looking for a GPS watch and a heart rate sensor, any suggestions?
Replies
-
Turn your phone on GPS navigation when you're going somewhere in your car and see how well it matches where you are vs. where it thinks you are. If it occasionally loses GPS signal or doesn't give you navigation prompts at the correct time I wouldn't use it to track running. I know this from experience.
// I hate my phone's GPS abilities.
GPS phone accuracy is terrible. Certainly not good enough for running tracking. I get 10% - 30% error. That is huge!
0 -
I have an old Garmin forerunner 305 with heart rate monitor. It works great. I see a used one on amazon for $55.0
-
I've looked at all suggested, and others I've found. All have pros and cons, good and.bad reviews. I just need to bite the bullet and try one.0
-
I'd go with a Garmin. I currently have the 410, and I also used to have the 405. Both are discontinued, and you can likely find them for cheap. The forerunner 10 and 15 are both under $150 (retail price). Personally, I'd skip the heart rate monitor and put the money towards getting a nicer watch. One of my watches came with a heart rate monitor, and I very rarely use it.
Be sure to look at DC Rainmaker's reviews before buying. His reviews are very in-depth and helpful. You'll be able to get a better sense of what features are important to you.
dcrainmaker.com/0 -
I bought the Garmin 910XT on a super special in Australia, it was around $300 including HRM. It is multi mode though (swimming, cycling as well) for tri training.
The HRM which came with it also syncs well with my Android phone.0 -
midnight419 wrote: »I'd go with a Garmin. I currently have the 410, and I also used to have the 405. Both are discontinued, and you can likely find them for cheap. The forerunner 10 and 15 are both under $150 (retail price). Personally, I'd skip the heart rate monitor and put the money towards getting a nicer watch. One of my watches came with a heart rate monitor, and I very rarely use it.
Be sure to look at DC Rainmaker's reviews before buying. His reviews are very in-depth and helpful. You'll be able to get a better sense of what features are important to you.
dcrainmaker.com/
Yeah I've been combing the site. But if I don't use a hrm, I won't know my calories burned...0 -
The m400 looks good, the TomTom runner is a good cheaper alternative. Both were 2014 picks by dcrainmaker0
-
Yeah I've been combing the site. But if I don't use a hrm, I won't know my calories burned...
The watch calculates calories burned. For me, there's a very negligible different between the calorie estimates calculated with and without the HRM.
0 -
midnight419 wrote: »I'd go with a Garmin. I currently have the 410, and I also used to have the 405. Both are discontinued, and you can likely find them for cheap. The forerunner 10 and 15 are both under $150 (retail price). Personally, I'd skip the heart rate monitor and put the money towards getting a nicer watch. One of my watches came with a heart rate monitor, and I very rarely use it.
Be sure to look at DC Rainmaker's reviews before buying. His reviews are very in-depth and helpful. You'll be able to get a better sense of what features are important to you.
dcrainmaker.com/
Yeah I've been combing the site. But if I don't use a hrm, I won't know my calories burned...
HRMs are not all that accurate for calorie estimation either.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »midnight419 wrote: »I'd go with a Garmin. I currently have the 410, and I also used to have the 405. Both are discontinued, and you can likely find them for cheap. The forerunner 10 and 15 are both under $150 (retail price). Personally, I'd skip the heart rate monitor and put the money towards getting a nicer watch. One of my watches came with a heart rate monitor, and I very rarely use it.
Be sure to look at DC Rainmaker's reviews before buying. His reviews are very in-depth and helpful. You'll be able to get a better sense of what features are important to you.
dcrainmaker.com/
Yeah I've been combing the site. But if I don't use a hrm, I won't know my calories burned...
HRMs are not all that accurate for calorie estimation either.
Good point. Plus I.guess I.can wear my current heart rate watch/monitor when I run, 2 watches lol
OK back to do more research. I still sort of like the m4000 -
Garmin. Suuntu. And of course, the iWatch is coming in a few days.0
-
midnight419 wrote: »
Just out of curiosity, are you right around either 135 or 155 pounds?0 -
Now spring is around the corner I'm going to get back into jogging, will probably jog 3x a week and walk on other days, maybe a class or 2 at the gym but mainly used for jogging.
An HRM isn't going to do much for you that the standard equation doesn't already do...
body weight in pounds * miles run * 0.65 -> calories burned running
I love GPS tracking on account of being a Strava junkie, but I just toss my phone in my pocket for that. :drinker:0 -
Is strava good? Just downloaded it0
-
No, I'm about 115 lbs.midnight419 wrote: »0 -
Whoops - double post.0
-
I do like the look of the suuntu though0
-
midnight419 wrote: »
No, I'm about 115 lbs.midnight419 wrote: »
It looks like your GPS is reporting closer to gross calories burned ... not net from exercise.0 -
Still leaning the m400, since it can be used as a step counter like a fitbit.
Idk if I'm going to be a die hard runner but I like it more than anything else I do for exercise, so.I'd like a decent watch.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions