The main factor that piqued my interest initially was Whoop's daily 'readiness score,' as above, a combination of your skin temperature, blood oxygen levels, heart rate variability and resting heart rate. You also can't track runs or workouts on it as easily as say, a Garmin, but it does auto-track your workouts for you and tell you how long you were active based on your heart rate zone and cardiovascular strain. It doesn't actually track your steps or how many stairs you've climbed.

If you're after a simplistic device to tell you that you've hit your daily steps, the Whoop is, in my opinion, too complex.

Plus, as a colleague pointed out, it means you can wear the tracker alongside your more fashion-focused watch and not look like you're wearing two watches at once.

While some will find this a pain, I liked that I wasn't constantly being reminded to take more steps by a flashing screen strapped to my wrist. I quite liked that it didn't have a watch face - rather, I just needed to load the app on my phone to check in on my recovery, sleep stats and more. So, pros: it was easy enough to set up and charge, and I found that the battery life lasted for a few days (not the full five days as promised on the website, but a good three to four before you needed to plug it in). Having read rave reviews about the Whoop online, I was keen to level up my fitness tracking - literally, as the tracker promises to offer more detailed and thorough stats from other competitors on the market. I've had a Garmin for around five years now and love seeing my fitness score improve month on month (not always, but often).

My theresa review