Do you use auto pause?

NorthCascades
NorthCascades Posts: 10,967 Member
I'm curious how many people use this feature and how many don't. Quick refresher: auto pause stops the clock when you're not moving, so your pace and heart rate charts only show for times you were exercising, not when you were stopped waiting for the light to turn green.

Replies

  • jennybearlv
    jennybearlv Posts: 1,519 Member
    I used to use it for cycling and running when I lived in the city. I really don't need data for sitting at a stoplight for five minutes. I don't find it useful now that I'm in the country. It never worked well for slow activities like walking or when my GPS was being spotty.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    I've tried it a few times, but have given up on it as it never seemed to work correctly for me. I'm not all that interested in keeping track of pace and heart rate, though. Distance is all I really care about.
  • kc286496
    kc286496 Posts: 5 Member
    I've liked that feature on some watches and not on others. Sometimes it takes too long to kick in, or to start back up. So I've gone back to manually stopping my watch when I'm at a light. If you're a pure runner, I'd say stop the clock. If you're concerned with how long your heart rate is in the target zone, don't use it.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    I use it (iSmoothRun).

    I have regular water fountains about every mile on my trail and usually stop at every one in the summer.

    I've done it both ways, and if I don't use it then the HR, cadence and pace data is hard to visually compare between runs. It's not like the stops all line up neatly or are for the same time. If I do use it, then the stop data is neatly excised and those runs are directly comparable again.

    Of course, I also pick up a couple of secs of average pace which is not bad for the ego. Avg pace, cadence and HR are consistent with runs when I haven't stopped at all so I feel the app is probably doing a pretty good job of it.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,967 Member
    It never worked well for slow activities like walking or when my GPS was being spotty.

    It works brilliantly on a road bike, which was my only experience with it for years. I was surprised that it doesn't work nearly as well for walking or even mountain biking. I think you're right about speed being the key.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,191 Member
    Works perfectly on my Garmin 920xt for both running & cycling and picks up when you start moving again quite quickly.
  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,449 Member
    Yes, when I'm not racing or doing certain interval training. It works great on my Garmin 630.
  • jessiferrrb
    jessiferrrb Posts: 1,758 Member
    i didn't like the lag when i start moving again and it doesn't register quickly enough. stopped using it when i ran with my dog who could stop me short for a 2 second sniff during walk intervals.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,967 Member
    I stopped using it when I got a power meter. "Red light time" is resting; if the energy I put out when the light turns green counts, the zeros have to count too or my average is skewed. Also starting takes more effort than holding speed, and I want that captured without any delay.
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,227 Member
    I stopped using it when I got a power meter. "Red light time" is resting; if the energy I put out when the light turns green counts, the zeros have to count too or my average is skewed. Also starting takes more effort than holding speed, and I want that captured without any delay.

    I stopped using it a long time ago for exactly this reason. stopped time is resting time - which makes the subsequent work efforts less difficult than had I not been standing at a traffic light or taking pictures or chatting with a nosy neighbor or petting a dog for however long. That makes it difficult to compare effort/output over time when that data is skewed by how much time I spent resting.

  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,870 Member
    No. It undermines data quality
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,452 Member
    I had issues with the lag time. Doing pauses manually works much better for me, because I can stop it when I actually stop, not 10 seconds later, and start it right away too. The killer for me was running a trail in dense woods: it would do an autopause whenever I ran under trees. It wouldn't start until I was back out in the open, and not always then. I lost over a mile on that run before I realized what was happening.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 21,813 Member
    Strava records my moving time and my total time.

    I use my total time for my own reference and when I say things like, "It took me 8 hours and 35 minutes to complete the century", that's total time.

    I use moving time when I enter my exercise here because that's when I was burning the extra calories.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,249 Member
    Yes, can't live without it, but I'm a weirdo. I'm an on-water rower. For my purposes, stats for the actual rowing are important for performance monitoring & for meeting/checking training goals (speed, distance, etc.). Putting a water break in with my performance data does nothing but confuse matters. Calories are interesting/useful, but secondary.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    edited July 2017
    I use strava for cycling and like @Machka9 I like seeing moving and total times, for the same reasons.

    eta: Except I would say "It took me almost 10 hours to complete the century!" :)