Garmin and/or Polar recommendation please

aswearingen22

I have an old Polar that quit working. I use my Garmin 305 (the big red one) when I run outside, but I recently found out it's not using the heart rate monitor to actually calculate calories, but instead is just spitting out calories burned based on age, weight, distance, time or something other than heart rate. I do a long run of 10+ miles outside once a weekend, 3x/week treadmill runs, a boot camp class, and a boxing class. I'd like to be able to track my calories burned via a HRM again in order to eat back the right number of calories.

So the question becomes do I get a new Garmin that actually calculates calories like a HRM and if so, which one? Or do I just buy a new Polar (which would be cheaper) and either wear 2 watches on my long runs (blech), or just go with the "average" of 100 calories/mile burned (which I would think would actually be underestimating because it's not accounting for my hilly runs, wind, etc) for my long runs and call it close enough?

Money isn't too much of an issue, other than I'd like to not spend $400. But Mother's Day is coming up!;) I'm more looking for recommendations for specific Garmin's or Polar's, thank you!

LesliePierceRN

I have a garmin 110.. I love it. It does everything I need, calculates calories based on hr, and provides a google-earth gps picture of my outdoor runs.. I paid in the neighborhood of $200 or so for it.

aswearingen22

bump!

Ashleysh22

I really like my polar FT4. the heart rate always matches exactly with what I count myself (and even that of one particular spin machine at the gym).

Additionally, if your garmin provides you with your average HR you can always use the following equation:

calories burned = (0.074 x age in years - 0.05741 x weight in pounds + 0.4472 x average heart rate - 20.4022) x time elapsed / 4.184

the equation seems to give me 80-100 calories higher than my HRM calculates it but every mechanism seems to use a different equation.

I figure both are good estimates

dad106

You can get a Polar with GPS.. I know the FT60 has the option to use GPS, and I think is around 200-230 dollars for FT60 with GPS foot pod included.

There are other Polar models that allow you to use GPS.. but I'm not sure what models. I just know the FT60 has that option.

BrianSharpe

I "upgraded" from the 305 to the 610 when my 305 croaked. I loved the display on the 305 (great for old eyes like mine) but the form factor for the 610 is much more like a sports watch, the touch screen is very slick & it's compatible with the older training centre software so you don't lose your old log files. (and it uses HR for calorie calculations) But it's a little pricey (within your range) and with a little shopping around you can find some pretty competitive prices.

aswearingen22

I "upgraded" from the 305 to the 610 when my 305 croaked. I loved the display on the 305 (great for old eyes like mine) but the form factor for the 610 is much more like a sports watch, the touch screen is very slick & it's compatible with the older training centre software so you don't lose your old log files. (and it uses HR for calorie calculations) But it's a little pricey (within your range) and with a little shopping around you can find some pretty competitive prices.

This is exactly the decision I came to today. My husband has the 610 and loves it. As long as I can also use it at the gym for classes and on the treadmill and it will give me my calories, I think I'm sold! Happy Mother's Day to me!;) Thanks everyone!

janf15

FWIW I have a Garmin Forerunner 305 and a Polar RS100 (goes for about $87 I think at Amazon.com) .

I am using my Garmin outside (running and biking) and I am using my Polar inside for 'dead-mill' running and aerobic stuff. - I actually 'invested' in a chest strap so I can swim with my RS 100. Drawback - I can't download data - I am considering a foot pod for the 305 for that purpose.

When my 305 dies ... I will get a 910 so I can swim, run, and bike with the same unit.