Watch out Whoop — Garmin reportedly working on a screenless health band that'll track your sleep

Garmin could soon offer a new alternative for anyone who wants sleep and recovery data without strapping on a bulky smartwatch overnight.
According to a new report, the brand behind some of the best fitness trackers on the market may be preparing to launch a minimalist health band, featuring no screen, a focus on sleep tracking, and key features like heart rate monitoring and smart alarms.
The band would reportedly include Garmin's optical heart rate sensor and support smart alarms that detect lighter sleep phases — similar to features found in many of the current best Garmin watches.
The blog the5krunner, which has a track record of reporting on unreleased Garmin products, claims to be '100% sure' the device exists, citing a 'source document' and a launch window as early as July or August 2025.
The appeal of a screenless device is simple: comfort and discretion. Many users find Garmin's bulkier multisport watches uncomfortable to wear overnight, especially for sleep tracking. A compact wristband could offer similar insights without the larger presence and could be more desirable to wear consistently for some.
It could also attract those who prefer wearing a traditional or luxury watch during the day but still want to track health metrics around the clock.
If released, the Garmin Sleep Band would naturally draw comparisons to the Whoop Strap, which is a screenless health tracker that collects round-the-clock data on sleep, strain, and recovery. However, Whoop requires a paid membership, with the cheapest tier currently costing $199 per year to access core features. You can read our full Whoop 5.0 review to see how it works.
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
Garmin's business model, by contrast, typically doesn't lock health data behind a paywall. While some newer features are tied to its recent optional Connect+ subscription, core metrics like heart rate variability (HRV), sleep stages, and Body Battery remain free.
If Garmin continues down that path, a subscription-free sleep band could appeal to those who want advanced health tracking without an ongoing cost.
While the report provides some intriguing details, a lot remains unclear. There's no confirmed pricing, design, or indication of whether the device would support workout tracking independently or require pairing with a Garmin watch.
It's also unclear if this band would use Garmin's latest Elevate v5 sensor, found in high-end devices like the Fenix 8 and Forerunner 970, which would enhance accuracy for sleep and recovery metrics.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Tom's Guide

14 hours ago

• Tom's Guide

I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570 — here's the winner

The Garmin Forerunner 570 is one of Garmin's newest AMOLED-screen sporting smartwatches aimed at runners. It boasts loads of training tools, Garmin's best heart rate sensors and a small smattering of smart features. Meanwhile, the Apple Watch Series 10 is perhaps the best full-featured smartwatch on the market today. It's also no slouch when it comes to fitness and wellness tracking. While the Garmin Forerunner 570 is a tad pricier than the Apple Watch Series 10, both are well equipped to keep tabs on your daily workout efforts, whether you're a runner, walker, hiker or prefer the gym. Each watch sports an onboard GPS and the best holistic tech offered by Apple and Garmin, respectively. The question is, which one is more accurate when it comes to tracking a basic workout? I decided to find out. The Apple Watch Series 10 is my favorite full-featured smartwatch in 2025, sporting a thin and attractive design, gorgeous screen, endless apps and loads of useful onboard features. It's also a mighty reliable fitness and sleep tracker. The Garmin Forerunner 570 is one of the brand's latest smartwatches aimed squarely at runners and outdoor athletes, boasting Garmin's best holistic tech, excellent training and recovery tools, a bright AMOLED screen and a fun, colorful case design. For this walk test, I wore the Apple Watch Series 10 on my left wrist and the Garmin Forerunner 570 on my right wrist before setting out on my manually-counted jaunt around Seattle, Washington, on the longest day of the year. To keep track of my steps, I clicked an old-school tally counter every time my count hit 100 before starting over again at one. With my left foot taking only odd-numbered steps and my right foot only making even-numbered ones, I trekked three miles before ending tracking and examining the results. In addition to the manual count, I also recorded my walk using Strava as a control for distance, elevation and pace data. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. See all the results below: Apple Watch 10 Garmin Forerunner 570 Control Step count 5,568 steps 5,542 steps 5,500 steps (manual count) Distance 2.99 miles 2.98 miles 3.00 miles (Strava) Elevation gain 216 feet 207 feet 212 feet (Strava) Average pace 18 mins 23 secs per mile 18 mins 28 secs per mile 18 mins 6 secs per mile (Strava) Average heart rate 128 bpm 128 bpm n/a Max heart rate 163 bpm 164 bpm n/a Calories burned 437 calories 375 calories n/a Device battery usage 12% 6% n/a Both the Garmin and Apple Watch were within 100 steps of my manually-counted total, an impressive showing for sure! However, while the Series 10 overcounted by 68 steps, the Forerunner 570 only overcounted by 42. Strava, meanwhile, calculated my total steps at 5,548. All three devices measured roughly the same total distance covered and fairly similar elevation gain metrics. Assuming Strava is correct here, both watches are within five feet of the actual total. Pace data also matches up nicely across the board. It's worth noting that both Garmin and Strava offer two average pace figures, including a moving average and an elapsed average, the latter of which is reported above. Garmin's average moving pace for my walk was 16 minutes and 4 seconds per mile and Strava's was 16 minutes and 48 seconds per mile. Despite the Apple Watch being worn on my right wrist and the Garmin adorning my left, heart rate data is a near match between the two, though Apple calculated slightly more calories burned during my roughly 50-minute walk. Finally, the Series 10 burned roughly twice as much battery using its onboard GPS to track my trek compared to the Forerunner 570. Before acknowledging our winner, it's worth pointing out that both the Garmin Forerunner 570 and Apple Watch Series 10 did extremely well in this walk test, and I'd gladly reach for either before recording my next adventure. However, the Garmin Forerunner 570 officially takes the belt in this bout against the Apple Watch Series 10. The margin may be razor thin, but a win's a win. Which smartwatches or fitness trackers would you like to see me test head-to-head in a future walk test? Let me know in the comments below. Until then, get those steps in!

CNN

a day ago

• CNN

The best running watches of 2025, tried and tested

The best running watches we tested Best running watch: Coros Pace 3 Best affordable running watch: Amazfit Active 2 Best advanced running watch: Suunto Race While older wearable running devices displayed the basics, such as time, mileage, pace, and heart rate, the best running watches offer all that and more. The latest running gadgets provide valuable insights into your overall stats, sleep and recovery, and stress levels, and they even offer personalized training plans if you're gearing up for a race. Casual runners and marathon finishers alike can benefit from a running watch since most modern wearables learn your habits in a personal way. They track your routines from working out to sleeping, and remind you when it's time to lace up your shoes or take a rest day. The devices learn what effort loads are just right or when you could push yourself a little harder. Some apps even let you note which running sneakers you were wearing so you can keep track of how many miles they've covered. Most running watches also connect to a smartphone app to provide easier-to-read information following your workouts. Some apps are easier to use than others, which can make a big difference as you start tracking your workouts. The testing for this guide was a joint effort by writer Ellen McAlpine, associate editor Jillian Tracy and senior testing editor Rick Stella, who all hit the road and trails running in 11 different watches from top brands like Coros, Garmin and Apple. Thousands of steps, dozens of miles and some slightly embarrassing watch tans later, we've arrived at the finish line of testing. Here's what to know about the best running watches of 2025. Coros Pace 3 The Coros Pace 3 is easy to set up, comfortable to wear and offers loads of insights. While it does have a learning curve, it was simple enough to figure out and use. It also is lightweight, has a solid battery life and comes in at a midrange price point that makes it well worth the spend. Amazfit Active 2 The Amazfit Active 2 was impressive given its $100 price. The watch itself has a wide range of features, shows you loads of stats (even if they're not all necessary) and connects to an intuitive and well-designed smartphone app in which you can access detailed insights. If you're a beginner runner or just working with a tighter budget for your running gadgets, this is a great option to strap on. Suunto Race The Suunto Race is a treat to use with a modern display, great app experience and modes to support all kinds of runners. It's not as lightweight as other watches we tested, and not all runners will need the array of features it offers, but the Suunto Race feels perfectly luxe for its price tag. The Coros Pace 3 soared above the rest when it came to ease of use, price and GPS accuracy. It utilizes a dual-GPS frequency connection that handles well when running through major cities like New York and Philadelphia. Other watches we tested had some wonky routes when searching for signal among the skyscrapers but not the Pace 3. Maps showed straight lines and clear paths that aligned with each city's grid system. We found there was a bit of lag time when connecting to GPS after sitting still for a while (like at a desk or before moving around in the morning). It took roughly five to seven seconds for the watch to connect to a GPS signal. While this is longer than other watches, the Pace 3 connects to GPS ahead of you starting your run. Others we tested searched for a strong signal during the run, which sometimes left the first half mile inaccurate. This was not an issue with the Pace 3. The Pace 3 has a 1.2-inch display that's easy to read both indoors and in direct sunlight, making it simple to check while logging miles on bright days. A flick of the wrist brightens the screen (it has an always-on display that dims when you're not looking at it) and provides you with quick insights into stats like your heart rate, pace, distance and elapsed time. Another plus is that the watch weighs just 30 grams when paired with the nylon band. It has a 'barely there' feel, and the nylon material was particularly comfortable. It's easier to get a custom fit with the wraparound band over a silicone option too. The Velcro was stable, and while McAlpine, who tested this watch, was nervous about the fabric being irritating and itchy after sweating with it on, she was pleased to find it never did. The Coros app is also easy to use and a great hub of information if you're looking to review your stats. The app even uses your data to create training plans that can be downloaded onto your watch and enabled while running. It's a great option for those looking to get across the finish line for their next race. Additionally, the device can track up to 27 different types of workouts aside from running, including things like snowboarding or hiking. For less than $250, the Coros Pace 3 packs in practically everything you could hope for in a running watch. It's easy to set up, use and manage. While Coros claims the battery life lasts for up to 15 days with regular use and up to 38 hours in continuous GPS mode (hello, ultramarathoners), in our testing the watch had roughly 11 days of battery if used for an approximately 30-minute run each day. Still, 11 days is a long time, and with the Coros Pace 3, you're getting top-of-the-line features at a very reasonable price tag. This is about as good a value in the running watch market as you'll find. The Amazfit Active 2 is the best watch you've likely never heard of. The brand first launched in 2015, and the devices it offers are as good as options from top brands, though Amazfit is far more affordable. At just $100, the Active 2 did almost everything watches from Coros, Polar and Garmin did. You can't download music to the device, and the bands were incredibly frustrating to change, but those cons feel nit-picky after seeing everything else the wearable did. The Active 2 has over 160 workout options for you to track, making it an inclusive fitness tracker beyond its running watch capabilities. That said, the running features it has were standouts in testing. Not only was the GPS tracking accurate but it fared well on city streets and had no lag time to connect. This Amazfit wearable gives quick access to data like your pace, distance, elapsed time and heart rate at a glance. While that's standard among running watches, what impressed us most was the display clarity, no matter the sunlight. The 1.32-inch display has 2,000 nits of brightness, which made it very easy to read during testing. The battery life of the Active 2 was almost too good. Even when we finished testing the watch, we could hear it buzzing as texts or calls came in, letting us know it was, in fact, still alive and well. The brand lists the battery life as up to 10 days with regular use, and our testing found that to be the case. We'd be remiss if we didn't spotlight the Zepp app, which is what your Amazfit watch connects to. Zepp is ahead of the game when it comes to detailed insights and AI utilization. You can take a photo of your plate at dinner, and the Zepp AI will roughly determine the caloric intake of your meal. You also get quick access to what the app calls your Core Metrics. These range from your resting heart rate to your mental recovery, which you can log through guided meditations and breathwork sessions. The details you can find through Zepp are those you might get from a subscription model, though you're not paying for anything extra. The premium version of the Active 2 is the same watch but with a sapphire-glass screen that's slightly more durable, and it includes both a silicone and leather band (if you want a more lifestyle aesthetic when you're not running). The premium option only costs $20 more. For less than $150, no matter which model you buy, the Amazfit Active 2 is a do-it-all device that's as reliable as it is affordable. Of the watches we tested, the Suunto Race had one of the most user-friendly and modern-feeling displays. The Suunto Race was released in 2024, so it makes sense that it has a more updated feel compared with other running watches. The corresponding smartphone app has a welcoming design and smartly recaps your training, overall progress and recovery efforts. We also loved the simple three-button layout of the watch, including the center button with a rotating crown that makes it easy to scroll through stats, splits and control panel options. Part of what makes the Suunto Race great is that it's so much more than a running watch. With sport modes for feats like trail running, open-water swimming and cycling, the Race also embraces less common activities like hunting, mermaiding, cricket and even chores. It's a great option for those who enjoy a range of activities and appreciate having data to support each one. The battery life is also strong. Between workouts and daily wear, you can get a solid week out of the Suunto Race. The brand promises up to 50 hours of charge in performance mode and 200 hours in tour mode, which feels accurate given that, when Our tester, Jillian Tracy, took the watch off to test other models, it sat on her desk still more than a third charged after over a week of inactivity. Though she didn't need the advanced map tracking for our runs up and down city blocks, they are helpful if you plan to embark on trail runs or explore paths in unfamiliar areas. In addition to tracking run stats, the Suunto Run also has optimized features for swimming and cycling, like stroke efficiency and interval guidance, which makes it a good option for runners who might also want to dabble in triathlon training. It also tracks health metrics, including those for sleep, recovery and daily calorie burn. Though we loved the robust set of features and user-friendly layout of the Suunto Race, one of its major downsides is its size. Tracy has small wrists, and the high-definition AMOLED screen on the Suunto Race took up the entire top of her wrist. While it makes your stats easier to see at a glance, the stainless steel watch face is heavy for a running watch, weighing in at 2.93 ounces. It's not so heavy that it's unstable or feels insecure (it does have a solid watch band), but it's bulky enough that it might feel uncomfortable to wear daily. If we could have the features of the Race in the compact design of the Suunto Run (more on that model below), this would be a near-flawless watch. Some users also lament that, unlike other lifestyle watches from brands like Apple or Garmin, the Suunto Race can't do contactless payments or download offline music, which, for $400, are features some might feel are nonstarters. The testers for this piece hit the road and trails to log miles and evaluate each running watch before, during and after each run. Here's what we considered as we tested each model. Tracking and GPS accuracy GPS: Each watch we tested has GPS connectivity. We noted whether the watch used assisted GPS (A-GPS) or a single- or dual-frequency GPS, as well as. how many of the five major satellites each device can access simultaneously. Then, after each run, we checked the accuracy of the distance measured and mapped-out routes. Stats and data: We reviewed the information and insights each watch offered, including personal tracking insights and the statistics it showed during and after runs. We also reviewed each device's connected smartphone app and what the user experience was like. Functionality and fit Band options: Testers wore each watch for multiple days, paying attention to how comfortable the watch band was to wear, work out in and sleep in. We looked at how many band options were available for each model and whether different materials and sizes were available. Weight: You want your running watch to pack in features and tech, not extra weight, so we ranked how heavy each watch was compared with other devices tested and noted if it felt heavy on the wrist. Tracking beyond running: The best running watches go far beyond the miles you've covered. Through testing both the devices and connected apps, we reviewed what tracking the watch was able to provide. This ranged from sleep tracking and blood oxygen stats to effort loads and training plans. Other features Battery life: We noted how long the battery lasted for each watch after regular daily use. Since most of the watches we tested also offer sleep tracking, we wore each watch overnight to see how comfortable each was to wear while sleeping, and we reviewed our sleep insights in the morning. Music: Some GPS running watches offer music-downloading capabilities. We noted whether or not the wearable had this feature. Whether you're looking for a watch that handles the basics or you're gearing up for your next race and want to get serious, there's a running watch that gets the job done. After all, technology has come a long way, and the market for wearable devices is vast. From bare-bones options to detailed insights, you'll be able to find what you need if you know where to look. 'Without a doubt, accurate GPS tracking is the most important feature when looking for a running watch,' said Elaina Raponi, a certified National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) running coach and four-time marathoner. 'This is essential because accurate GPS gives athletes feedback on their distance and pace — arguably the two most important metrics when running.' In our testing, we quickly realized that not all GPS watches are created equal, and an unstable GPS connection can make a huge difference in what your run ends up looking like in tracking. It's also important to consider other statistics and sensors, especially when training for a big race or coming back from injury. 'If you're someone who trains using heart rate zones, an accurate heart rate sensor can be an important feature,' Raponi said. She notes that wrist-based heart rate monitors aren't as precise as chest straps, so if heart rate training is your top priority, you might want to pair your watch with a chest strap for more accurate data. Raponi also suggests considering your device's battery life against your training and overall running goals. 'If you're training for shorter distances like 5Ks or 10Ks, battery life is usually less of a concern, but if you're racing longer events like ultramarathons, you want a watch with a longer battery life — ideally one that can last through several hours of running without needing a recharge.' You should also consider what else a wearable tracks. If you're looking to get sleep insights, discover new running routes or want access to training plans, certain watches have connected apps that provide exactly this. Some come with paid subscriptions to access additional features, while others offer everything you need when you buy the watch. Suunto Run Sport Watch The Suunto Run is a straightforward and super-lightweight watch designed specifically for runners. It has a lot of the same great elements we loved in the Suunto Race but offers a shorter battery life and a less robust set of features. You can tell right away that the Suunto Run is a watch made with runners in mind. Though it has 34 sport modes — including ones for swimming, yoga, tennis and cycling — most are geared toward run-specific tasks like trail running, track running, marathon training and treadmill workouts. Like the Suunto Race, the Run only has three buttons, one of which is the rotating crown button, making it easy to browse your training and daily stats. The three-button design is easy to use and understand, but it might take a minute to feel fully confident using it to navigate the watch's features, especially if you're transitioning from another watch brand. Suunto's Run watch is very beginner-friendly, has an attractive display and a touchscreen watch face, if you'd prefer to navigate without buttons. Part of what keeps the Suunto Run so lightweight is the textile Velcro-like strap. While Tracy had no issues with the watch staying secure on her wrist during runs or daily wear, she wished that the wristband felt a little more luxe for $249. When you unbox the watch, you need to attach the wristband yourself, which was easy enough to do, but it's just one more hurdle that slows down the initial setup process. Plus, if the strap gets wet from sweat, weather or swimming, it will eventually dry out, but if you want to keep wearing it in the meantime, you'll have to deal with a slight damp feeling on your wrist. Tracy also wished the battery life were a bit longer. With 20 hours of battery life in performance mode and up to 40 hours in power-saving mode, the Suunto Race will get you through a workout or two on top of daily wear, but you'll still need to charge it every two to three days, depending on how often you plan to use it. Garmin Forerunner 265S Running Smartwatch Light and low-profile, the Garmin Forerunner 265S is fully capable of tracking your progress, training plan, recovery and vital performance stats, but the five-button layout overcomplicates this small watch. We preferred the sleeker design interfaces offered by other brands at the same or a lower price. Despite the fact that Tracy is a regular Garmin user, she found the five-button design on both Forerunner models she tested to be difficult to navigate. The up and down toggles that control the main navigation are on the left side of the watch, which, for right-handed users, means you have to awkwardly reach over the top of the watch to use them. The array of small buttons just seemed to overcomplicate the navigation and made it harder to quickly toggle between displays while in motion. Tracy preferred the more streamlined two-button design on her personal Garmin Vivoactive watch to the layout of the Forerunners. Garmin's interface is not the warmest design we've seen either, and for constant use, we had to charge it more than we'd like. But when it comes to tracking stats and staying on top of training, the Garmin Forerunner 265S packs a lot of features into a small design. Though you have to program workouts and view more detailed stats in the Garmin app (which is not our favorite interface to use), there's no denying that anyone from beginner runners to daily drivers prepping for a race will be able to benefit from Garmin's expansive and smart tracking. However, for a lower or similar price, you can get comparable benefits from our top Coros or Suunto picks. Garmin Forerunner 165 Music Running Watch The Forerunner 165 Music encompasses the classic and quality build we've come to expect from Garmin watches. Like the Forerunner 265S, the 165 Music is packed with features in a small, easy-to-wear design, but the interface doesn't feel the most modern. Many of the issues we had with the Forerunner 165 Music were the same as those we shared in regards to the Forerunner 265S: small, cramped buttons; shorter battery life than other watches; and a slightly outdated app experience. Compared to the Forerunner 265S, the 165 Music is made more with runners in mind, with fewer multi-sport training and tracking options for things like cycling, water sports and leisure activities. You also won't get access to as in-depth health stats or training plan options, but if you want something to catalog your runs and progress, there's probably no reason to splurge on the Forerunner 265S over the 165 Music. Fitbit Charge 6 Fitness Tracker The Fitbit Charge 6 is a more affordable running watch option, but it just wasn't as impressive as we'd hoped. It's easy to navigate, but the setup was a bit of a pain. The Fitbit Charge 6 has the smallest watch face of any of the running watches in our testing pool, which made it hard to check multiple stats while running. It was easy to start, pause and stop workouts, and the streamlined design is lightweight on the wrist. You don't get the same insights as other options we tested, though, and for a $160 device at full price, you're not getting the same insights you'd get from a running-specific watch. This Fitbit device is a better fit for someone looking to track varying workouts or steps, and it works well as a sleep tracker. Also, you need a Google account to set up the Charge 6 (or any other Fitbit device), which is kind of annoying and specific. You also have the option to subscribe to Fitbit Premium, which gives you further insights into your activity data for $10 per month. Polar Pacer GPS Sport Watch While it offers lots of tracking and training insights, the Polar Pacer is a bit clunky and has some issues connecting to a GPS signal while running through major cities. Polar watches feel like they're designed for intense training, and the Pacer was no exception. While this running watch provided insights and tracking stats, it was almost overwhelming. The watch itself is a little clunky to use and bulkier than other options we tested. The GPS connectivity struggled while running through city streets, resulting in post-run maps that looked comparable to a toddler trying to write their name. The Pacer does announce when it successfully acquires a signal, so if you're in a city and heading toward a park where the skies are clearer, you can opt to start running once the signal has been established. Plus, it'll alert you if the watch loses signal while you're on the move. You'll get some of the deepest sleep and recovery insights from this watch, though, which can be especially helpful as you navigate a training block. Consistent wear of your Polar watch will allow it to build baseline levels for your sleep, cardio load and recovery capabilities, giving you a personalized experience. Apple Watch SE (2nd Gen) The most basic Apple Watch model on the market, the SE, works great as a smartwatch, but it isn't the best running watch. Read our review After training for the New York City marathon with this wearable last year, McAlpine knows how tricky it is to use the Apple Watch SE for running. Especially compared with the other running watches on this list, it isn't ideal for runners who want deep, accurate and consistent stats. You'll get the basics, like your distance, pace and heart rate, but you won't find your recovery levels, the sleep monitoring isn't great and the battery only lasts up to 18 hours, so you have to charge the device daily. If you're looking for an all-around affordable smartwatch, it's a good buy, but a running-specific watch is a better option for those whose Strava kudos keep them going. Apple Watch Series 10 The Apple Watch Series 10 is a more capable wearable than the SE above, but it still has the same single-day battery life that only makes it a viable option for those who tend to run shorter our review The Apple Watch Series 10 isn't a running-specific watch on par with others in our testing pool, but it does offer a deep well of tracking capabilities that may suffice for more casual users (or those who prefer the Apple ecosystem and like its powerful smartwatch features). It has reliable and fast GPS syncing, in-depth fitness data that's easy to view while running and a unique health-tracking system that compiles other info like sleep insights, calories burned, rest and recovery stats, and more. The biggest knock on the Series 10, versus the rest of the product pool at least, is its 18-hour battery life. It's not a problem for those who run shorter distances, but for anyone training for a marathon (or anything longer, like a triathlon or ultra), it may not perform as well as they need. If you're serious about running, there are several other watches in this price range that are better. Apple Watch Ultra 2 The Apple Watch Ultra 2 may be too bulky and heavy for long-distance runners, but its 36-hour battery life does bode well for those logging several miles. This is perfect for trail runners or anyone who needs something more our review The Apple Watch Ultra 2 offers a very similar experience to the Series 10, but the biggest difference lies with its battery, which offers 36 hours of run time as opposed to 18. This makes a big difference for long-distance runners, though we still don't recommend it over our top picks for those who are more serious and dedicated to the sport. However, if you absolutely need to have something Apple on your wrist, this is a fine choice (albeit an expensive one). Apple markets it as its rugged adventure watch, meaning it's heavier and larger than the Series 10, but it's also a bit more capable, plus its case is made of durable titanium. It has a brighter backlit display and is water-resistant up to 100 meters (including compatibility for recreational scuba diving to 40 meters). Its larger size also makes it easier to read while active. It's around $800, though, which doesn't exactly scream 'value' when sitting next to competitors like Suunto, Coros or Garmin. The following FAQs were answered by four-time marathoner and NCCP-certified running coach Elaina Raponi. Which running watches are waterproof? Which running watches are waterproof? Most running watches are water-resistant, with the average depth of resistance being up to 50 meters. Some watches, which have triathlon-training capabilities, will be waterproof for open-water swimming and training. Of the watches in our testing pool, the Coros Pace 3, both Garmin watches, the Amazfit Active 2, both Suunto watches and all the Apple Watches listed above have been designed for wear during water activities. You'll want to note that some fitness trackers, like the Apple Watch line, have a water lock built into the device. You'll need to enable this feature to keep your device safe while in the water. How accurate are running watches at measuring distance? How accurate are running watches at measuring distance? A GPS watch's accuracy is dependent upon the GPS signal it's connected to and what type of access it has to GPS satellites. 'GPS watches are typically pretty accurate when it comes to measuring distance and can track your run within a small margin of error,' Raponi said. However, according to Raponi, running on trails in forests with dense tree coverage, or in a city with tall buildings, a running watch might occasionally lose GPS signal. 'This happens because the watch has to 'guess' your position when the satellite signals are weak or blocked,' she said. 'This is why many runners will manually lap their watch during races where they anticipate accurate GPS being a concern.' What temperature range are running watches effective in? What temperature range are running watches effective in? To get the most accurate temperature range for your running watch, you can check the brand's website or your device's user manual. Extreme temperatures outside of the range of your watch lists could affect performance or battery life, Raponi said, adding that 'for the vast majority of runners, the normal temperature ranges they train in won't be an issue.' For this article, we consulted the following expert to gain their professional insight. Elaina Raponi, four-time marathon runner and NCCP-certified running coach with TeamRunRun CNN Underscored editors thoroughly test all the products in our testing guides and provide full transparency about how we test them. We have a skilled team of writers and editors with many years of testing experience who ensure each article is carefully edited and products are properly vetted. We talk to top experts when relevant to make certain we are testing each product accurately and speaking about the pros and cons of each item. For this article, updates writer Ellen McAlpine, associate editor Jillian Tracy and senior testing editor Rick Stella, who are all experienced runners, tested a range of running watches to determine which wearable is worth buying.

Engadget

a day ago

• Engadget

The Morning After: Can the golden Trump Phone actually be made in USA?

When the Trump family announced its debut into the glitzy world of phone carriers with Trump Mobile, it came with a phone, too: a not-gold slab called the T1. The biggest heady claim (beyond the fact that its sole $47.25 plan would be 'true value') is: how can any modern smartphone claim to be made in the US? Alex Cranz takes Trump Mobile's sales pitch to task. While we know a lot of the specs, there's no reference to a processor — and that's because practically all smartphone processors are not made in the US. That's just the start. — Mat Smith Get Engadget's newsletter delivered direct to your inbox. Subscribe right here! A SpaceX Starship vehicle has exploded yet again, and this time, the incident occurred before it even took off. NASASpaceflight captured the event in a livestream, wherein you can see the spacecraft (Ship 36) suddenly explode into a fireball after the company tested its forward flap and just before it was supposed to conduct a static fire test. The company said it was due to a 'major anomaly'. Yeah, I'd agree. Continue reading. There's a 1-800 number you can text for ChatGPT images OpenAI has decided that there are not enough ways to generate sloppy AI images with ChatGPT. It announced that users can tap into the image generator by texting 1-800-ChatGPT on WhatsApp. The WhatsApp chatbot is "now available to everyone." Anyone? Continue reading. Framework's latest repairable laptop is a smaller 12-inch model, with the same modular features of its predecessors. With a bright plastic build, it's aimed at students, and there's a lot to like. According to Engadget's Daniel Cooper, it's a little too expensive, especially in the face of the cheap (and disposable) laptops it's looking to supplant. Continue reading. It doesn't look like the usual Garmin affair. The fitness tracking company is getting into bed. Literally. The Index Sleep Monitor offers week-long battery life with continuous pulse ox tracking for monitoring your blood oxygen saturation while you sleep. Garmin's tracker is worn on the upper arm and tracks multiple metrics, including skin temperature, light, deep, and REM sleep stages as well as variations in heart rate and breathing. Skin temperature tracking provides a clearer understanding of how your sleep environment impacts the quality of your sleep, even identifying potential illnesses based on your body temperature. It also features menstrual health tracking, with skin temperature changes useful for tracking cycles. Continue reading.