garmin indecision

I have the vivoactive3 and love it. I upgraded from the 2 because I wanted to be able to program workouts. I use GPS tracking for running, hiking, walking and biking, all day HR, steps, sleep, alarms, and smart notifications. Check out https://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-reviews for in-depth reviews of all kinds of wearables.

jjpptt2 wrote: »

In GPS tracking/training mode, is there a meaningful difference in battery life between the devices you are considering? My old garmin wouldn't last the duration of some of my longer races (6+ hours). That was a key factor in my decision-making when I bought a new one.
.

ditto.

TavistockToad wrote: »

Have you looked at the size of the 235?

I have the 225 and while its perfect for running, i love it, i wont wear it as an activity tracker as its ginormous on my wrist.

Yes. I get constant comments on the giant 920 on my little wrist.

mbaker566 wrote: »

@TavistockToad hmm, i hadn't really thought of that. 235 is 45mm in diameter, the active is only a bit smaller 43.4mm

45mm is big. I'm a watch guy and wear a watch every day. I've got one that is 45mm and it's big, but not obnoxious, on me. 43mm is noticeably and meaningfully smaller. It may not seem like a big difference, but it could wear/feel/seem significantly smaller.

mbaker566 wrote: »

i don't think i want the 235 because there isn't a barometer thingy. and that is kinda important

What makes you say that barometric altimetry is important?

I have a Vivoactive 3, but I've only had it for a couple of weeks, and it's my first pseudo-comprehensive fitness tracker, so I doubt I can say anything helpful (not that that will stop me rattling on). (I've used a Polar chest-strap plus watch HRM for years (it died recently), and a very old Garmin Forerunner to record distance/speed/pace kind of data, both of them mainly for training guidance/motivation, used only during relevant activities.)

I like wearing a watch (I'm old ), and the Vivo is smaller than the sport watch it replaced. I use an Ant+ chest strap HRM for workouts, having read that the wrist-based monitor does a patchy job with on-water rowing (my main thing) - I think maybe the amount of arm action is disruptive to the wrist-based HRM?

Appearance-wise, it's OK, but I may be saying this because I'm used to a larger watch, I do have big hands/wrists, and it has a very simple, clean design that makes it visually less imposing IMO. It doesn't scream "fitness device" (I don't know if that's a pro or a con).

As a long-term techie by career, I kind of understand the limitations of these things, so my expectations are pretty low. I'm getting heart rate results pretty consistent with what I saw with the Polar, which I'd occasionally wear for longer periods just for funsies, to see what my heart rate did in normal activities. HR results for workouts are consistent. Resting rate is consistent. Etc.

I've used it alongside the Forerunner on quite a few rows already, and am seeing fairly comparable pace/distance/speed results. (I attach the Forerunner to the boat, not my arm.) To the extent there are differences, I think I can attribute them to the way I used auto-pause on the Forerunner. The maps look sensible, but rivers are kind of GPS-friendly open areas. The miscellaneous data it estimates for rowing (like strokes per minute, stroke length, etc.) can be . . . imaginative, occasionally. On at least one occasion, I've notice odd few-bpm differences between my activity maxHR and my all-day maxHR (activity max > daily max!) which I assume might have something to do with the sampling frequency intra-activity vs. routine sampling. NBD, but odd.

Satellite connect time for GPS so far has been very good - few seconds (better than the old Forerunner by a lot). I've found I need to consciously make sure the watch acquires the Ant+ HRM signal, by the way. It happens fast, but happens more reliably if I'm attentive about it.

I've only used it to track one exercise-type walk at around 4mph (wanted to set the VO2max estimate), and that, too, produced data pretty consistent with the Forerunner. (I don't/can't run.)

I have absolutely zero confidence in the sleep tracking. It has seemingly missed awake periods in the night when I literally got up and walked around (albeit briefly), and once showed me in REM sleep when I was awake in bed and texting (I have the timestamps to prove it ). From what I've read, sleep tracking with any of these devices is iffy, but it's not something I care deeply about so I haven't gone out of my way to research. I already know I sleep for cr*p.

As far as battery life, I'm finding it gets through a day/night and maybe one (1-1.5hr) activity on about 25% of its charge (while brand new ). I haven't run it down much below 75% so far before charging, which is very quick - haven't timed it, but putting it on the charger when I get in the shower usually gets it from maybe 85% to full by the time I'm done. The special charger connection to the watch is a little touchy (easy to knock loose). I haven't tried charging it from a power pack, but it's a standard USB on the other end, so I don't see why not. (Not an option for ultras, could work for hiking/camping.)

Steps tracking may be OK, but that's hard to evaluate because it's my first step tracker. The differences between a walk-y and non-walk-y day seem reasonably proportionate, subjectively. I'm underwhelmed by the stairs tracking. My living areas are on the 2nd floor (full flight), so I'm up and down stairs several times a day, plus tend to take stairs in buildings. So far, it has rarely registered more than a couple or three flights all day, and usually a materially different number of up flights vs. down flights, which is Just Wrong.

Sorry for the ramble, that's all I've got, unless you have a question.

If you are a runner, get a Forerunner 230.

Does everything you need and nothing you don't. 645 is probably overkill if your asking the question

mbaker566 wrote: »

the 235 does not have Barometric altimeter

(i already have the smart hr+)

Does that really matter, or are you overanalyzing?

Main issue with the 235 for the OP will probably be the battery life (it's on the low side for someone planning to do ultras/backpacking). Not sure the altimeter will be too useful in most of Wisconsin.

Just to come at this from a different angle...

What about buying the cheapest one that meets your needs right now, then buying something more suited to marathons and, more aptly, ultras if/when you get to that point?