AllYouCanTech

Evaluating the Suunto Coach: Is AI Capable of Substituting Your Personal Trainer?

AI continues to strive for ubiquity, extending its reach to your wrists and fitness routines. In contrast to generative AI “slop” like photo and video creation, there is a compelling argument for AI to permeate your exercise and wellness strategies. Access to a personal trainer, sports physician, or physical therapist is a luxury few can afford; therefore, a precise and user-friendly AI solution could bridge that gap.

Naturally, this places significant expectations on a technology known for its occasional errors. When health is at stake, it’s crucial to be discerning about the devices and functionalities you place your trust in. Whether we embrace it or not, AI is poised to influence the health sector — with brands like Garmin, Strava, Apple, Samsung, Google, and many more introducing AI-enhanced features now.

Suunto enhanced its Suunto Coach, an AI-driven workout assistant, to facilitate AI-created training plans over the summer. I’ve been testing them with the recently launched Vertical 2 adventure watch, and I find it fascinating for two reasons. First, Suunto Coach and My plan are free of charge. Second, they are genuinely employing AI, which is not something every workout feature that claims to be AI can validate.

So, is it effective? Here are my initial impressions after using the Vertical 2 for two weeks and establishing an AI workout regimen.

### Creating a personalized My plan with Suunto Coach

After recording several running and walking sessions with the Suunto Vertical 2, I set out to create the AI-generated training plan utilizing Suunto Coach. The initial step involves a brief questionnaire aimed at understanding your training objectives and abilities.

Suunto will inquire about the number of hours you train each week, followed by your maximum time commitment. You’ll also have the opportunity to select a specific day for long runs or express a preference for strength and cross-training workouts. Finally, you’ll disclose your race target and terrain type.

The questions might differ based on your chosen training plan. I opted for the “Get fast for 5km” plan, as my primary concern is improving my 5K time rather than increasing mileage. I completed the questionnaire based on this goal, aiming for a personal best on a flat and swift course.

From that point, Suunto will carry out some AI processing in the background to develop your training regimen. This process can take some time, typically between 10 to 30 minutes. The positive aspect is that you only need to undertake this once for each plan. Utilizing the context derived from your responses, Suunto will generate a customized training routine.

The initial experience reminded me of Samsung’s Running Coach, a similar feature that also involves a brief questionnaire for assessing your capabilities. However, it appears there is more AI processing taking place with Suunto Coach. The plan creation time is longer and provides more variety than Running Coach, which tends to be more rigid with set time and distance running levels.

This is what captivates me about Suunto Coach and the AI-generated training plans, known as “My plan,” which are still in beta. For better or for worse, they genuinely employ AI. Conversely, AI has not made a significant difference in Running Coach or Apple’s Workout Buddy. The latter primarily reiterates live statistics you are already familiar with seeing on your Apple Watch.

### A fitness tool with promise, but some quirks

Once the training plan was created, I recognized immediate promise along with a few peculiarities. The plan appears tailored and considerate, featuring weekly targets, long-term objectives, and specific instructions for individual workouts. It effectively incorporates best practices for running and integrates them into a dedicated plan.

For example, my plan included strategically placed rest days and an easy, low-mileage week after each pair of intense training weeks. The 10-week schedule suggested six weeks of strenuous workouts and three weeks of recovery running, culminating in a taper during the final week. Its design aims to optimize performance while managing mileage and preventing injuries from overuse.

These are established tips and strategies that even seasoned runners find challenging to implement. It’s encouraging to see them encapsulated within a comprehensive training plan that shifts the strategy burden from the runner to AI.

However, several elements could benefit from adjustment. The time, mileage, and pace targets for each session didn’t appear to correspond with the data I had already logged on the Vertical 2. This suggests that the AI engine of Suunto Coach is relying more on the questionnaire than on your historical stats when formulating a plan. It’s intended to evolve dynamically, yet it remains in beta.

I also found it odd that the AI workout plan randomly included a cross-country skiing session during week eight. As someone who has never engaged in cross-country skiing, and given its complexity for a first-time experience, it’s quite an unusual suggestion.

### Suunto Coach serves best as a guide, not a blueprint

I intend to continue using Suunto Coach, despite areas for enhancement. It appears to be genuinely beneficial for training as long as

Get a Discount of Up to $300 on the 2024 Motorola Stylus Phone at Best Buy

The Motorola Moto G Stylus 5G (2024) stands out in the mid-tier smartphone sector, delivering features that nearly compete with flagship devices while still being budget-friendly. This phone is particularly attractive to individuals who value the convenience of a built-in stylus, a feature that boosts productivity and creativity while on the move.

The Moto G Stylus 5G (2024) boasts a 6.7-inch OLED screen, offering vibrant hues and rich contrasts that elevate the user experience, whether you’re watching videos or surfing the web. The display’s 120Hz refresh rate guarantees seamless scrolling and smooth animations, a characteristic usually seen in pricier models.

Internally, the phone utilizes the Qualcomm Snapdragon 6 Gen 1 processor, complemented by 8GB of RAM, providing impressive performance for daily activities and multitasking. This setup ensures the device can manage resource-intensive applications and games with ease, making it a dependable option for users requiring a phone that can keep pace with their hectic lives.

Photography fans will value the phone’s camera arrangement, featuring a 50MP wide lens, a 13MP ultrawide shooter, and a 32MP front-facing camera. These cameras produce detailed and vibrant images, ideal for both casual clicks and more serious photography.

A highlight of the Moto G Stylus 5G (2024) is its enduring battery life, which guarantees that the device can last an entire day without needing to be charged. This is paired with the phone’s vegan leather back, offering a premium touch while also enhancing grip, minimizing the risk of accidental drops.

Despite its stellar features, the Moto G Stylus 5G (2024) is still wallet-friendly. It is accessible at considerable discounts, especially when bought through stores like Best Buy, where it can be available for as low as $200 under certain conditions. This positions it as an ideal choice for those looking for a high-performing device without overspending.

In conclusion, the Motorola Moto G Stylus 5G (2024) is a superb option for users seeking a smartphone that combines flagship-like functionalities at a mid-range cost. Its blend of a premium display, robust performance, adaptable camera system, and distinctive stylus capability makes it a noteworthy contender in the bustling smartphone arena.

AWS Service Interruption Disrupts Online Services, Impacting Reddit, Fortnite, and More for Multiple Hours

“Oura Launches Innovative Tools for Tracking Stress and Blood Pressure”

The Oura app is rolling out major updates designed to improve user health insights and management. These enhancements emphasize immersive health perspectives and broadened Cycle Insights, underlining Oura’s dedication to preventive health.

The app’s latest features feature Cumulative Stress, aimed at assisting users in grasping the effects of chronic stress on their bodies. This addition delivers insights into how stress influences sleep, heart reactions, and temperature control. Moreover, Oura is initiating a Blood Pressure Profile study to detect hypertension risks, merging Oura Ring data with user lifestyle details.

The app’s interface is also undergoing a transformation. The Today tab now presents a detailed overview of user well-being, whereas the My Health tab offers a more transparent view of long-term health. The Vitals tab supplies insights into sleep, stress, and cardiovascular patterns. Cycle Insights has been enhanced to present a 12-month perspective on period and fertility forecasts.

These updates, grounded in peer-reviewed research and algorithm improvements, seek to provide users with a richer understanding of their health, with a global rollout anticipated soon on Android and iOS.

Retroid Unveils Future Gaming Handheld with ‘The Future is Now’ Tagline

UGREEN’s DH2300 and DH4300 Plus: Budget-Friendly NAS Options for Your Requirements

UGREEN is shaking up the budget NAS sector with the introduction of its latest 2-bay NASync DH2300 and 4-bay NASync DS4300 Plus units. Renowned for its robust hardware and adaptable software, UGREEN has rapidly become a favored name among NAS enthusiasts. The DH2300, available for $189, presents a compelling alternative to the well-known DiskStation DS223j, equipped with Gigabit Ethernet, a Rockchip RK3576 processor, 4GB of RAM, and a 32GB SSD for software setup. It also features USB-A, USB-C, and HDMI ports.

The DS4300 Plus, priced at $364, offers 8GB of RAM, 2.5 Gigabit Ethernet, and comparable connectivity options. Both devices can accommodate 30TB drives, providing flexible solutions for storage requirements. UGREEN’s elegant design and solid hardware set these models apart as excellent choices for newcomers to the NAS world, with the DH2300 standing out as a particularly appealing option for beginners.

What I Desire in Samsung’s Tri-Fold Device Following My Experience with Huawei’s Mate XT

Samsung’s Rumored Galaxy Z TriFold Promises to Be an Impressive Foldable

Huawei stole the spotlight this year with the Mate XT. Its tri-folding design offers a distinct advantage over conventional foldables, and after spending ample time with the phone, it’s remarkable how natural it feels for daily use. Initially, I assumed it would serve more as a tech showcase than an actual device, but that’s far from the truth — the Mate XT functions perfectly as a daily companion, and I’ve utilized it extensively. The ability to unfold the phone into a tablet-sized display is simply incredible, and the excitement of that feature remains fresh.

With Huawei setting the pace, it’s no surprise that other companies are eager to join in. Samsung is expected to unveil its own version of a tri-folding device called the Galaxy Z TriFold, and with rumors hinting at an upcoming launch, here’s what I hope to see from this phone.

A Design That Is Not Awkward

Samsung has successfully revamped the design of its foldable devices with the Galaxy Z Fold 7, and I wish the tri-folding model mirrors this aesthetic. The Z Fold 7 is enjoyable to hold and use due to its elegant design, making a noticeable improvement over the Z Fold 6 and earlier versions. It feels just as light and slim as the Honor Magic V5 and Vivo X Fold 5, and it wasn’t until I compared the Fold 7 with the Pixel 10 Pro Fold that I appreciated the substantial difference this year.

Huawei is well-known for its sleek products, and the Mate XT exemplifies this; the tri-folding device measures only 4.8mm when fully opened, and this slimness is crucial for its modern appearance. Samsung must achieve similar thinness with its tri-folding device. With the Z Fold 7 weighing in at 215g and a thickness of 4.2mm, that’s an excellent benchmark, and I want Samsung to utilize this foldable as the foundation and enhance that design.

Cameras That Can Compete with the Mate XT

Samsung upgraded the Z Fold 7 with an essential 200MP camera enhancement this year, enabling the foldable to capture significantly improved photos and videos. The Galaxy Z TriFold must incorporate the same cameras to stand up not only to Samsung’s standards but also compared to other foldables.

While I was initially uncertain about Huawei’s camera capabilities with the Mate XT, its tri-folding device proved to house some of the finest cameras in its class. The Mate XT consistently delivers impressive photos and videos, and I’ve never felt restricted by the camera quality on this device.

Despite foldables being primarily about increased display space, the potential price of over $3,000 for the Galaxy Z TriFold necessitates exceptional cameras — it’s essential. Samsung has demonstrated its capability in this domain this year, and we will have to watch and see if it can replicate that success with its tri-folding offering.

A Battery That Endures the Whole Day

There’s a lot to appreciate about the Galaxy Z Fold 7, yet one ongoing frustration is its battery life. The foldable features a modest 4,400mAh battery, and while it holds up for a full day with moderate usage, I often find myself needing to charge it before the day’s end.

Most other foldable devices come equipped with at least a 5,000mAh battery, with Samsung being noted for its conservative approach in this aspect — even Google opted for a larger 5,015mAh battery in the Pixel 10 Pro Fold this year. All this indicates that the Galaxy Z TriFold should have a larger battery to compete effectively with the Mate XT.

However, that may not actually be the reality; leaks suggest that the tri-folding device could utilize the same 4,400mAh battery as the Galaxy Z Fold 7, and if that ends up being accurate, it will be disappointing.

A Foldable I Truly Want to Use

Another frustration with the Z Fold 7 is its tendency to wobble when used on a desk. The leaner design and the switch to larger camera sensors result in the rear cameras protruding slightly more than in previous models, and since Samsung maintained the camera module’s position, the foldable tends to rock significantly.

Huawei and various other Chinese manufacturers address this concern through a center-mounted camera island, and Samsung should consider this approach. It’s unlikely that the Z TriFold’s design will deviate significantly from the Z Fold 7, but regardless, I desire a phone that remains stable on my desk without constantly shifting around.

Substantial Software

COROS APEX 4 Fitness Assessment: Merging Classic Attributes with Contemporary Improvements

Garmin enthusiasts nostalgic for MIP displays, robust battery life, and a fair price for GPS and HR precision will appreciate the COROS APEX 4.

My experience testing the COROS APEX 4 over the last few weeks has rekindled memories of my time with the 2022 Garmin Forerunner 955, my preferred running watch prior to Garmin and competitors moving away from MIP displays. A considerable number of fitness watch aficionados are unhappy with this shift, including my brother-in-law who owns a 955. While I do prefer AMOLED displays, the APEX 4 stands out as an excellent option for those who remain loyal to MIP technology.

The previous COROS model, the NOMAD, takes on the Garmin Instinct 3 in a limited segment: budget-friendly, durable hiking watches that boast weeks of battery life. An MIP display seemed well-suited.

The APEX 4 is designed for trail runners and “mountain athletes” who value battery longevity and outdoor visibility. However, its $429/479 price pits it against tougher contenders like the Suunto Race 2, Garmin Forerunner 570, and Polar Vantage M3 — all of which feature AMOLED displays, with the first two offering 2,000 nits for outstanding visibility in bright sunlight.

Initial impressions

I evaluated the COROS APEX 2 and APEX 2 Pro in 2022 while still becoming familiar with wearables. The hardware impressed me, particularly the remarkable battery longevity, but I noticed that the GPS and HR accuracy could be improved, the health tracking and software had several shortcomings, and the MIP displays were frustratingly dim.

It’s no surprise that the APEX 4 offers improved accuracy (as detailed below), the battery life continues to astonish me, and the MIP display presents much better contrast, rendering it functional — though oddly, the NOMAD’s display is easier to read indoors. I suspect the APEX 4’s sapphire layer refracts more obstructive light.

Most importantly, the APEX 4’s new Ambiq Apollo 510 processor delivers the smoothest, fastest maps I’ve encountered outside of Apple and Wear OS devices, where most competitors like Garmin tend to lag. You can now view street and trail names, and the crown allows for effortless zooming in on tricky trail intersections or zooming out for a broader perspective in a matter of seconds.

My only issues lie with the turn-by-turn navigation for imported courses. It generally operates effectively, but I observed twice that upon reaching a loop, the arrow prompted me to proceed in the opposite direction of my chosen path.

When I intentionally deviated from the course, the APEX 4 detected it and alerted me immediately. However, the turn-by-turn directions do not adjust based on your facing direction, so when I missed a right turn and turned around, it still instructed me to turn right. I hope COROS addresses both of my mapping concerns in the future.

Thanks to its new processor, the APEX 4 is well-equipped for years of enhancements. Over three years, the APEX 2 incorporated HRV and stress metrics, sleep quality, running form analysis, Strava Live Segments, and safety alerts, among numerous new features. While Garmin watch updates often diminish after 1–2 years, updates for the APEX 4 should continue for a much longer period.

I specifically anticipate that its integrated depth gauge sensor will allow for scuba diving eventually, and COROS mentioned to Chase the Summit that it may utilize the mic & speaker for offline voice commands in the future.

COROS APEX 4 GPS accuracy

Not all dual-band GPS watches are made the same. After testing nearly every brand’s GPS accuracy, I found that COROS’s latest models closely match Garmin for reliability, with the APEX 4 following suit. Prepare for some impressively straight GPS paths, with only a few minor glitches.

I took three dual-frequency GPS watches — the Garmin Forerunner 970, Google Pixel Watch 4, and APEX 4 — on a 19-mile run; while Google mainly relies on L1 and L5 GPS frequencies, Garmin and COROS additionally access other GNSS signals as necessary.

In the end, Garmin measured 0.01 miles further and Google 0.01 miles shorter; feel free to check out my Pixel Watch 4 fitness test for its results, but I’ve concentrated on the two main competitors here. Generally, all nineteen miles displayed the two signals either overlapping or closely parallel. They tended to register simultaneously or within seconds at each mile marker.

I only have one criticism: The APEX 4’s final map displayed a warp effect from my current location to a previous one and back, as illustrated above. It did not influence my distance outcomes, but it added roughly 50m to my final altitude measurements.

The Garmin Venu 4: My Preferred Selection for a Fitness Watch

I evaluated the Garmin Venu 4 alongside several other health and fitness devices.

It’s been two years since the launch of the Venu 3, and the Venu 4 arrives with a fresh design and some additional features. Nevertheless, Garmin has largely kept the Elevate sensor unchanged, which isn’t necessarily negative. As demonstrated with the Venu X1, this sensor continues to prove itself to be quite precise.

I’ve been utilizing the Garmin Venu 4 as my primary workout companion for a couple of weeks. I compared it with the Garmin Venu 3 to assess any changes (if there are any), and also with the Pixel Watch 3 to evaluate its performance against my preferred smartwatch.

Fitness features I appreciate

In contrast to the Forerunner series, the Garmin Venu 4 acts more as a versatile gadget, emphasizing overall fitness rather than just running. As a result, Garmin has packed numerous fitness features into the watch, building upon earlier versions while ensuring it’s suitable for anyone looking to just put it on and begin.

Numerous helpful and new training features are available to enhance your workout experiences, but the one I focus on the most is Training Readiness. This metric considers various factors, including sleep, recovery duration, and acute load, to assess how intensively you should engage in your forthcoming workouts. Ideally, this serves as a useful tool to prevent overexertion, which can hinder your performance.

The Venu 4 also accommodates more coaching features, allowing me to experience a better variety of workouts that refresh my usual routine. This feels more curated and diverse, which should appeal to enthusiasts of the Venu series. Weightlifters like myself will appreciate the watch’s enhanced ability to track reps and sets with greater accuracy than the Venu 3, leading to more precise exercise and muscle categorization in post-workout summaries.

If you lack a coaching plan, you will also receive a wider selection of suggested workouts, marking a positive development from the Morning Report seen on the Vivoactive 6.

After each workout, the Venu 4 offers a summary of the session, including metrics like training load to measure workout intensity. You’ll also receive a figure indicating your recovery time, which influences your training readiness. This figure represents your recovery period between challenging activities, including sleep. It’s Garmin’s way of advising you to relax.

Heart rate

Smartwatches are generally reliable when it comes to heart rate monitoring, but they are ultimately not perfect. The accuracy of the watch’s heart rate detection can hinge on several factors, including fit, positioning, cleanliness, and even the type of band used. Although Garmin’s Elevate V5 heart rate monitor on the Venu 4 has demonstrated reliability over the years, it is not without faults.

In most instances, the Venu 4 aligned with my expectations during workouts. Having used smartwatches for some time, I have a good idea of what the readings should show. However, there are occasional moments when the watch seems slow to respond, as illustrated in the charts below:

In the initial chart, the Venu 4 remained considerably lower than the Pixel Watch 3 throughout my run. I noticed this discrepancy in real-time, unable to identify the reason for such differing readings, as both devices were securely fastened on my wrists. Thankfully, the watch seemed to rectify itself as my pace increased, though it was confusing during my run.

Following runs showed no significant discrepancies, with both watches remaining fairly consistent with each other. However, things got slightly odd when comparing the Venu 4 to the Venu 3 during my HIIT sessions.

HIIT workouts typically exhibit more variability than runs, leading to fluctuating heart rates. Despite this, the Venu 4 showed a few brief but notable dips during certain workouts that the Venu 3 did not. What’s intriguing is that both smartwatches utilize the same Elevate sensor, leaving me puzzled about the source of these dips. Fortunately, the Venu 4 managed to correct itself most of the time.

Overall, the heart rate sensor on the Venu 4 tends to be reliable, with occasional minor fluctuations.

Step counter

I put the Garmin Venu 4 through two abbreviated sessions of my usual walking test, covering a total of 2,000 steps each time. I compared the step counts with the Google Pixel Watch 4, Venu 3, and the Oura Ring 4 while simultaneously using a manual step counter on my phone. The results were pleasantly unexpected, especially for the Venu models.

As demonstrated, during both sessions, the V

The Key is in Enhanced Batteries, Not Quicker Charging.

Genuine all-day battery longevity need not be a fantasy. In the contemporary fast-moving environment, where smartphones form an essential part of our everyday routines, the need for batteries that last longer is increasingly urgent. Despite developments in technology, numerous flagship devices from companies such as Samsung, Apple, and Google still do not meet the all-day battery longevity that users desire. Although rapid charging options are emerging, they frequently involve risks and drawbacks.

The fundamental problem lies in the current batteries not enduring long enough between charges, compelling users to depend on fast charging to keep their devices functional throughout the day. This dependence on quick charging can raise safety issues and may lead to battery deterioration over time. The emphasis should instead be on creating batteries that genuinely sustain usage from morning to evening, enabling users to recharge their devices securely during the night.

Certain companies, including OnePlus, have sought to tackle this by devising methods to safely charge phones at elevated power levels. However, this strategy still fails to address the core issue of inadequate battery capacity. Rather than focusing on sleeker phones with smaller batteries, manufacturers should investigate innovative alternatives like solid-state batteries, which promise increased capacity, safety, and efficiency without adding bulk.

While the current costs of solid-state batteries are high, their ability to transform battery life in smartphones is undeniably significant. Ideally, a smartphone would be compact, able to perform all necessary functions, and need charging only once daily. Until such innovations gain widespread acceptance, the pursuit of true all-day battery longevity persists, remaining a vital domain for advancement in the technology sector.