The Chariot isn’t a burly, overbuilt trainer. We even found ourselves wearing it to the office and on recovery days.

Price $90 

Vuori Balboa Sweatpants

Who says workout pants have to wear like��a badly pitched tent? The Balboa is made from stretchy French terry cotton and fits like a pair of relaxed slacks.��

Price $84

Everlast F.I.T. Weighted Jump��Rope

You won’t find a better burn for the time or money than jumping rope. This beauty comes with weighted handles and precision bearings for smoother rotation.��

Price $20 

Lululemon��Evolution Shirt��

The soft poly-Lycra blend in the Evolution resists wrinkles, silver-treated threads reduce body odor, and the cut is athletic but not skintight.��

Price $88 

Smartwool��Men’s NTS Micro 150 Boxer-Briefs��

These merino-wool unders wick sweat, are plenty breathable, and fight stink. And that’s all you need, really.��

Price $50 

Spyder��Thasos��Windbreaker��

It packs down to the size of a softball��and offers plenty of protection when you need it, thanks to a durable water-resistant coating, an oversize hood, and wrist cuffs.

Price $189 

The post The Best Gym Apparel of 2016 appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.