looking for a GPS watch and a heart rate sensor, any suggestions?

2

Replies

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Garmin. Suuntu. And of course, the iWatch is coming in a few days.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Robbnva wrote: »

    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.

    6on1jww1pa88.png
    wy8jqd9gzo59.png

    Just out of curiosity, are you right around either 135 or 155 pounds?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Robbnva wrote: »
    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:
  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    Is strava good? Just downloaded it
  • midnight419
    midnight419 Posts: 77 Member
    edited March 2015
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Robbnva wrote: »

    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.

    6on1jww1pa88.png
    wy8jqd9gzo59.png
    No, I'm about 115 lbs.
  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Garmin. Suuntu. And of course, the iWatch is coming in a few days.

    Suuntu is pricy, what garmin would you recommend?
  • midnight419
    midnight419 Posts: 77 Member
    edited March 2015
    Whoops - double post.
  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    I do like the look of the suuntu though
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    edited March 2015
    Robbnva wrote: »

    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.

    6on1jww1pa88.png
    wy8jqd9gzo59.png
    No, I'm about 115 lbs.

    It looks like your GPS is reporting closer to gross calories burned ... not net from exercise.
  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    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.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    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.
  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    edited March 2015
    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
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Robbnva wrote: »
    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.
  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    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 brainer
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Robbnva wrote: »

    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.

    6on1jww1pa88.png
    wy8jqd9gzo59.png
    No, I'm about 115 lbs.

    It looks like your GPS is reporting closer to gross calories burned ... not net from exercise.

    Yep. Looks that way to me, too.

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Robbnva wrote: »
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    Garmin. Suuntu. And of course, the iWatch is coming in a few days.

    Suuntu is pricy, what garmin would you recommend?

    They're all good, pick on which features you need/want.
  • davestic
    davestic Posts: 7 Member
    edited March 2015
    Robbnva wrote: »
    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.
  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    edited March 2015
    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 gals
  • minipony
    minipony Posts: 194 Member
    Loved my Garmin!
  • Marianne802
    Marianne802 Posts: 91 Member
    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.
  • granturismo
    granturismo Posts: 232 Member
    Robbnva wrote: »
    The running apps grossly miscalculate your actual running distance.

    Endomondo logs my distance accurately. I've compared 5-10K runs with mapometer and one there web site and the distances are very close.
  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    Robbnva wrote: »
    The running apps grossly miscalculate your actual running distance.

    Endomondo logs my distance accurately. I've compared 5-10K runs with mapometer and one there web site and the distances are very close.

    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.
  • csman49
    csman49 Posts: 1,100 Member
    endomondo tracks my (measured)5km runs pretty much spot on.
  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    Thanks
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    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.

  • upsaluki
    upsaluki Posts: 553 Member
    Robbnva wrote: »
    Robbnva 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
    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.

  • Robbnva
    Robbnva Posts: 590 Member
    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
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Robbnva 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

    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.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Robbnva 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.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Robbnva 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.