Fitness Trackers

I use a Garmin Forerunner 245. It's just advanced enough for my needs (as a 35-40 mile/week runner) without breaking the bank. After 18 months, I did have to get the band keeper replaced, but Garmin did that for free through customer service. I also had a hard time with the heart rate readings during dry winter runs (this was also true of my chest strap, though).

keslafe wrote: »

Thank you for your input! I am definitely leaning toward the Garmin products as they seem to have the most awesome metrics. Would you say the Forerunner is predominantly for running? Do you feel it would suffice for hiking and cycling as well? Is it audaciously large and heavy?

I feel like the lower end models are predominantly marketed for running, while the higher end stuff (which have higher numbers, like the 945) is marketed to triathletes. But they can all handle walking, cycling, elliptical, strength training, yoga, generic cardio, etc. I don't do much hiking because I live in New York City, but it did a pretty good job tracking a hike I took while traveling back in 2019 (feels like forever ago...)

I feel like my watch is pretty regular-sized and I have a small frame, so I don't think you'd find it too bulky.

I don't have any experience with the Fenix, unfortunately, so I don't know what the pros and cons are compared to the Forerunner.

Garmin Vivoactive 3

It does everything I need it to, looks nice and has a lot of features of higher end Smart Watches and didn't break the bank. I think I paid like $180 AUD for it. I can't really fault it other than the HR monitor seems a bit off at times during activity.

keslafe wrote: »

jjpptt2 wrote: »

If you really want the training metrics, then Garmin is the way to go (especially if you want the ability to integrate with other training/fitness sites/apps). I have the Garmin 945 from my triathlon days, but still use it for more causal activities like hiking, general recreational stuff, and occasionally basic step tracking. It's fine, but way overkill for those (IMO) as I don't much care about training metrics anymore.

If you don't care about the training metrics, then anything with GPS will do.

The only other thing to mention is battery life -- make sure the stated battery life is overkill for what you are wanting to do.

This information is FABULOUS, thank you so much! That's what I'm considering... if I will find it to be overkill and a waste of funds (I'm an accounting gal so spending excess for something not particularly necessary really chaps my...).

Perhaps I'll continue to pine over it and lust for it... sometimes that's half the fun

Also - apologies, as I don't know how else to "reply" to someone without quoting their entire reply.

Anything that tracks heartrate will be able to roughly approximate calories, and anything with GPS will be able to do speed/pace, distance, elevation, etc. So the reason to buy something more expensive is because you care about the training data -- power on the bike, cadence on the run, stroke rate during swimming... recovery time, performance level, training load, etc.

I guess 1 other thing to think about is whether or not you want a watch that can route/direct you with GPS and what degree of map detail you want. Not all watches can/will do that.