For the wife, just started running, I don't imagine she'll need a Suunto or anything but what will do the job at a reasonable price?
I see lots of them about but most seem to be concerned about overall fitness tracking etc.
It will be worn purely for running, she's quite happy with her gold Daytona for normal wear!
What job needs to be done exactly? (personally I think that unless a professional athlete or training for a marathon etc then a runner needs nothing more than something which will time the run. A run is a run, how does fitness tracking offer any real benefit other than posting stats to facebook "because")
If it's only timing, a baby G might be a good choice. Small, light and cheap.
Why does anyone need anything!,the run is for fun,if you need to be back for a certain time don't go.
If it's to shed some lbs your waistline will tell you it's working.....or not,run faster.
A simple watch to tell the time is enough tho.
A mate takes his phone and downloads the route,I just tell him where I went!,what does it matter showing the route,It's not like you can change it if you ran it is it.
Multi-sport
Stopwatch
Heart rate (wrist)
GPS
Distance
Steps
Calories
MP3 music (wireless)
If she has a modern smartphone, the GPS in it works very well with Strava, Runkeeper etc so look at that.
Otherwise, Garmin GPS watch is the default of running clubs (a small smattering of TomTom and Suunto but Garmin dominates). The 230/235 is a good general choice for a regular runner but there are cheaper and more expensive models too.
Personally I always want heart rate and accurate distance and pace information. For that my tool of choice is the Garmin Forerunner series. I've had 3 so far.
I did use a Polar watch with a foot pod for a few years but ended up preferring GPS type devices.
My current model is the 620 bought on this forum and I love it. It syncs with my phone and keeps me motivated.
Depends on budget:
Garmin Vivoactive HR
Garmin Forerunner 235
Both excellent (the former does other stuff, the latter is mor running oriented)
There are (superceded) versions without optical heart rate monitoring which will be cheaper (Vivoactive and FR230) - both of which will work with an ANT+ chest strap for heart rate when it becomes necessary (it will).
Then you move up to the FR735XT and the Fenix 3 (various models with and without optical HR) and things get expensive.
I've a Fenix 3 sapphire (no HR) which is ideal for triathlon training. A colleague has the same with the HR and it looks good - the convenience of not having to remember the chest strap (and wash/clean it and replace batteries, etc.) is attractive.
I'd set a budget first and then find out exactly what it will be used for.
Then go here: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/11/w...endations.html
That will tell you what you need.
Cheers,
Mark C
Pretty much what I was going to write.Originally Posted by markc
I had the previous Vivoactive and loved it, now have a FR235 which is superb. Her indoors has the Vivoactive HR and is very happy with it.
The big win with this stuff for me is seeing what you've done on Garmin Connect/Strava and seeing the progress you've made, it's very motivating.
I have the TomTom posted above, but the non music version. Does everything I need (I don't need stats beyond pace, average pace, time and distance) and works faultlessly. Battery could be better, but it's not terrible.
Get a used Garmin Fenix 2 off eBay. They are an excellent GPS multi activity watch. Bluetooth/Garmin Connect compatible. Excellent battery life. Pair it with an HRM if that's your thing.
Hi,
just bought a Garmin Forerunner 25 (<£100) which does steps, GPS tracking and blue-tooth. Think it can also take a feed from a separate heart rate sensor but this was of no interest to me. Syncs perfectly with my phone (garmin Connect app). Battery life is about 4 weeks for steps and 8 hours for GPS tracking. Comes in large and small versions with coloured straps for the ladies. I do not run but use it for walking and it works very well.
Last edited by Gruntfuttock; 16th October 2016 at 15:28.
Cheap Casio to time the run. Unless you're training at a cery high level I don't think the more elaborate devices give any benefit. Money is better spent on the right shoes and decent gear for wet weather.
Paul
I've cracked through a few - Garmin 220, 610, Fenix 1, Fenix 2, Fenix 3, 620, 920xt etc - plus Polar V800 & Suunto Ambit 3.
I'd agree with the others & go for something simple from Garmin that uploads via Bluetooth & then sync into Strava. I'd steer clear of the more expensive models as they will probably just confuse. (the Fenix 1 & 2 were the most obtuse watches I've had for a while).
My missus likes her original Vivoactive.
As an alternative - I'm not training hard recently and just wearing my original Apple Watch - you get optical heart rate (not so accurate, but will do for casual runs).
Recent, as in last day, review of best of across price brackets for the Garmin range http://www.techradar.com/news/best-g...unning-watches
How do you monitor your pace as you run though? That's the main use of these devices, pacing yourself so you don't overdo it at the start for example. Granted I only run short distance, but without monitoring my pace I'd be all over the place. Ditto the distance (less important for me) but you need to know how far you've gone, and how far is left.
My 5k times improved significantly when I started monitoring my pace.
All I know is that people have been running successfully for a lot longer than activity trackers etc have been in use.
I'd add that monitoring heart rate and effort may also be beneficial, especially when wanting to see fitness improvements.
I carry my iPhone with an app monitoring pace, route etc. I'm not an elite runner but like plenty of others I've found monitoring my pace during my run has helped me a lot (now running half marathons, still for fun). I had a heart rate monitor for a while until I got used to being able to judge my heart rate.
Lots of wrist choices as described above. I have an old Timex Ironman I bought in a charity shop complete with GPS tracker that sometimes gets an outing.
They built the pyramids with ropes and pulleys, but that doesn't mean a crane wouldn't have got the job done more efficiently.
The technology helps whilst training; if it didn't work, there would be no market.
Whilst the technology may or may not help with training (I offer no opinion on the matter), there can be a market for things, especially gadgets, where they offer no practical benefit other than being cool and the thing to have. It is in the nature of humans to buy cool stuff that we just don't really need. :-)
In general, the existence of a viable market is not necessarily predicated on the product or service in question having any real use whatsoever.
I've been using the Suunto Ambits (1, 2, 3 Peak) for a few years (apart from 3 months with a Garmin Fenix 3 which I didn't particularly like) and they were great, did everything they said on the tin. They didn't however inspire me to run more, make me any faster, or really add anything to the running experience (speaking for myself - your mileage may vary). On marathons/ultras I'd just have the watch configured to show the time of day and not look at any other stats, I always ran by feel so I never used the HR features despite wearing the chest strap etc. I only really wore one to log everything.
Recently I took the plunge and stopped using them, sold mine, deleted my Strava account. I just run with a G-Shock now and nothing has changed at all, except I don't stand about waiting for a GPS fix, or trying to find/pair the HR strap before runs.
If you do want to track your runs, it's pretty much down to personal preference, all the Garmins, Suunto's and Tomtom's will do the job (distance, time, pace, log a track for putting on Strava etc.), with various levels of extra bells and whistles.
Edit: Oh and as mentioned above http://www.dcrainmaker.com/ is the best place to get reviews for all devices.
There is a market for Twitter... Doesn't mean it isn't worthless.
If you are running for a reason, e.g marathon training, then sure, there can be a point, but as a casual runner, it is worthless. Stats for the sake of them. If you can't pace a run without technology you should probably have stuck with a gym. Just my opinion.
Do you do much running, to have formed this opinion?
I can only state my experience that since I bought a GPS to pace my runs, I've gotten faster and more consistent. It's as much to slow me down at the start than anything else, when the adrenaline kicks in you don't realise you're going as fast as you are and you end up struggling for the last part of the race.
Also, without the GPS, I was holding back too much in the mid part of the race, worried I'd run out of steam towards the end - that problem is fixed by knowing my pace, and how long I have to go.
I have no interest in compiling stats of last races etc etc, but checking the live data as I run helps me perform better.
This is based on my real life experiences whilst running.
A Garmin FR220 or 225 on the cheap would be a good choice as they've been replaced with newer models. The 225 has the wrist based HR monitor. Picks up a GPS instantly and uploads via Bluetooth. Can also be linked with Strava.
As stated above, DCRainmaker is the best site for reviews.
In answer to the previous questions, I agree that pace judgement is far easier using the modern devices and that's where they may have a useful role. My glory days were way back in the 70s and pace judgement was exactly that....judgement! It's surprising how you get a feel for it, and arguably you're better running how you feel (unless you're training seriously) rather than worrying about the pace you're running at. Experience helps, and you don`t get that overnight unfortunately.
It's hard to remember what a revelation the Casio digital watches were when they first became available. Timing runs became practical and, more importantly, checking intermediate times whilst out on a familiar course became possible. That gave an indication of whether you were going well or not so well.....a far cry from the modern stuff available but adequate if you're only running for fitness/pleasure.
Unless you're training seriously I`d question whether you need to know exactly how far you've run or at what pace. The key is to run for a given length of time at a pace that's comfortable.......your body tells you if you're knackered or not! My advice to any novice is to avoid getting hung up on pace/distance, just aim to run for a set time at whatever pace is reasonably comfortable. Running frequently will lead to longer runs at a faster pace as your fitness improves...........it'll all look after itself if you're doing it honestly.
If I was running competitively today I`d probably think differently and I`d leave no stone unturned in the quest for improvement, but for the majority of folks who run I don`t think the modern gismos really help. It's a simple activity; getting out consistently, running further and harder are the keys to improvement and that's where the priority needs to be.
Downloading data and plotting graphs makes you better at downloading data and plotting graphs.....running makes you better at running and that hasn`t changed since the days when I could run fast!
Paul
Not saying they don`t help in some circumstances, but many will buy them simply because they're available. None of this stuff makes you into a worldbeater.........hard training plus being blessed with natural ability does that.
Paul
Paul, you make some very valid points as ever. A decent pair of shoes and a proper running technique and you can't go too far wrong. But for some of us I dare say our GPS watches and apps are like your timegrapher is to you - the way we get a bit of a window on what is going on inside a mechanism that otherwise can be a bit opaque.
Had a think about this topic.
If you're looking to improve and get the best out of yourself it's wise to use all means available and the modern gadgets can play a part. However, if you're aim is to simply enjoy running whilst benefitting from the health/fitness aspect I don`t see that they add much. Possibly they make it all seem a bit more interesting to some folks, but not for me.
For anyone trying to put in their best performance in a distance race they can definitely help by providing accurate pace data. This may help an inexperienced runner who's likely to get 'caught up' in the atmosphere etc. It's also a way of avoiding the mistake of going too fast too early; checking your watch at the 3K mark is helpful but if you've already gone way too quickly the damage is done and you can`t undo it.
I think it's the priority people place on the gadgets that I question most; getting the basics right (shoes, equipment, training plan, diet) is more important than messing around with apps on phones or heart rate monitors. Nowadays we're lucky to have fairly accurate weather forecasting, but how many runners think to plan their training around the predicted weather for the next few days? To me, that's a higher priority; if it's going to be wet and windy in 2 day's time I`d plan to have my day off on that day! Likewise with hot weather, if there's a hot humid spell coming up it pays to get the long runs in beforehand and do short sharp stuff in the heatwave. It's all about using the available information to advantage, and if there's no advantage I question the sense in using devices to provide info that's no help.
Sadly my running days are virtually over; a combination of long term injuries and health problems caught up with me a while back. I`m looking forward to a knee op in 3 weeks time to sort out cartilage damage (decided to race the dog downhill.....it didn`t end well) and hopefully I`ll get back to doing a bit of light jogging........but it'll take a lot more than a Garmin to make me competitive again!
Good luck to all the runners on TZ; be careful out there and don`t forget.....you are supposed to enjoy it!
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 17th October 2016 at 15:23.
That we can agree on! Sorry to hear about your knee, hope the op goes well.
Thanks..............I`m hopeful that the op will help, and enable me to run a little without causing more damage. I should never have raced the bloody dog, in hindsight trying to sprint downhill on rough ground wasn`t wise!
Paul
All very good advice gents, thank you.
I will update when I have bought and tested the chosen device.
Here's a new report on basic running watches by Runners' World Magazine:
http://www.runnersworld.com/gps-watc...unners/slide/5
...and advanced running watches:
http://www.runnersworld.com/gps-watc...unners/slide/1
I got a vivoactive Hr back in may to use while starting running and training for my first GNR.
It's much better than the Apple Watch for almost everything, especially battery life. 5-7 days easy.
As a complete beginner the info help loads with learning how different real-time pace feels. Also when, as I was, going from zero it's better than Iain lamp-posts as interval markers - especially as I live semi-rural and they're few and far between haha.
I really like my garmin, the smart watch functions are great too and though not as slick looking as an Apple Watch I think it's probably better.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote