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.

Image 1 of 5

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.

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!

Smartwatches have tracked sleep for years, but as we see more sleep coaching, energy scores, sleep apnea detection, and general AI analysis, it’s fair to question how accurate a Pixel Watch’s data is compared to, say, a polysomnogram or actigraphy watch.

So I sat down with Dr. Logan Schneider — an associate professor at Stanford University and Google’s clinical lead for sleep health — and had a frank discussion about the usefulness, limits, and future of smartwatch sleep tracking.

Google frequently enlists practicing doctors to work with its engineers on health and wellness features. Earlier this month, I previously interviewed Google’s clinical lead of heart health, Dr. Shreibati, about Loss of Pulse and how smartwatches will eventually deliver “personalized” diagnoses for heart conditions.

In this case, Dr. Schneider, who worked on projects like the animal-themed sleep profiles on Fitbits and Soli-powered sleep tracking on the Nest Hub, had plenty of insights about how clinically useful these kinds of consumer-tech devices can be compared to medical-grade tech.

The science behind smartwatch sleep tracking

When it comes to studying sleep patterns on an individual or population level, polysomnograms are “impractically expensive, time-consuming, and resource intensive,” says Dr. Schneider.

A smartwatch is physically incapable of tracking brain waves (EEGs), eye movement, and some full-body motions that a clinical sleep study can detect. However, it does capture enough useful data to extrapolate the essentials without getting health insurance involved.

That’s why Schneider saw the advent of smartwatches as an opportunity to “understand sleep in a novel way, looking at population health, looking at real world changes in sleep over time,” and began reaching out to tech companies like Google. Smartwatches fill a niche that polysomnograms can’t.

I asked Dr. Schneider to give a clinical run-down of how sleep tracking works. He explained how your “body’s physiology and its state of motion versus immobility recapitulates what’s going on in the brain” and how they can determine your “rest and digest” or “fight or flight” states as a reflection of your brain states.

Heart rate is an obvious tool for sleep stage approximation, but he put even more emphasis on movement tracking as a vital tool. The inactivity of deep sleep, twitchy paralysis of REM, and more frequent movement in light sleep can all be estimated by your watch’s accelerometer.

False-positive movements — like when your partner shifts the bed while you’re in deep sleep — can be one of the big factors when your watch gets sleep estimates wrong. That’s why Schneider remains proud of their work taking the Nest Hub’s Soli radar and turning it into a “full body actigraph and cardiopulmonary physiology sensor that could stage sleep quite accurately” because it gets a wider view of your body.

Ultimately, Schneider believes, smartwatches “can only get so good until you’re literally starting to look at the brain waves.”

The challenges of making wrist-based sleep data more accurate

I asked Dr. Schneider what, if anything, could make smartwatch sleep data better without EEG tech. He argued there probably isn’t some “gold signal” that makes things perfect, but that isn’t strictly necessary.

The main key for accuracy, he explained, is having “redundant signals.” Neurologists looking for a brain issue don’t go straight for the MRI or scalpel; they might test your muscular reflexes to catch a “dysfunction” first. Since there are “several different types of redundant signals of the autonomic nervous system,” smartwatch brands can look at those secondary sources and get more reliable results.

We already see that with factors like heart rate variability (HRV), breathing rate, and skin temperature, as secondary information for whether your body is “normal” or if something is trending wrong.

One potentially new smartwatch metric Schneider brought up was “galvanic skin response.” Essentially, if you look at your skin’s sweat creation and salt content, you can determine your body’s sympathetic nervous system (SNS) response and see, for instance, when your sleep state is unstable.

The Pixel Watch 3 and Fitbit Sense 2 have a cEDA sensor that looks at sweat levels on your skin, primarily for stress detection. That seems like a perfect fit for using sweat levels to improve sleep accuracy, but I didn’t think to ask about this during the interview. Maybe we’ll see this in the future!

But ultimately, it comes back to Google’s PPG. He credited Google’s engineers for “optimizing the signal acquisition and quality,” as well as the multi-path optical sensor that ensures reliable, continuous data that approaches what you’d get from a “gold standard polysomnogram.”

For what it’s worth, testers like the Qualified Scientist say the Pixel Watch 3 is highly reliable for sleep accuracy. But Dr. Schneider still says that “there’s some general event horizon where you’re never going to get on the wrist a measure of what’s going on in the brain.”

Smartwatch sleep tracking has untapped clinical potential

I asked Dr. Schneider about the recent trend of smartwatches and smart rings starting to detect sleep apnea and if there are other potential sleep conditions (aka parasomnias) that he believes smartwatches could detect.

He very enthusiastically responded that “it could be a great opportunity for tech like this to actually pick up on” conditions like Restless Leg Syndrome and sleepwalking that can be difficult to catch in limited clinical contexts but that a smartwatch will detect with enough patience.

Smartwatches will need to be able to differentiate between REM behavior disorders (e.g., sleep paralysis), non-REM parasomnias ranging from sleepwalking to sleep talking and even sleep eating disorders, and seizure disorders.

Dr. Schneider seems very optimistic that watches could “pick up on interesting signals” in the future, “depending upon what set of sensors you have.”

This would have a direct clinical application, too. After someone is treated for a sleep disorder, it’s hard to determine if you’re “truly” cured or just have “fewer episodes that you’re aware of.” A smartwatch could passively solve that mystery and give patients (and doctors) peace of mind.

Why sleep tracking matters to you and me

I have a complicated relationship with sleep tracking. I wrote last year about how I hated wearing a smartwatch to bed, and I’ve found that seeing bad sleep data can often compound my stress. So I asked Dr. Schneider why people can’t trust their own bodies to feel how tired they are.

He responded with an anecdote about a man who said he was sleeping great while not believing his wife, who said he was “dying” at night and falling asleep at the wheel.

“People are terrible estimators. And why is that? Our brain habituates to our current state of being,” he explained. You can function with a “severe amount of sleep impairment that you’re not even fully cognizant of,” and sometimes you need help recognizing that.

He believes it’s worth the discomfort of a smartwatch to have this self-knowledge. And since he has to “convince people to wear a Darth Vader mask every single night” for sleep apnea, he thinks it’s worth getting accustomed to some form factor of wearable tech to help you “figure out how you’re feeling.”

But if, like me, a smartwatch isn’t the right fit for you, then Dr. Schneider thinks you really should consider that Nest Hub radar. To which I’d say, if Google hurries up and makes a 3rd-gen Nest Hub with Gemini, I’ll consider it!

A new lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accuses luxury conglomerate LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE and its subsidiaries of infringing patents owned by Watch Skins Corporation. The plaintiff contends that TAG Heuer’s Connected Calibre E4 smartwatch violates three of its U.S. patents related to NFT display and verification.

Core Allegations

Watch Skins, headquartered in Puerto Rico, alleges that TAG Heuer’s NFT-enabled smartwatch uses technology nearly identical to its own system, which authenticates NFT ownership via a blockchain wallet before displaying the relevant digital artwork on a watch face. The complaint cites TAG Heuer’s promotional materials, which describe the Connected Calibre E4 as a product that “allows you to display NFT artworks on your watch by connecting your crypto wallet to guarantee authenticity.”

According to Watch Skins, this functionality mirrors its patented platform designed to verify token ownership and enable users to buy, sell, and showcase NFTs on wearable devices. The company’s patents cover methods of retrieving and displaying NFT-based watch faces, preventing the display if the user does not hold the associated token.

Technology Background

Watch Skins says it began demonstrating its NFT display concepts in 2020, eventually launching a wearable NFT marketplace in 2021. By the time TAG Heuer introduced its NFT smartwatch features in 2022, Watch Skins claims to have already commercialized the patented technology. The complaint emphasizes that TAG Heuer’s approach of using a blockchain wallet to authenticate NFT ownership and block display for non-owners is what Watch Skins’ patents protect.

Legal Claims and Requested Remedies

The lawsuit alleges direct infringement, induced infringement, and willful infringement, arguing that LVMH and TAG Heuer continued to use and market the disputed technology “without license.” According to Watch Skins, “On information and belief, defendants continue without license to make, use, import/export into/from, market, offer for sale, and/or sell in the United States products that infringe the Patents-in-Suit.”

The company seeks a declaration of infringement, monetary damages, and a permanent injunction preventing further sales of the Connected Calibre E4 smartwatch or any other device deemed to infringe its patents.

Industry Significance

The lawsuit comes at a time when major luxury houses and consumer tech brands look to leverage blockchain features for new revenue streams. If Watch Skins’ succeeds in protecting its patents, it could force companies to negotiate licensing deals for NFT display technology—or risk litigation.

Meanwhile, TAG Heuer and other brands under LVMH’s umbrella have signaled a growing interest in Web3 applications, viewing NFTs as a way to enhance product exclusivity and customer engagement.

Known for handling high-stakes tech disputes, the Eastern District of Texas will examine whether Watch Skins’ patents are valid and whether TAG Heuer’s implementation indeed violates those claims. If the court rules in favor of Watch Skins, it may deter other wearable manufacturers from rolling out similar NFT features without thorough patent reviews.

Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority

Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority

Unlike gesture controls, my nose offers more tangible interactions.

Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority

SPF sunscreen still poses an issue, and so does a wet touchscreen.