Best watch/tracker for someone who loves numbers (hence running on a treadmill)

I'm with you for exactly the same logic on the treadmill love. I've been trying to be openminded about outdoor running, too. The pokemon are all out there, after all. I have a Fitbit Charge 2. I have also got a Garmin Vivosmart HR+ floating around here somewhere. On the treadmill, you're going to get about the same quality of numbers from both devices. I think the Garmin also supplied cadence, but my entire playlist is doctored to 180 bpm, so I already knew that. The Garmin does give more and better numbers for outdoor runs, like elevation gain and loss. The record-keeping is probably better than Fitbit. I prefer the Fitbit anyway, for it's flatter profile against my wrist, and the inflated calorie count. I don't think either set of numbers is correct, but the Fitbit seems to be closer to reality, and I was stressing out about starving to death trying to eat as little as Garmin wanted me to. I have been considering giving it another run and playing more with some settings - I understand they work differently. Garmin expects me to give a better analysis of my activity level, which varies So Much that I don't like to work that way - and Fitbit just gives an adjustment to my activity level like they don't expect me to think about it at all.

I don't know if the build quality is better on those higher-end Garmin devices - I'm not made of money, and I recognized that I don't need feedback for everything. My Garmin and Fitbit have similar numbers of scratches and dings. I haven't managed to wreck a band for either, yet. The Charge 2 bands are replaceable, anyway.

I am under the impression that Fitbit's Charge HR used to allow for 3 "snooze" sessions after the alarm. I think one of my complaints about the Garmin was the lack of snooze. The Charge 2 also lacks a snooze.

I'd be happy to answer any other specific questions between those products that anyone may have. I might have to take a minute to remember the password for my Garmin account.

If you really like metrics I would go with one of the Garmin Forerunners that is also compatible with their Running Dynamics Pod or one from a competitor (so buy the watch and the pod). The best reviews of most of the Garmin watches compatible with it, as well as a number of other watches/trackers can be found on DCRainmaker. Unlike just about any other website, I would recommend reading the comments.

Garmin 935.

/thread

aokoye wrote: »

If you really like metrics I would go with one of the Garmin Forerunners that is also compatible with their Running Dynamics Pod or one from a competitor (so buy the watch and the pod). The best reviews of most of the Garmin watches compatible with it, as well as a number of other watches/trackers can be found on DCRainmaker. Unlike just about any other website, I would recommend reading the comments.

If you like numbers, Running Dynamics is cool. Probably won't help you run better, but it will tell you a lot about your form. I like having Running Dynamics for cross country skiing, the "stride length" tells me how much glide I'm getting, you can tell which pair of skis I used in any given trip from that one field.

NorthCascades wrote: »

Sliedur wrote: »

Started with fitbit and all was good except the bands kept going bad and I would inevitably crack the display. Now I have a Garmin Fenix and I love it, I'm very hard on watches but this one must be indestructible - my fitbits would get scratches and cracks but this thing I haven't been able to even mar. This model is probably a lot more than you want, but I've seen a lot of good reviews for other Garmin sports watches too.

I got hit by a car going 35 to 40 mph while riding my bike. Landed on the hood, on the arm my watch was on, then I got the ground. Came too thinking I had broken my arm. My Fenix came through the experience unscathed.

jeeze, how the heck did I manage to crack my FR230 then! Its still hanging in there with some super glue though!

fityaly2015 wrote: »

I am never as motivated running outside as I am running on a treadmill.

I am still trying to wrap my head around this sentence The treadmill is torture is for me just watching the minutes/miles go by.

The Fenix 5 is a very nice watch, but in terms of functionality you can get what you need from something like the Garmin Vivoactive 3 for half the price unless you need any of the extra features or niceties of the higher end watches, such as a power meter on a bike or the extended battery life.

TavistockToad wrote: »

I have a Garmin 225 which i love, but it doesn't do cycling. my husband has the Garmin 35 which does cycling as well.

It should... My 220 and 230 have cycle modes.

They aren't great. They won't do power meters. But they will record gps and speed/cadence pods. They just won't do it good. I'm starting to compare the Edge 130 to the new Stages Dash L10 that hasn't actually come out yet (shown at eurobike)

Got a Garmin 235 here. My choice was made for me pretty much by my insurer who incentivises you to exercise and has a tie-in with Garmin so that the watch automatically notifies the insurer of my workouts and I get the points awarded without having to do much.

That said, I love the 235. I've also tried a Fitbit, a TomTom, and a Miband.

I love data, and real-time assessment of performance, and for me, the Garmin is leagues ahead of the others I tried.

I use a heart rate monitor chest strap (A Wahoo Tickr X) and the strap and the watch work well together.

The watch is a bit fiddly to set up, but it's set-and-forget: you do it once when you get it in the mail, then that's it.

I had thought I'd use it to monitor my pace and push that, but actually I now use it far more to monitor my heart rate and push (or maintain) that. Referencing heartrate for me is much better as I consider it a pretty definite measure of effort. Air temperature, how energised I am, how hydrated, etc all get factored in - I can tell if I am getting a cold, because, all other things being equal, my heart rate will be 5-10bpm higher than I'd expect.

The 235 has everything you stated - GPS and a step counter. It has wrist-based heart rate monitoring which is fine for day-long monitoring, but nothing beats a chest strap for activity heart rate monitoring in my opinion. I didn't expect to take much note of its sleep-tracking, but that seems relatively accurate and produces interesting data.

Everyone's different, and it comes down to personality, but for me, getting a decent HRM has made a massive difference. I used to despise running but now I really love it. Funnily enough I think this is probably because I was pushing myself too hard without a HRM - my natural instinct is to run at a pace which the watch showed me was about 90% of my max heart rate - no wonder I was getting sick of it! Now that I have a wrist-based excuse to slow down a bit, and regulate my effort, funnily enough, I'm able to go for longer, and not feel so grim. I still ramp it up towards the end, but the watch allows me to properly keep enough in reserve for that, and to manage that ramp effectively.

Hope that's of help/interest.

autumnblade75 wrote: »

Oh, right. I forgot about the Garmin Vivosmart HR+'s performance on my wrist regarding heart rate. When I start a run, it doesn't register properly for the first 10 minutes of the run. The Fitbit gives me good data from minute 1. Chest straps may well be the better technology, and I understand that the Fitbit doesn't work as well for everyone, but I am a pale, not very hairy person, and the tech works really well for me. I don't know why Garmin's doesn't. It works well enough from minute 11. But losing that first 10 minutes is really frustrating.

My guess would be the built in GPS. I have some issues with the new Fitbit ionic fuel to the built in GPS. I can't just go run, I have to wait for the GPS to connect first or I lose some of it.

capaul42 wrote: »

autumnblade75 wrote: »

Oh, right. I forgot about the Garmin Vivosmart HR+'s performance on my wrist regarding heart rate. When I start a run, it doesn't register properly for the first 10 minutes of the run. The Fitbit gives me good data from minute 1. Chest straps may well be the better technology, and I understand that the Fitbit doesn't work as well for everyone, but I am a pale, not very hairy person, and the tech works really well for me. I don't know why Garmin's doesn't. It works well enough from minute 11. But losing that first 10 minutes is really frustrating.

My guess would be the built in GPS. I have some issues with the new Fitbit ionic fuel to the built in GPS. I can't just go run, I have to wait for the GPS to connect first or I lose some of it.

That *could* be it. It also makes me wait to pick up GPS, and I am not patient enough to stand around for an additional 10 minutes after it tells me it's ready. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to give it another try. Maybe wear 3 wristbands for a few runs. I currently stick the Pokemon band on the same wrist as the Fitbit, anyway.