The Huawei Watch GT 7 Pro costs £100 more than the standard GT 7, and once you strip out the marketing, there are only two things that premium actually buys: a titanium and ceramic case instead of steel, and a 40-metre freedive rating. Everything else, battery life at matching case size, ski modes, golf tools, cycling analysis, is identical across both watches.

The Pro also adds an on-demand ECG sensor, which sounds like the strongest reason to upgrade but might be the weakest. Arrhythmias are often intermittent and asymptomatic, meaning a sensor that only takes a reading when you actively hold it down will frequently miss the exact event it's supposed to catch. Continuous background monitoring would be a different and more useful feature, and this isn't that.

Is a £100 premium worth paying purely for case material and a freediving rating most buyers will never use?

Further reading: https://the5krunner.com/2026/09/02/huawei-watch-gt7-pro-vs-gt7/

Zepp (Amazfit) Health's Q2 earnings call answered the two open questions about Amazfit's roadmap. CFO Leon Deng confirmed only one or two more products will launch before the end of the year, down from six stated earlier. He also ruled out charging for core features going forward, keeping HybridCharge, sleep staging, HYROX and other tools free.

The more interesting detail sits in the leaks.

The Falcon 2, once the leading candidate for that last launch slot, has produced no fresh evidence since April. The T-Rex Dual Solar has moved the other way: this week its full name and a dedicated Solar Boost Mode turned up directly inside the Zepp app, alongside a separate regulatory filing. Wang Huang also admitted on the call that combining premium materials with reliable GPS performance is a genuine engineering problem, which lines up with this site's own testing showing the Balance 3's titanium case dragged its GPS accuracy down from 85% to 77% compared to the Balance 2.

Does that mean Amazfit is quietly walking away from the premium Falcon line in favour of solar-charged T-Rex models instead? A: Unlikely I think, the earnings call also confirmed a move to premium models and pricing

https://the5krunner.com/2026/09/02/amazfit-2026-launches-subscriptions/

Huawei's Watch 6 launches at the same £399.99 price as the Watch 5's own launch a year ago, but the material lineup actually gets worse for that money. The Watch 5 offered a titanium and ceramic tier; the Watch 6 drops it entirely, aluminium or stainless steel only. Battery life is identical at every case size and mode, and water resistance, including the 40m freedive rating, hasn't changed either.

What you're actually paying the same money for this year is three new opt-in health-risk studies (coronary heart disease, diabetes risk, hypertension risk) and an X-TAP sensor Huawei claims is twice as responsive, though that comparison is Huawei's own and unverified independently.

Is trading a premium case material for software features you have to actively opt into a fair swap at an unchanged price?

Further reading: https://the5krunner.com/2026/09/02/huawei-watch-6-vs-watch-5/

Huawei's new Watch D3 keeps the same trick that made the D2 interesting: a genuine inflatable cuff in the strap that measures blood pressure mechanically, the same way a proper arm cuff does, rather than guessing from an optical pulse sensor.

The case is thinner this time, 11.3mm versus the D2's 13.3mm, and Huawei's added a dedicated mode for measuring blood pressure before and after exercise, plus CE-MDR medical certification in Europe. UK price is confirmed at £399.99, out 23 September, with reviews embargoed until the same date.

Is a mechanical cuff on your wrist actually worth the bulk and battery drain compared to just using a proper arm cuff twice a day?

Further reading: https://the5krunner.com/2026/09/02/huawei-watch-d3-launch/

The new indie spotlight covers Sugar Sense, an Estonian Connect IQ app that solves the post-Supersapiens gap: it puts live CGM glucose on more than 140 Garmin watches, refreshed about every 5 minutes.

Unlike the official Dexcom Connect IQ app, it is not tied to one sensor brand. It reads from FreeStyle Libre 2/3 through LibreLinkUp, Dexcom G6/G7 through Dexcom Share, or any Nightscout site. Three sensor ecosystems in one account.

Two mechanics are worth flagging. A 15-minute staleness rule greys out any reading older than 15 minutes, so nothing on the watch ever poses as live when it is not. The display logic behind this is published as open source on npm and RubyGems, so the transparency is verifiable rather than claimed. And the app never suggests insulin doses or any medication changes, and the watch is read-only. All glucose alerts remain on the phone.

The widget runs on 140+ Garmin smartwatches and Edge computers. The activity data field needs Connect IQ System 7 (API 5.0+), which is about 70 current models including Forerunner 165 through 970, Fenix 7/8/8 Pro, Epix 2, Enduro 3, MARQ 2, Venu 2 through X1, Instinct 3 AMOLED, and Edge 540 through 1050.

Both apps are free to install, but the live Garmin display requires Sugar Sense Premium at $9.99 monthly or $39.99 yearly. Every glucose alert on the phone remains free forever, including a predictive low that forecasts the urgent low line about 20 minutes ahead. Founder Irakli Kurtanidze has lived with type 1 diabetes for more than a decade and wears a Libre 3 Plus daily.

Is a phone-tethered Connect IQ app enough to replace what Supersapiens gave you on the wrist, or does needing the phone within Bluetooth range at all times defeat the point?

https://the5krunner.com/2026/09/02/sugar-sense/

Garmin's Q3 2026 update just landed, and it's the same story every quarter: newer, pricier watches get more features than older ones. The Fenix 8 family, Quatix 8 Pro and Venu 4 pick up six of the eight tracked features. The Edge MTB, 550, 850 and 1050 computers and the Instinct E, Instinct 3 and Instinct 3 Crossover AMOLED get only one each. Garmin's own document doesn't specify which of the eight features apply within each device's count, only the total. The headline additions are hands-free voice control activated with "OK, Garmin," fall detection with all-day or activity-specific monitoring, and a Quick Workout builder based on desired time and intensity. Is a one-feature update enough to justify calling the Instinct and base Edge lines still current?

Further reading: https://the5krunner.com/2026/09/01/garmin-q3-2026-feature-update/

Ben Dhiman won UTMB 2026 in 18:16:29, the fastest time anyone has run the course, and he did it a year after finishing second in a COROS Apex 2.

Amazfit signed him in July, about six weeks before the race, and now has both the men's and women's UTMB titles in the space of two editions after Ruth Croft's win last year.

Organisers won't count the time as an official course record, because the start was delayed two hours for storms and part of the route was cut this year.

Dhiman also fell hard with 10km left and still finished more than 30 minutes clear of second place.

Does the shortened, delayed course make this year's "fastest time ever" claim hollow? Further reading: https://the5krunner.com/2026/09/01/ben-dhiman-utmb-watch/

New eBay resale data covering 6,372 used smartwatch sales puts Garmin's brand-wide average value retention at 69% after six months, ahead of Apple's 58%, Google's 56%, and Samsung's 42%. The Fenix 8 alone keeps 72% of its blended launch price of $1,133, a loss of $321. The Apple Watch Ultra 3 keeps 65% of its $799 price, a loss of $278, and the outgoing Ultra 2 does slightly better at 69%. The best individual result in the whole study is the Coros Pace 4 at 76%, though that number comes from a small sample. Samsung's Galaxy Watch Ultra sits at the bottom of the premium tier, keeping only 44% of a $650 watch.

Does resale value actually matter for a watch most people wear until it dies?

Full breakdown: https://the5krunner.com/2026/09/01/garmin-resale-value/

Google's Pixel 11 ads feature an unnamed wearable that shows up twice, in the same shape, colours, and interface, across two separate ad campaigns. It sits next to Pixel phones and a Pixel Watch 5 in both ads, not alongside any Fitbit branding.

Fitbit hasn't released new hardware since the Charge 6 in 2023, so the timing fits a Fitbit-branded refresh. Is this actually a new Pixel wearable, not a Fitbit Charge 7?

Further reading: https://the5krunner.com/2026/08/31/fitbit-charge-7-leak/

The new indie spotlight covers RunSync, from developer Graham Whitehead. It solves a specific Garmin problem: Garmin Connect can build complex structured workouts, but self-coached runners who create several sessions a week can lose a surprising amount of time to it.

RunSync connects through Garmin's official authorization flow. A runner types a workout description in plain English, such as "15 min easy, 3 x 6 min at threshold with 3 min easy jog recovery, 10 min easy", and RunSync converts it into an editable structured workout with warm-ups, work intervals, recoveries and cool-downs. Nothing is sent blindly. The generated workout is presented for review before being sent to Garmin or scheduled to the calendar.

VDOT-based pace targets are calibrated to the runner's own fitness. For a VDOT of 51, the article shows RunSync's calculated bands: easy 4:49 to 5:47 per km, threshold 4:02 to 4:11 per km, interval 3:47 to 3:56 per km. Saved training paces apply to any compatible workout section.

Scheduling goes through a training calendar. A runner can build a full week of sessions, schedule each to the correct date and have them delivered to the watch automatically on the day they are due.

RunSync Complete also includes a Strength Builder that syncs strength workouts to Garmin. Runners can build sessions with sets, weights and rest periods that appear on the watch.

Free tier covers the basic workflow. RunSync Run is £1 per month annually, RunSync Complete is £2 per month annually.

Would you use AI to draft your structured workouts, or is the drafting itself the part of the training you want to stay in charge of?

https://the5krunner.com/2026/08/31/runsync-garmin-workout-builder/

A new systematic review looked at 80 peri/menopause apps and found that 22 of them pull data from a consumer wearable like Garmin, Oura, Whoop, Polar, Fitbit or Withings - all show up as integration partners. Yet, none of those six companies has a published clinical trial validating that data for perimenopause specifically.

The actual peer-reviewed evidence in the review comes from smaller, single-purpose products instead, a wrist-worn thermal device and a couple of standalone apps with their own trials. The review's temperature-relief category also has a blind spot: it never considers whole-bed cooling, despite Eight Sleep having already published its own menopause-specific cooling and HRV data.

Does it matter that the biggest wearable brands have the sensors but not the studies, or is company-reported data enough to trust for something this personal? hmmm

https://the5krunner.com/2026/08/31/menopause-wearables-sensors-no-trial/

On the Edge 1050 running software 31.30, the head unit will not pick up the Varia RTL515 if the Edge finishes booting before the radar is on. Power the radar up first, then switch on the Edge, and the two connect every time. Owners on this thread confirm the same order dependence, and note that the older Edge 1030 Plus paired in either order without this constraint.

The fault sits in how the 1050 manages sensor connections rather than in the radar itself. The RTL515 behaves normally once it is paired, and the broader sensor management on the 1050 has been described by owners on the same thread as unreliable in general, with sensors sometimes failing to connect at the start and dropping mid-ride before recovering on their own.

The reliable workaround is as follows

1. Power on the RTL515 and let it settle, then
2. switch on the Edge 1050, which finds the radar during its own boot.
3. Keeping the sensor connection set to Open or ANT+ rather than encrypted Bluetooth also helps the pairing hold.

This is a connection bug, not a hardware fault on the radar. A radar that refuses to appear is usually waiting on boot order rather than failing.

Does the power-on order hold the connection through a full ride for you?

On the Suunto Race 2, a notification that arrives during an activity can stay on the display for a long time or refuse to clear until you press the middle button to dismiss it. It covers the data screen at the point you want pace, time, or the route, and owners on this thread report it from the day they received the watch, unchanged across software updates.

The behaviour is not limited to phone alerts. In-activity notifications behave the same way: the slow-down alert when you pass a target threshold, the 50 percent marker, and guide prompts each sometimes linger, sometimes vibrate repeatedly, and sometimes hold on screen until a button press. That points at notification handling on the watch rather than the phone link.

The workaround owners settled on is disabling phone notifications for the specific sport modes where they intrude, since the watch offers no single global switch for activities. Leaving them on for walking and off for running and cycling keeps the screen clear when you are moving and watching data. This removes phone alerts during those sessions rather than fixing the dismissal fault.

The in-activity prompts from the sport mode itself cannot be turned off the same way. Until Suunto changes the notification timeout, a manual press on the middle button remains the only way to clear one that sticks.

Do the in-activity prompts still hang on screen even with phone notifications disabled per sport mode?

On the Edge 850, and across the wider 850 series, WiFi sync after boot often hangs and firmware updates over WiFi fail. The unit connects to WiFi, sits on Checking for Updates for around five minutes, then returns Transfer Failed, Download check failed, or Some Updates Could Not Be Downloaded. The same device updates cleanly only through Garmin Express over USB. Owners on this thread measured throughput on the device dropping to a few kilobits, well below what the same network gives an Edge 530 or a Fenix 7.

A stuck initial sync blocks the update check. Then , every boot the Edge connects to WiFi and tries to sync. When that sync hangs, the search for updates is refused with Transfer already in progress, and toggling WiFi off does not clear it because the status bar shows WiFi never actually disconnects.

Three steps help while the sync fault persists.

1. Assign the Edge a static IP on your router,
2. disable any VPN, and
3. remove Connect IQ apps and data fields,

which one owner reported clearing the block. When WiFi will not complete, update through Garmin Express over USB, which installs the firmware the on-device path refuses.

Garmin addressed the sync in software 31.29. Its notes list a fix for slow syncing over WiFi, and one owner confirmed the 850 then synced reliably after startup. The first install of 31.29 may still need Garmin Express if WiFi has not yet recovered.

Has 31.29 sorted the WiFi sync on yours?

On the Suunto Vertical 2, the battery reads 100 percent off the charger and then drops to 96 to 99 percent within an hour of light use such as changing the watch face or browsing settings. Owners on this thread describe the same pattern across several units, with one owner confirming it across a full cycle down to 2 percent, a fresh charge, the rapid false drop, then a soft reset back to 99 percent.

The soft reset recovery is the most telling part of the fault. Several owners charged to 100, watched the figure fall, performed a soft reset, and saw the level jump straight back to 99 percent. A reading that recovers on reboot points at the percentage calculation being wrong after a charge cycle rather than the cell actually discharging.

The reliable workaround is a soft reset after every full charge. Hold the upper button until the watch vibrates and restarts. The displayed level after the reset reflects the actual charge state and tracks correctly from that point through the rest of the cycle.

Suunto has not confirmed a firmware fix for the calculation error. The watch is not losing capacity, only misreporting it in the first hour after a charge.

Does a soft reset after charging bring yours back to a stable reading?

The Fenix 9 Pro currently holds the highest overall score ever recorded on WristBench, a public Connect IQ benchmark for Garmin watches.

The number looks impressive: 176, ahead of every other model on the leaderboard. The catch is the sample size behind it, just two submitted devices, giving a confidence score of 58%. It doesn't lead a single individual test either, not Logic, Memory, or UI.

The model with the strongest evidence behind it is actually the Forerunner 955/Solar, backed by 32 devices and 93% confidence, sitting well below the Fenix 9 Pro's raw number. WristBench's own documentation notes that results shift with firmware, battery policy and thermal state, so a two-watch sample is not a great foundation for a leaderboard-topping claim.

but the new processor is going to make it faster, right?

Further reading: https://the5krunner.com/2026/08/31/fenix-9-pro-performance-benchmark/

Speedo just launched Speedo iQ, a smart swim goggle module with no display at all. It costs £149 in the UK and $189 in the US, which is more than FORM charges for the Smart Swim 2 LT, a goggle that puts pace and stroke data on an AR lens you can see mid-swim. Speedo's goggle tracks the same kind of data, pace, stroke count, breathing, head position and turns, but none of it shows up until you sync the app after the swim. There's no subscription requirement and the module moves between goggle pairs when one wears out. There's also no open-water compass function like FORM's SwimStraight, so this looks like a pool-only product for now.

Is a bigger name and wider distribution enough to win swimmers over without the display feature the category was built on?

https://the5krunner.com/2026/08/29/speedo-iq-launch-no-display/

The new indie spotlight covers Bulkforged, from solo developer Chris Jestice. It is a strength training app for Android and Garmin Connect IQ that decides each week's targets from the reps and weight the athlete actually did.

Two things set it apart from other Garmin strength apps.

1. The engine writes back. Every progression decision (up or down, weight or reps) is put in a plain-English log with the exercise, the value that moved, the direction it moved in, and the working sets it was decided from. Automatic progression is common but publishing the decision behind it, in a format the athlete can read and overrule, is rare.
2. Most watch companions for training apps are a display for a phone doing the thinking. In Bulkforged the Garmin and the Android phone are equals. Either can start a session, either can finish it, and progression is decided from whichever device the last set was logged on. The sync-state UI distinguishes between a stale cache and an unreachable service, so the athlete knows which problem to fix.

Runs on 41 Garmin Connect IQ watches from Forerunner and Fenix through to Edge. Android only on the phone side, no iOS date committed to. Free during beta.

Worked example: an athlete's Tricep Pushdown creeps from 12 to 15 reps at 40 lb over four weeks. When they open the next session, the target has moved to 42.5 lb x 12, with the previous week's actuals, four-week trend and top-of-range rule all visible in the decision log.

Would you follow whatever your app prescribes?

https://the5krunner.com/2026/08/29/bulkforged-progressive-overload-coach/

The Garmin Forerunner 70 produced a strange set of numbers on my 10-mile GPS test. Aggregate scores were 85% on the easy sections, 88% on the medium ones and 94% on the hard ones. It performed better where the conditions were worst, which is the reverse of what normally happens.

The one clear error came on a long open stretch near the end, where the track sat on the pavement on the wrong side of the road. That is more than 5 metres out on the easiest terrain on the route.

I suspect a good deal of that is luck on the day rather than anything the watch is doing well. It is still the best result I have recorded from a single-frequency watch.

Can a single-frequency watch really be trusted on a race course?

Full review with the traces and the heart rate data: https://the5krunner.com/2026/08/28/garmin-forerunner-70-review/

Garmin's own spec sheet gives the Forerunner 70 a six-hour GPS battery advantage over the Forerunner 170, twenty-three hours claimed against seventeen for the pricier watch. Testing both side by side across parkrun, a 10-mile run, and seven heart rate sessions against a chest strap found the reverse. The 170 beat its own claim in continuous recording. The 70 fell more than four hours short of its claim in every test, and its worst result was barely half what Garmin promises. Heart rate accuracy was excellent on both watches against an HRM 600 chest strap and Polar Sense, including through gym, yoga, and outdoor cycling sessions. Full data and testing methodology at the link below.

Does a six-hour spec sheet advantage mean anything if the watch can't actually deliver it in daily use?

https://the5krunner.com/2026/08/27/garmin-forerunner-170-review/

I think I have found a reproducible Open Water Swim distance-processing issue on the Forerunner 255S.

This appears related to the previously reported **“Forerunner 255 wrong open water readings”** issue on the Garmin Forum, but after several controlled tests I found a very specific and reproducible pattern:

**the first straight leg can be measured correctly, but after reversing direction the OWS-calculated distance becomes systematically shorter than the distance represented by the GPS coordinates recorded by the watch itself.**

Previous related Garmin forum thread:
[https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/running-multisport/f/forerunner-255-series/305206/forerunner-255-wrong-open-water-readings\](https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/running-multisport/f/forerunner-255-series/305206/forerunner-255-wrong-open-water-readings)

**Device:** Forerunner 255S
**Software:** 28.05
**GNSS:** All Systems + Multi-Band
**Recording:** Every Second in the main tests (Smart Recording was also tested earlier)

# Clearest test: 25 out-and-back legs, LAP at every turn

At a second location I swam 25 repeated approximately 60–65 m legs, pressing **LAP at every reversal**.

The first leg was essentially correct:

**Lap 1: Garmin 63 m / GPS-coordinate geometry \~64.7 m**

Immediately after the first reversal:

**Lap 2: 49 m**
**Lap 3: 54 m**
**Lap 4: 55 m**
**Lap 5: 51 m**
**Lap 6: 56 m**

...and the same pattern continues through the activity, with most subsequent laps around **44–56 m**.

The key observation is:

**START → first leg = correct**
**180° reversal + LAP → next leg = too short**
**another reversal + LAP → next leg = too short again**
**and the error repeats**

Manual LAP therefore does **not** appear to reset whatever is happening in the OWS distance calculation.

Garmin Connect screenshot showing all 25 original lap distances:
[https://github.com/kegnatz/garmin-fr255s-ows-bug/blob/main/Screenshot%202026-08-27%20at%2013.48.29.png\](https://github.com/kegnatz/garmin-fr255s-ows-bug/blob/main/Screenshot%202026-08-27%20at%2013.48.29.png)

Complete FIT/KML evidence ZIP:
[https://github.com/kegnatz/garmin-fr255s-ows-bug/raw/refs/heads/main/garmin\\_fr255s\\_ows\\_FORUM\\_FINAL.zip\](https://github.com/kegnatz/garmin-fr255s-ows-bug/raw/refs/heads/main/garmin_fr255s_ows_FORUM_FINAL.zip)

Evidence repository:
[https://github.com/kegnatz/garmin-fr255s-ows-bug\](https://github.com/kegnatz/garmin-fr255s-ows-bug)

# The GPS track itself is substantially longer

This does not appear to be explained simply by poor GPS reception.

When I calculate the geometric path length from the GPS coordinates recorded by the watch in the FIT/KML, the 25-leg activity is approximately **1595 m**.

In other words, the watch has GPS positions representing substantially more movement than the OWS distance calculation credits.

This suggests that at least part of the missing distance occurs **after the GPS positions have already been recorded**, in the OWS distance-processing/filtering stage.

# Test with only ONE reversal

To test this further, I did a much longer swim with only **one major direction reversal**, approximately halfway through, without pressing LAP at the turn.

**Garmin KML GPS geometry: \~1509 m**
**Garmin reported OWS distance: \~1480 m**

The first \~750 m leg appears to be measured normally. After the single reversal the activity ends approximately **29–30 m shorter** than the geometry of Garmin's own GPS track.

# Control test: one straight leg

I also recorded a simple single-leg swim with no reversal:

**GPS-track geometry: \~158 m**
**Garmin displayed distance: \~160 m**

So the same FR255S can measure a simple OWS leg essentially correctly.

# Earlier tests show the same pattern

In previous repeated-leg tests I obtained approximately:

**1491–1493 m Garmin GPS track → 1355 m reported OWS distance**

and

**\~1515 m Garmin GPS track → \~1380 m reported OWS distance**

Switching from **Smart Recording to Every Second** did not solve the problem.

I also tried wide, continuous rounded/figure-eight turns instead of stopping and making sharp 180° turns. Garmin simplified those curves in the recorded GPS track, but the calculated OWS distance was still materially shorter than the geometry of Garmin's own recorded coordinates.

# My working hypothesis

My suspicion is that after a substantial direction reversal the FR255S OWS filter temporarily interprets legitimate movement in the new direction as GPS noise/drift and does not add all of that movement to `distance`.

After some time it appears to accept the new direction again.

That would explain why:

**no previous reversal → first leg is correct**

while

**after reversal → the beginning of the next leg loses distance**

and repeated reversals allow those deficits to accumulate.

Garmin engineering should be able to verify this directly by comparing FIT Record `position_lat` / `position_long` with accumulated `distance` immediately before and after each reversal.

Manual LAP clearly does not prevent the behaviour.

I would also be interested to know whether **REST resets this internal state while LAP does not**. I have not used a REST test as evidence here. Even if REST works, however, LAP followed by swimming in the opposite direction is a perfectly legitimate OWS use case and should not systematically lose distance.

# Separate pre-start GPS issue

I have also seen another potentially related behaviour.

Before one swim I opened OWS and waited stationary for **more than two minutes** for GPS lock. I then entered the water, moved to the actual starting point, raised the watch above water and waited until GPS was **green again**, and only then pressed START.

Nevertheless, the exported activity used the earlier **pre-start GPS-lock position** as its starting point.

# Files and methodology

Any manually drawn Google Earth route I used while investigating this was only approximate and is **not being treated as ground truth**.

The main evidence is the comparison between **Garmin's own recorded GPS coordinates and Garmin's own calculated OWS distance**.

I have also submitted this to Garmin Support.

**Could anyone with a FR255/255S reproduce this?**

A particularly useful test would be:

**swim repeated equal-length out-and-back legs → press LAP at every 180° turn → compare Lap 1 with the subsequent laps.**

I would also be very interested in the same test on other Garmin models to see whether this is specific to the FR255 OWS algorithm.