The initial experience with the new Fitbit app’s AI was, frankly, frustrating. On its first day, the system seemed confused, offering responses that missed the mark entirely. It felt like a conversation with someone who hadn’t quite grasped the basics – a disconcerting start to what promised to be a personalized fitness experience.
A glimmer of hope appeared the next morning. The AI finally acknowledged the existence of my Google Pixel Watch 4, a small victory after initially insisting my device was the previous generation. This, along with a few other minor corrections rolling out throughout the week, suggested the team was actively working to address the initial issues.
I spent a week rigorously testing the app, wearing the Pixel Watch 4 during sleep and workouts, and engaging with the AI coach daily. My background – holding multiple coaching certifications and years of self-directed training – allowed me to evaluate its performance with a critical eye. Could this AI truly deliver a valuable coaching experience?
Early improvements were noticeable. The ability to edit text within the chat window, previously limited to backspacing, was a welcome change. The interface for strength workouts also became more functional, allowing for adjustments to reps and weight, with the AI even referencing those weights in subsequent conversations.
Despite these improvements, significant shortcomings remained. The exercise library, while extensive, contained obscure and oddly worded exercises alongside glaring omissions of common movements. It felt as though the list was compiled algorithmically, lacking the nuance of a curated selection.
App crashes and blank screens, common occurrences at launch, became less frequent. Tapping on my sleep data now displayed graphs and insights, rather than initiating a conversation with the bot – though a conversation option remained, often yielding a message about unavailable data.
Following running workouts proved challenging. While possible, it wasn’t intuitive. The process required navigating the app, initiating the workout, and then loading it onto the watch, with no direct access from the watch itself. A seamless experience, it was not.
I tasked the AI with creating a 5K improvement plan, a common goal readily addressed by most training apps. I inquired about potential improvement within a month, running a 28-minute 5K. The AI avoided a specific prediction, offering only vague encouragement. When I proposed a more ambitious 24-minute goal, it didn’t flag the unreasonableness.
The AI did correctly suggest incorporating strength training to support running, but demonstrated a surprising oversight when I requested a strength-focused plan – it failed to include any cardio. A balanced approach, fundamental to fitness, was noticeably absent.
The AI’s approach to goal setting felt superficial. It lacked the ability to provide informed advice on appropriate goals, a key function of a human coach. It also failed to discuss process goals or long-term planning, essential elements for sustained progress.
The running workouts themselves were underwhelming. The program lacked a crucial tempo run and long run, relying instead on scattered intervals. Even a simple request for a warm-up proved problematic, triggering a series of errors and miscalculations.
The app’s mathematical abilities were… questionable. Attempts to calculate workout segment times consistently resulted in inaccuracies, with descriptions displaying incorrect durations even after corrections. It was a frustrating reminder of the limitations of the system.
Following workouts on the watch was equally frustrating. Descriptions often didn’t match the actual run, omitting warm-ups and cool-downs. Heart rate targets were displayed inconsistently, and the distinction between work and recovery intervals was unclear, forcing me to abandon a workout prematurely.
The AI exhibited a peculiar memory. It sometimes forgot previous instructions, but often remembered trivial details with unnerving accuracy. Attempts to shift focus from 5K training to strength work were met with repeated insistence on running programs and 5K goals, despite explicit requests to disregard them.
Even minor comments became ingrained in the AI’s “memory.” A casual remark about preferring “hard training” was repeatedly referenced in subsequent workouts, demonstrating an inability to contextualize preferences. It felt as though every input was treated with equal weight, regardless of its significance.
The AI’s insistence on a specific rep scheme – five, three, then one, followed by two sets of three – was another example of this rigid adherence to past inputs. While initially understanding a request for a heavy single and back-off sets, it now applied this protocol to every workout, regardless of appropriateness.
The experience felt remarkably similar to using basic AI workout generators from 2023. Despite the hype surrounding advancements in AI, the Fitbit app’s performance felt like a step backward, lacking the sophistication and nuance expected of a premium fitness platform. It raised concerns about the potential for AI coaches to do more harm than good.
A true fitness coach understands the importance of long-term planning, realistic goal setting, and individualized programming. This AI, however, struggled with these fundamental aspects, leaving me questioning whether it could truly replace the guidance of a human professional.
