So, I'm still recovering from an ankle sprain, but once I get the clear from the physical therapist that the tendonitis is under control, treated, gone, or good enough to run on.
As such, I've been scoping out some gear to ramp up my running sessions as, right before the unfortunate ankle roll, I was really getting into the whole running thing for the first time in a long time. Distance running was fun, not a chore. So, I've been eyeballing some Vibram Bikilas, a nice 2L Camelbak for the long runs, and this curious little thing:
Spoilered: Description of the thing for those wondering what it is
The Garmin Forerunner 405CX. It's a wireless heart monitor, calorie counter, GPS, and stopwatch all in one. It also has a virtual pacer option, can record routes and waypoints (all the route data can be wirelessly transferred via a dongle to your computer and is uploaded to Garmins training center, which means your run workouts, intervals, target heart rate and run times can be stored in the Forerunner), all sorts of cool things.
Of course, none of this matters if the device is a piece of shit, so I'm seeing if anyone has any experience with any of these devices? Should I just stick to a stopwatch?
Appreciate any help H/A.
Posts
For a while she just used a stop-watch as she's never been a fan of 'buying into' gadgets but as soon as she got the Garmin she's really noticed the benefits.
As a GPS device, it functions very well - can sometimes take a few moments to lock on a signal at the start of your run (but this is usually warm up/stretch time anyway) but I've never known it lose a signal and it appears to be a lot more accurate than the running app/GPS I have on my iPhone.
The main benefits of the Garmin are that it tells you your current pace, and you can set it to beep every mile or KM (I've done a couple of 10k races myself and actually rely on the sound of other people's Garmins beeping to set my own pace by!).
Once you've finished your run you can then upload the data to your computer and review the route, speed, altitude, etc. which is of course also very handy for training and reviewing your progress.
The only thing I have no idea about is the heart monitor & calorie counter - though my wife opted for the cheaper model because she had no use for these.
Personally speaking, I'm just a casual runner and get by with my iPhone and a stopwatch but if I stepped up my running I would definitely consider upgrading to a Garmin.
I don't use the heartrate monitor too much, but it's a nice bonus. What turns me off from the 400 series is the lack of buttons for navigation--that whole touch-sensitive ring thing doesn't seem like it would be really easy to use on a run.
I have been checking out the new Timex version of this. I think it's only available at REI right now, but looking at the features it seems like it has a lot of benefits over the Garmin. First, it looks like a regular watch. It also is compatable with other brands' heartrate monitors, which is nice. Timex running watches are generally packed with useful features, and for as much as I like my Garmin, its watch functions are defintely its weak spot. I haven't seen any reviews of the Timex yet, but it is defintely worth checking out.
http://www.rei.com/product/804564
I've got the heart monitor too, I got them in a package deal I think.
It has a wireless dongle to upload running data to Garmin Connect. I use it every day when I train and run, and upload my results. You can choose to make your results public or private.
Here's a record of the run I did in 2009 when I did the Vancouver Sun Run.
EDIT - the controls (touch ring) really aren't as fiddly as you might think. It's really easy to adjust the virtual partner by running your finger around the bezel as you run. You can adjust the sensitivity of it as well to respond to heavier or lighter touches.
So... I keep hearing all positives. No negatives to these neat little devices?
Cmsamo: That link impressed me. That's some nice, detailed info and exactly what I'm looking for.
As for the Garmin, I have had a 305 for a few years now so I can only speak on that but it's really great. Sadly here in NYC it has trouble getting a signal, as long as you're in a place with not a ton of buildings everywhere you should be perfect. Great way to log miles and best of all it keeps you HONEST, which is a hard thing to do when running, always fudging things a little bit.
Garmin Connect is so useful. I've got most of my runs there, the site is one of the reasons I went for this watch. It takes seconds to upload your training runs to the site, it's automatic, and the watch and PC sync automatically whenever they are in range of each other. Also, the heart monitor is a strap that goes around your chest and it's not at all uncomfortable. it's *really* useful for comparing the effects of training etc, and it's a good motivator to work harder when you know you will see such detailed results.
Last night we were working on sprint intervals and I was able to use the GPS function on the phone to mark a point, and then measure 60, 80, and 100m distances from that point with the watch, and put down cones. I found that really useful and it was something I'd never thought of using before. This thing has a ton of features. (Damn, I sound like a salesman!)
I don't live in an area with many buildings at all, and the trees here are either squat or few and far between. Looks like I may have to get one of these.
Again, all the help is appreciated.
Man, I'm fucking tempted.
How accurate do you really need the calorie counter to be? My 305 has a "calorie counter" but as far as I know it's just taking distance run and my weight and doing the work calculation to determine total energy expended. The 405 probably does the same thing, assuming they run the same or similar firmware.
It looks like the 405CX uses the heartrate data and DARK MAGIC to give you a more accurate calorie count. Is that important enough to pay extra? Will you be using the HR monitor more often than not? If the answers to those are no, you probably don't need the CX.
though we were in an area with poor satellite reception (lots of trees) it was hard to get a signal to start with, even with the car model.
The heart monitor is a must-have, the virtual pacer is one of the primary reasons I'm not going for the 305. It's probably my main reason for getting it, aside from real, tangible feedback that really, really shows how you did during a run, and the analyzing and comparing of the data. Something you can sink your teeth into. You can walk away from a run and feel you pushed the limits, and then see you didn't break a 150 bpm heartrate, and then you'll know you've got more where that came from.
405 it is.
**Some googlefu reveals that the 305 does indeed have it**
Beast, your comment just made me sink my teeth into the info, and saved me like $100 dollars. I had to peek the spec sheet as opposed to just the front page at Garmin and apparently they hid the virtual partner feature... possibly to sucker people like me into getting the 405 thinking it was an exclusive feature.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!