looking for a GPS watch and a heart rate sensor, any suggestions?
Replies
-
It really comes down to what you want beyond basic GPS data when running/walking.
Will you cycle with it? Swim?
Do you want step tracking?
Do you want it to interface with your phone (limiting choices to newer models)?
Are you set on using it as a HRM? If so, do you want one that can use your existing strap?
Simple evaluation criteria will narrow your options. When comparing major brands, they all tend to perform well ... it's the details that differentiate between them.0 -
I've never swam Laps a day in my life, the again.I've never been in.this kind.of shape in my life. I don't bike either cause I.don't own one. One day I'd love to do a triathlon but my goals for the next year is a 10k, then a half in early 2016.
So not really needed for either of those things, though this summer I'll give swimming laps a try.
BTW my.straps are old polar ones, don't think any running watch works with my strap0 -
I've never swam Laps a day in my life, the again.I've never been in.this kind.of shape in my life. I don't bike either cause I.don't own one. One day I'd love to do a triathlon but my goals for the next year is a 10k, then a half in early 2016.
So not really needed for either of those things, though this summer I'll give swimming laps a try.
BTW my.straps are old polar ones, don't think any running watch works with my strap
Polar has a chart on their site ... the new bluetooth watches (V800, M400, A300) only work with bluetooth HR straps. Some older straps are compatible with older Polar watches.
Use your goals to guide your purchase. If you want to eventually do a tri ... it might be worth seeing what is out there that will help you with that ... or just upgrade later.0 -
Yeah. The selection of.compatible watches weren't too good. If only I could get the fr220 cheaper, dcraimmaker said.both are great choices but cause of.the price, m400 is a no brainer0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »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.
Yep. Looks that way to me, too.
0 -
I've seen the ones together that are like $250, but I can't afford those. Is there a cheaper watch that will work with my polar h1 strap or maybe a cheaper one that comes with their own strap? I've got about $150 to spend. Thanks in advanced
I'm loving my Polar M400. You can find it online for about $200 with strap, $140 without. Syncs well with MyFitnesspal if you want those capabilities. As a watch its great - as a fitness tracker, its also great.
0 -
So its down to the m400 or the TomTom runner cardio that has a heart rate monitor. My wife is saying its dumb to not get a hr monitor watch when one with it is the same price. Gonna sleep on it and do more research tomorrow. Thanks guy and gals0
-
Loved my Garmin!
0 -
I love Polar. Just bought my second watch in 10 years, the FT60. Don't use the GPS but they have many models that do have this. I think the FT60 can as well, not sure.
I find Polar very reliable and have never had a problem with their service.0 -
-
granturismo wrote: »
I'll try that one also. I'm doing a 5k Saturday so I'll set all 3 apps and see how far they are off with each other lol.0 -
endomondo tracks my (measured)5km runs pretty much spot on.0
-
Thanks0
-
If it's for running check out the Garmin Forerunner 610, it's a discontinued model (replaced by the 620) and you can find some great deals on them (you should be able to get very close to your budget) and it has one of the more reliable algorithms for estimating caloric expenditure. It's very intuitive to use (touch screen) and is like a large-ish sports watch. It may have more features than you need right now but if you keep up the running you won't be replacing it a year wen you've more clearly defined your needs.
0 -
A lot of folks use HR for training though, so it's worth getting one that has it. Another piece of data to look at.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 m400
0 -
So here were what my running apps came up with
32:57 3.3 miles - strava
34:13 - 3.25 - endomondo
34:08 - 3.26 - runkeeper
Actual time 33:08 but I started the apps before I crossed the starting line0 -
So here were what my running apps came up with
32:57 3.3 miles - strava
34:13 - 3.25 - endomondo
34:08 - 3.26 - runkeeper
Actual time 33:08 but I started the apps before I crossed the starting line
Consistent reporting from your phone to the apps ... Strava's looks rounded to the nearest tenth. Without knowing how far ahead of the start you triggered the apps and how far you were off the optimal line used to calculate the course official distance, it is difficult to assess accuracy.0 -
So here were what my running apps came up with
32:57 3.3 miles - strava
34:13 - 3.25 - endomondo
34:08 - 3.26 - runkeeper
Actual time 33:08 but I started the apps before I crossed the starting line
For a 5K? So they were off by 5-10% on the distance. The issue isn't that they are accurate timers. It's the distance.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »So here were what my running apps came up with
32:57 3.3 miles - strava
34:13 - 3.25 - endomondo
34:08 - 3.26 - runkeeper
Actual time 33:08 but I started the apps before I crossed the starting line
For a 5K? So they were off by 5-10% on the distance. The issue isn't that they are accurate timers. It's the distance.
That is a factor of the phone ... not the app. Without knowing where he started the apps in relation to the start and finish line and how far he was from the optimal line, nobody can accurately calculate how far off the phone was from the actual distance.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