Has anyone ever used a GPS watch to track your miles and pace? I am currently looking at Garmin devices like the 110. I don't really need all the fancy bells and whistles just something to help gauge my mileage. Has anybody ever used something like this? Is it worth the money or should I just track my route on google maps?
LulatheSquid wrote:
Has anyone ever used a GPS watch to track your miles and pace? I am currently looking at Garmin devices like the 110. I don't really need all the fancy bells and whistles just something to help gauge my mileage. Has anybody ever used something like this? Is it worth the money or should I just track my route on google maps?
you've gotta be kidding me.
0/10
No troll here. Sadly I am serious.
Anybody out there besides trollie poly have experience with a GPS watch?
It's worth it to me so I can run wherever I want and know how far I went. With a GPS watch I don't have to figure out how far I went on a map or by run a set measured route.
Other people run by time or don't measure their distance or run the same measured route or whatever, and it's probably not worth it to them.
I've got the Garmin 110, which is pretty basic and costs under $150. It's small enough that you can just wear it like a regular watch. It doesn't do heart rate which I don't care about and while you're wearing it pretty much just measures distance and gives you your pace, which is all I want.
You can get fancier and more expensive versions, some of which are pretty big, and I don't know much about them.
I think they are basically the same except
The 210 is supposed to give your current pace and has heart rate.
The 110 gives your average pace.
I prefer the 210 for its pace. I say "supposed" because there is a bit of a lag in the time with the 210 so you are really seeing how fast you were going a few seconds ago.
You can also search on "GPS" or "blue collar" to see the other threads on this topic.
Thanks
Depends what use, but the Garmin with a touch ring isn't very good, sure the clock is good but using touch does not work very good. Works for long runs etc, not for intervals.
I never thought I would care having one or not, but I received one as a gift and haven't gone for a run without it since.
I love plugging it into my computer and uploading my run to view it on a map.
I love mine and find it well worth the cost (eventhough I didn't buy it)
I've had 3 watches over the last 10 years of running. Maybe $125 total. Garmins cost twice that much and everyone I've known with one has had trouble with it and has owned several. Get a $40 stopwatch and go to map my run or something. I don't think $200+ is worth knowing immediately how fast the last mile was. If you take it on a trail, to a remote place, or a very winding course, it's usually wrong. And I can't tell you how many times I hear them die during a run and then the person you're running with swearing.
Of course, I mooch splits off them all the time.....
I've used one since college (2004). I got the original 201. Although it still works fine, I got a 210 w/o the heart rate monitor this year for my birthday. It fits better because it's more like a watch and less like a computer on my wrist. I think they are worth getting, but don't get too dependent on it. When I first got one, I was obsessive with my running to begin with and it made it worse to where I was trying to hit certain paces for every run. Now I never use it on easy runs unless I'm somewhere unfamiliar and need to know how far I'm running. It is great for tempo runs and other workouts, and I do wear it in races now. I know that's sacrilegious, but it helps a lot. Even in a (road) 5K, it's an advantage because I know exactly where I am in the race. This has worked to my advantage a few times when putting in surges, starting my kick, etc.
Totally agree. Especially the interval program and for tempos.
The $250 I spent on my 210 was worth it.
Yes Definitely go out and buy one. They are great tools, I would recommend the 305. It is the older model but has all the features and the HR monitor but is about $140 on walmart.com. The reason I recommend the one with more features is that you don't know what is useful until you own one. I never thought i would use the virtual pacer or the HR zones but have found them very useful. Which ever one you get you won't regret it. You will wonder how you ever lived with out it.
Absolutely worth it. It's great being able to just plug your watch into your computer and then pull up a report on how far you've gone during the week, and see an overview of your pacing and so forth. Also, consider the Nike GPS watch as well. Suunto is coming out with one which only tracks distance and current/split pace and does not integrate with a computer. It will only be $100.00. Garmin = shoddy build quality, but Ok hardware, and great software Nike = better build quality except the screen is prone to breakage if you drop it, and great software. Not sure about the Timex Options.
This tri-guy reviews the heck out of watches in case you really want to explore the pros/cons of all of these...
sayitaintso wrote:
I love plugging it into my computer and uploading my run to view it on a map.
I think this is the best feature of a GPS. Not only can you see paces i.e. fastest, average, moving, etc. but the elevation gains/losses. For me this is helpful since I live about 1800ft above sea level and I like to compare routes that have lower or higher gains.
It's also nice to look back a year from now and see what type of paces/training or races that you've have done and look at the course map to study it better, especially if it was your first time running that course.
I got the 405 when it first came out few years ago and it has definitely been worth every penny.
I received a Nike GPS watch a week ago as an early birthday present from my wife. I'd mentioned a few weeks earlier after a pre-dawn cruise interval session on the track that the backlight on my otherwise trusty Polar RS200 wasn't working (it hasn't for a couple years) so I had a hard time monitoring splits. On the advice of a friend she picked the Nike over the Garmin, largely based on the fact that it displays really large numbers and my near field vision isn't what it used to be.
The watch itself is merely ok with some really troubling (in my opinion) design shortcomings. Ironically, one of them is that the same mechanism is used to turn on the backlight as is used to record a lap time, so I still can't see splits in the dark unless I'm at the end of my repeat. There are other things like this that make one wonder if anyone on the design team has ever used the device for any sort of structured training.
The real problem with the Nike GPS watch is that you have to upload to their web-based service to do look at run details and the web service is absolute crap. I've had about 50% success rate at just logging on to view data. Once logged on, it is pathetically slow and has very limited (compared to the Garmin tools) ability to view the recorded data. Looking through the support forums where bugs are reported does not make one hopeful that these issues are going to be resolved anytime soon.
Wow, I just got a 210 for $185. I like it. I wouldn't have bought it but had some gift cards, etc. that brought it to $125. It works great. It has been very accurate on roads and even on trails it's not far off. Pace isn't that useful on trails though.
And I do like not wasting my time on mapmyrun anymore.
The Garmin 305 for around $130 is well worth it, both for tracking overall mileage and also for pacing - when running at a steady pace. If you don't already have an HRM, that's an additional bonus.
All in all, it's been a huge asset to my training. I don't know how I ever did without the mileage tracker, since (apparently) I'm very poor at judging my own pace.
The Garmin is, as they say, a "game changer." You won't regret it.
Okay, I'll stop now. I realize I'm sounding like an ad. Yes, I have been to Kansas City, but I don't work for Garmin.