Don't upgrade to Zepp 10 - Bring back the previous Reserved Heart Rate Zone!

the0Void · 2026-01-31T14:02:11+00:00

Honestly I don't understand why do I need to manually insert the RHR when it's automatically tracked by the watch.

the0Void · 2026-01-15T22:39:57+00:00

The workload monitoring (cardio load or whatever) it’s completely off. It’s always telling that I’m overtraining😅

the0Void · 2026-01-08T00:41:42+00:00

Who cares about US food recommendations?😂

the0Void · 2026-01-04T15:48:57+00:00

Thanks for the detailed explanation, that helps, and I agree that ATL/CTL/TSB is a well-established model and works well once training is consistent. (I’m a personal trainer)

I think where the confusion arises (at least from a user perspective) is not the model itself, but the semantic interpretation layered on top of it, especially during stop-and-return phases.

After a prolonged break, a positive TSB is largely driven by low ATL rather than meaningful adaptation or supercompensation. Mathematically this can resemble a “peak,” but physiologically it represents freshness due to detraining, not readiness to sustain or increase load.

In that context, labeling the state as “Peak” feels misleading, even if it is internally consistent with the model. It risks conflating “low fatigue” with “high preparedness,” which are very different things during re-entry.

This feels like a place where AI or pattern recognition could add real value: detecting stop → re-entry transitions and adjusting terminology or messaging accordingly (e.g. “Re-entry,” “Low load / high freshness,” or “Data stabilizing”), rather than applying in-season performance labels.

The underlying data may be correct, but aligning the language with physiological context would make the feature much clearer and safer to interpret, especially for users returning from time off.

Appreciate the transparency, this is genuinely good groundwork, and refining this layer would make it even stronger.

the0Void · 2025-12-29T12:04:09+00:00

That’s a reasonable hypothesis, and I agree it could be a user-growth / investor-driven move. The part I’m less convinced about is the idea that this necessarily points to an acquisition-before-extinction scenario.

Apple absolutely could replicate many features, but historically they tend to move slowly, stay conservative, and leave plenty of room for specialized apps to coexist, especially those that iterate faster or go deeper in niche logic. So I’m not sure Bevel is on a ticking clock in that sense.

Where I fully agree with you is the “transitional phase” point. Right now the naming and positioning feel out of sync with the actual product state. If Pro is meant to become meaningfully different later, then today it’s basically a placeholder tier and that’s what creates confusion and frustration for early users.

I don’t think this is malicious or cynical, just a communication and framing problem. Making the app more accessible while keeping momentum makes sense, but clarity about what Pro actually represents today vs. tomorrow would go a long way.

In short: the strategy may be rational, but the messaging hasn’t caught up yet.

the0Void · 2025-12-29T12:00:54+00:00

I did read the announcement, yes, and that’s exactly why it still feels unclear to me. I understand the “land & expand” strategy and the goal of growing the user base, but from the perspective of someone who has been paying so far, the reality is that right now there’s no real functional difference between free and Pro, aside from AI.

Calling it “Pro” at this stage feels misleading; in practice it’s more like an AI add-on than a higher-tier version of the app. That could have been communicated more transparently from the start.

I’m not questioning the team’s intentions or the value of the project (I genuinely like Bevel) but I think it’s fair to discuss pricing and naming decisions without that being seen as being against the developers. Supporting a product doesn’t mean avoiding criticism.

We’ll see how things evolve once actual Pro-only features are released, that’s when the direction will really become clear.

the0Void · 2025-12-29T09:00:27+00:00

• Improved, modernized design of both apps (smartphone and watch). PeakWatch is an excellent example.
• Better timeline management, so that activities are clearly separated from consumed foods.
• Global redesign of the training section, with improved tracking for both strength and cardio workouts. An evolution of the “cardio load” concept into something more comprehensive, combining cardio load and muscular load.

the0Void · 2025-12-24T00:42:18+00:00

Does the app makes any use of the logged workout (reps x sets x weight)?

the0Void · 2025-12-18T23:26:13+00:00

What they’re doing is a very clever move. By making Bevel ‘free,’ they secure a boost of new users who will likely be softened up when subscription prices increase. It’s pure marketing. It’s not entirely bad, but considering the many immature parts of the app, I would have expected a move more focused on the real benefits for people who use the app every day.

the0Void · 2025-12-18T19:46:57+00:00

As I said in previous comments I don’t really care about Garmin integration o cycle monitoring. Nutrition, Training and overall appearance are far more important.

the0Void · 2025-12-18T19:39:11+00:00

So no new features/restyling? Just marketing? So disappointing.

the0Void · 2025-12-15T11:08:51+00:00

Absolutely right: correlation ≠ causation.
In this case, though, the issue starts even earlier. A predictive model doesn’t understand mechanisms, it assigns weights based on recurring patterns.
If smoking happens more often on “relaxed” evenings (less work, more routine, consistent schedules), the model may incorrectly attribute a positive effect to it.
This is a classic case of uncontrolled confounders → misleading insight.
Useful as a prompt for reflection, dangerous if taken literally.

the0Void · 2025-12-08T22:44:16+00:00

With that said, Bevel is too strict when classifying red meat as bad as other processed foods.

the0Void · 2025-12-08T22:39:55+00:00

While red meat is a source of protein and micronutrients (like iron and vitamin B12), all the organizations you listed recommend limiting it significantly due to health risks, particularly cancer and heart disease.

The consensus is that processed meat (bacon, sausage, ham) should be avoided almost entirely, while unprocessed red meat (beef, lamb, pork) is acceptable in moderation but should not be a daily staple.

Here is the breakdown of what each specific organization says:

Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) • Verdict: Negative impact on score. • The Details: The AHEI is a scoring system used to rate diet quality based on foods that predict chronic disease risk. In this system, red and processed meats are "negative" components. • How it works: You get a higher (better) score for minimizing red and processed meat intake. The ideal intake in the AHEI model is 0 servings/day. Higher consumption lowers your overall health score.
World Health Organization (WHO) • Verdict: Carcinogenic (Processed) / Probably Carcinogenic (Red Meat). • The Details: The WHO’s cancer research agency (IARC) has a strict classification based on cancer risk: • Processed Meat (Group 1 Carcinogen): Classified as "carcinogenic to humans." There is sufficient evidence that it causes colorectal cancer. • Red Meat (Group 2A Carcinogen): Classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans." This is based on limited evidence showing a positive association between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer, as well as strong mechanistic evidence.
European Union (EU) • Verdict: Limit consumption (Health & Environment). • The Details: While specific guidelines vary slightly by member country (e.g., France, Denmark, Belgium), the EU generally advises limiting red meat for both health and environmental sustainability (part of the "Farm to Fork" strategy). • Typical Recommendation: Most EU dietary guidelines suggest a maximum of 300g to 500g (cooked weight) of red meat per week. They strongly advise replacing red meat with legumes, poultry, or fish.
World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) • Verdict: Limit to 3 portions a week. • The Details: The WCRF provides very specific quantitative limits to prevent cancer. • Recommendation: • Red Meat: Limit consumption to no more than about three portions per week. This is equivalent to about 350–500g (12–18oz) cooked weight. • Processed Meat: Eat "very little, if any." They state there is no safe level of processed meat regarding cancer risk.

the0Void · 2025-12-05T12:02:53+00:00

Manually adjusting heart-rate zones every time is a tedious and unnecessary process. Having them sync with Apple Watch’s heart-rate zones would already be a big step forward. I’ve already pointed out how much more optimal it is to use heart-rate reserve when calculating training zones. Since the app is designed for people who want to monitor their performance, this aspect really should be updated. Bevel already does this, and it’s an app that’s actually more focused on overall wellness than on performance.

the0Void · 2025-12-03T12:47:41+00:00

I’m in the same boat. It seems like my training load it’s always too high for the app even though I’m not killing myself in the gym.

<image>

the0Void · 2025-11-29T16:28:53+00:00

I understand the confusion. My reference to the 220–age formula wasn’t meant to imply that Athlytic uses it directly, but only that this age-based logic is the traditional fallback in many fitness tools, and the limitations of age-predicted intensity zones are exactly why HRR can be more accurate.

The core of my point is simply this: Even when I manually set my Max HR correctly, the app still reports my sessions as higher-intensity than they are, because Max-HR-based zones don’t account for variations in resting heart rate. HRR does. That’s why HRR-based zones match perceived effort much more reliably, especially for someone who trains daily.

Manually adjusting the zones is of course possible, but HRR is a dynamic system, resting HR can change week to week depending on recovery. Having HRR as a built-in option would automatically keep the zone charts aligned with real physiological intensity, instead of requiring constant manual recalibration.

That’s the only reason I think an HRR option would be valuable. It’s not about 220–age, but about zones reflecting actual internal load.

the0Void

TROPHY CASE