A few months ago Polar offered to send me a test sample of their new A300 fitness watch/activity tracker. I’ve never used a Polar device before, and being a bit of a gadget junkie, I agreed to try it out (Disclosure: the device reviewed here was a media sample provided free-of-charge by the manufacturer). I was particularly interested in how it would compare to the Garmin Vivofit. I’ve now been using the Polar A300 for a few months, and it’s time to share my thoughts.

First off, the Polar A300 is a watch, whereas the Vivofit is a narrower band. Both tell time, but since I already use a GPS watch I prefer to have a band on the opposite wrist so as not to look like a total geek. So I’m going to write this review as if the A300 is your primary watch.

The A300 is a nice looking, well-made device. The wristband comes in several different color options (white, pink, black and a few others) – the device pops in and out of the band with ease, and has a built-in USB plug so it can be inserted directly into a computer for syncing and charging. Band comfort is good – no issues there. I’d have no problem using the A300 as my full-time watch from an appearance or size standpoint.

As for function, the A300 does a solid job tracking steps, but one complaint I have here is that the watch-face displays a status bar below the time-of-day readout that slowly fills in as you accumulate steps rather than the actual step count. I much prefer seeing how many steps I’ve actually taken. You can click the bottom right button and go to your daily activity screen, and that adds in a percent value showing how close you are to reaching your daily step goal, but you still need another two button-clicks before you can view your actual step count. I’d love to see ability to display steps on the main watch face added via a firmware update.

One feature I like with regard to activity tracking is that the watch vibrates when you reach your daily goal or if you have been inactive for a long time. My Garmin Vivofit does neither, so this is a plus for the A300.

In addition to tracking steps, you can also record activities with the A300. There is no lap counter or stopwatch function per se, but you can time pre-set activities like walking, biking, swimming or running. These activities will show up when synced with your phone or on the Polar website. The A300 also does sleep tracking automatically (no need to put it into sleep mode) – it’s kind of cool to be able to see how often you stir at night, but I’m not entirely sure how to apply this knowledge in a practical way.

One of the big pluses for the Garmin Vivofit is battery life. I’ve had mine for over a year and I still have not had to change the battery. The Polar A300 has a rechargeable battery that recharges via USB – you can either plug it directly into a USB port on your computer, or use an included USB extension cable. Though battery life is nowhere near as long as the Vivofit, I have gotten several weeks of life on each charge so it is still quite good.

The A300 can be purchased with or without a heart rate monitor. If you opt to buy the HRM, you can use it during activities and have it display your heart rate. You can also take advantage of Smart Coaching features when you wear the HRM. I do use heart rate as an indicator of effort, but mainly as a reminder to slow down when I push the effort too hard. As such, I have not made much use of the more advanced heart rate features. (Note: I have not been able to get the A300 to sync with my Scosche Rhythm+ optical heart rate monitor)

One additional heart rate feature is that you can use the HRM to conduct a fitness test. The Polar Fitness Test basically involves you lying down for a bit with the HRM on. The watch records your heart rate, and then spits an estimate of your VO2max. I did the test and the watch gave me a VO2max value of 48 – not too far off the value of 52 I got a few years back when I had the test done in a lab.

Another plus for the A300 is the Polar Flow app. The app is pretty simple, but it displays activity data nicely and syncs flawlessly with the device via Bluetooth Smart (much more reliably than the Garmin Vivofit does with the Garmin Connect app). I like the circular display of daily activity periods (see below) – makes it really easy to see when I’ve been active and when I’ve been a slug. I haven’t used the Polar Flow website as much, but it has a nice interface and allows you to visualize your activity data in a variety of ways. Another point to note: the Polar Flow app syncs with MyFitnessPal, so if you use that site/app it’s an easy way to import your activity data and calorie burn.

Sample of daily activity screen from the Polar Flow app. Looks like I got restless around 2:00AM!

My activity diary so far from May 2015 – via the Polar Flow website

So, as an activity tracker the Polar A300 is a great little device. It does just about everything that other activity trackers do, and adds in some more sophisticated heart rate training options. The main problem I have with it is pricing – at $140 without the HRM it costs $40 more than the Garmin Vivofit 2 and Polar Loop. For a device without GPS, this is a bit on the high side, especially when you compare it to a device like the Garmin FR15. The FR15 has heart rate, activity monitoring, and GPS. Pricing both with and without a heart rate monitor included is almost identical between the two devices, which makes me question why one would opt for the Polar A300. Similarly, the Polar M400 watch has GPS, heart rate, and activity tracking and the cost is only about $20 more than the A300. Thus, pricing on the A300 is in line with GPS-enabled activity trackers, but it lacks GPS. Even if you don’t think you need GPS, given the price difference, it might make sense to go with one of the other devices should it become a feature you want at some point.

Conclusion

Overall, I’ve enjoyed using the Polar A300 for the past few months. It’s a solid device, and one to look at if you want an activity tracker with a watch form-factor and advanced heart rate functions. However it is a bit pricy for a watch without GPS, so keep that in mind when weighing your options – comparably priced devices with GPS functionality are available and might be a better option.

Purchasing Options

The Polar A300 is available for purchase at Amazon.com, Polar.com, and Clever Training. Among these options, Clever Training specializes in fitness electronics, and has agreed to provide a 10% off discount to Runblogger readers on most products that they carry – just enter the code RunBlogXJT at checkout. Purchases support this site and help me to write reviews like this one. Your support is very much appreciated!

Just prior to Christmas I received a package from Jabra containing a pair of their Sport Pulse headphones (Disclosure: these were a media sample provided free of charge by the manufacturer). This device combines a wireless bluetooth headset with an optical heart rate monitor (HRM). I love gadgets that combine functions of things that I use regularly (and I use HRMs and bluetooth headphones regularly), so I was excited to give the Jabra Pulse a try. I’ve now been using them regularly for a few months, and overall my experience has been mixed.

Fit, Sound, Battery, Connectivity

With a bluetooth headset my main areas of concern are fit, sound quality, battery life, ease of connection, and connection stability. For the most part, the Jabra Pulse does quite well in all of these areas. Fit is highly customizable with a variety of earbud attachment sizes/options (see photo below). I have not had them fall out of my ear during a run, but I don’t feel like the fit is as secure as it could be as I often have to push them back into my ear canal (I’ve tried several of the earbud attachments). In contrast, my Jaybird Freedom earbuds stay put really well.

Sound quality is good for a wireless headset – I’m no audiophile, but no complaints here. I’d say it’s comparable to the Jaybirds. I like that I can control volume and advance/reverse songs using the controls built into the headset wire.

Battery life has also been solid. Jabra estimates about 5 hours of listening time for the Sport Pulse, and I have no major complaints here either. I have not done a battery rundown test, but I can generally go a week or so between charges and I have not had the battery die on me mid-run. This is encouraging given my poor experience with the battery life of the Jabra Sport Wireless+ headset.

Syncing with my iPhone works flawlessly – simply turn bluetooth on in the phone settings and the Jabra Pulse will be identified. After the initial sync, the headset gets picked up the moment you turn them on, no need to go back into your phone settings (bluetooth must be on though). You can use the headset with the Jabra app, but I prefer to use them with iSmoothRun (my preferred running app). iSmoothRun recognizes them as a heart rate sensor and they pair without issue. On the run I have not had major issues with connection dropouts for audio – occasionally music will cut out for a moment if I turn my head, but this is not a common occurrence (my iPhone has typically been in a jacket chest pocket this winter while using the headset).

Heart Rate Function

So the Jabra Pulse has lots of fit options, decent sound and battery, and syncs easily with my phone. Sounds great, right? Unfortunately, things start to fall apart with the heart rate monitor. Crumble into dust might be a better way of saying it….

First off, the Jabra Pulse only connects via Bluetooth Smart. This is fine for music, but I never look at my iPhone while running, so seeing a real-time readout of heart rate would require the ability to sync it with my Garmin 620 or my Vivofit. Unfortunately the Jabra does not support ANT+ (the Mio Link and Scosche Rhythm+ both support ANT+), so I cannot display HR info on either device. You’d know this before making a purchase, so this isn’t really my big knock on the HR function. It’s worth emphasizing however: don’t buy the Jabra Pulse thinking you can pair it with your Garmin watch – it won’t work.

The bigger issue I have with the heart rate functions of the Jabra Pulse is that it simply does not work that well. The device measures heart rate via an optical sensor built into the earbud (see photo at left). Presumably this analyzes blood pulsing through the skin of the ear and uses this info to calculate heart rate. Unfortunately, the signal is unreliable with tons of dropouts, and at times the reading is way off what I would expect for a given pace. In fact, I’ve had almost entire runs where the heart rate is not even close to where it should be.

Let’s look at some comparison plots comparing HR data from the Scosche Rhythm+ and the Jabra Pulse. The Scosche data comes from my Garmin 620 via SportTracks, and the Jabra data comes from iSmoothRun .tcx file export into SportTracks.

First is a plot from a recent 10K run in which I pushed the pace a bit in the final mile. The first plot below shows data on pace via my Garmin 620 and HR via the Scosche Rhythm+. What you’ll notice is that the HR plot is fairly smooth with no dropouts, and HR moves up a bit toward the end of the run when I picked up the pace.

Next we have the same run with pace data from my iPhone and HR from the Jabra (I couldn’t get the scale to be quite the same). What you’ll notice on the HR plot is over 20 dropouts. Even worse, after mile 2 or so the HR line hovers around 185 bpm. This is approximately my maximum heart rate, and I can assure you I was never even close to that high on this run. Something is very wrong here!

To further illustrate the discrepancy, here are my average heart rate values for each mile split obtained from the Scosche Rhythm+ – note that all are under 180, and only the final split (from the final 0.2) comes close to 175. These values seem consistent with my normal range for the effort expended in each split.

Now the Jabra – mile one was reasonably close to what the Scosche reported, but then things fall apart. By mile 4 I was apparently almost maxing out my heart rate, and mile 6 plus the final 0.2 were similarly high. These numbers are way off reality, and I have no idea why.

So was this an isolated incident? Sadly, no. Here’s another run from last week, first plot is data from Garmin+Scosche:

Again, smooth HR line, no dropouts except maybe a little downward spike near the end of the run. Average heart rate for the run was 158, which sounds about right for the effort level.

Now the Jabra disaster:

I’m not even going to try and count the dropouts, and the heart rate line in this case never goes above 115. Average heart rate reported by the Jabra was 92. If I could run 7+ miles at 8:00/mile pace with an average heart rate of 92 I’d be pretty impressed with my current fitness. Again, something is wrong here, and this time the readings are way too low.

One more example – first Garmin+Scosche:

Next, iPhone+Jabra:

I think you get the picture.

One thing I’d also like to add is that though the plots for the Jabra were exported from iSmoothRun, I have also noticed weird heart rates that were way off what I expected when using the Jabra app.

Conclusion

So what am I left to conclude? Either I got a real lemon of a headset, or the Jabra Pulse is simply not up to the task of recording heart rate in a stable or accurate way on the run. As a result, I am unable to recommend this device if you are interested in its function as a heart rate monitor. My suspicion is that it’s rather difficult to keep a sensor seated firmly enough in the ear to produce a stable recording, and that for optical HR a wrist or arm band that can be cinched tightly to the skin is the way to go.

The Jabra Pulse is fine for music, but there are options out there that are much cheaper than the $199 price tag for the pulse. For example, you can pick up a Jaybird Freedom bluetooth headset (under $60 at Amazon) and a Scosche Rhythm+ optical HRM (just under $80 at Amazon) and still have $50+ dollars left to spend vs. buying the Jabra Pulse. And with that combo you’ll be able to listen to music without wires and get a stable HR recording that will also sync with a phone or a Garmin watch if you have one. To me it’s a no brainer.

The Mio Link and Scosche Rhythm+ share a lot of similarities. Both offer an alternative to the traditional chest strap heart rate monitor, both measure heart rate via sensors and LED lights that measure blood flow through the skin, both lack a screen, and both pair with other devices via Bluetooth Smart or ANT+. Pricing is also similar, with both devices selling for between $70-$80.

For me, the main thing that sets the Rhythm+ apart from the Link is the band used to attach it to your arm. The Mio Link is a wrist-based device – it has a watch-like plastic band that I found somewhat uncomfortable, particularly when cinched tightly. There is really no alternative with the Link other than attaching it to your wrist, and this has caused problems for some people as HR measurement requires a good, tight fit (those with bony wrists have reported dropouts and other problems).

In contrast, the Scosche Rhythm+ comes with two neoprene-like bands that allow for placement in a variety of places on the arm. On the product packaging Scosche shows the band on the forearm, but it can also be placed around the upper arm or on the wrist. I’ve actually worn mine on my wrist most of the time, right next to my Garmin Vivofit. The band is much more comfortable than that of the Link – since it secures via Velcro it’s easy to cinch up for a snug fit, and it’s nice not having a plastic band digging into your arm.

The Rhythm+ is pretty simple to operate. It charges via a USB dock (see photo above). When you’re ready to use it you simply press the Scosche logo on the device and it activates (an alternating blue/red light on top starts to blink). On my Vivofit (see photo below) I simply press the button until it says “Heart” and the device picks up automatically (the blinking light changes to red only while synced). On my Forerunner 620 I activate the heart rate monitor in the watch settings (Settings—>Sensors) and then it syncs with the device. It should automatically recognize it every time you turn it on after the initial sync.

I’ve been using the Rhythm+ for running with my Garmin 620 (on the opposite wrist), and though I have experienced occasional dropouts (see downward spikes in images below), they are rare and could be since I use a wrist placement rather than the recommended placement higher up on the forearm (could also be due to the devices being on opposite wrists). To be honest, one brief dropout over five miles isn’t a big deal, and I didn’t even notice that it happened until I looked at the plots in Garmin Connect later on. I’ve never actually noticed a signal dropout while running.

One thing to note is that the Scosche Rhythm+ will not transmit accurate heart rate variability data (not sensitive enough I guess – I’ve tried it with the SweetBeat app and the numbers are not correct). As a result, it does not provide accurate information to calculate things like recovery time on my Garmin 620. Not a big deal for me, but worth mentioning.

I’ve also been doing a bit of cycling on a recumbent bike this winter when the weather is bad enough to keep me inside, and on these occasions I use the Rhythm+ paired with my Vivofit. This combo also works great, though dropouts seem more common with the Vivofit than with my Forerunner 620. Again, a few momentary dropouts over the course of 45 minutes of cycling are really not a big deal to me since I mainly use it to gauge my effort in real time and have never actually noticed a dropout until looking at plots afterward.

Conclusions

If you’re looking to ditch your chest strap heart rate monitor and already have a device that syncs with ANT+ or Bluetooth Smart sensors, the Scosche Rhythm+ would be my recommendation over the Mio Link. Both are great little devices, but the flexibility offered by the strap options for the Rhythm+ make it a better choice in my experience. It can be worn on the wrist like the Mio, but also on the forearm or around the bicep (unless you are Arnold). I’ve been very impressed with mine – no plans to return to a chest strap ever again if I don’t have to.

The Scosche Rhythm+ is available for purchase at Amazon.com and Clever Training (Runblogger readers get 10% off select products at Clever Training with code RunBlogXJT). Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

Yesterday I was looking at the data from a five mile run I had done on Saturday, and I noticed something unusual in the pace track. About 3/4 of the way into the run the pace reported slowed to about 10:30 min/mile for a bit, then sped up after to a low 7:00 pace (you can see this in the image below via Garmin Connect). I wasn’t watching the Garmin at the time, but I know that I did not slow my pace down that much at any point in the run, so this seems to be one of those instances where the watch flipped out and tried to catch back up.

What’s interesting, and the reason why I’m writing this post, is that shortly after the pace anomaly the GPS track went off course. You can see this in the map above where the track does not follow Metalak Drive (you can see it pass right through a house!). It then regains the proper track on Loon Ave. The period of wayward tracking seems to correspond exactly to when the watch sped up the pace to compensate for the slow-down anomaly.

I’ve had a draft of a Garmin 620 review sitting in my queue for awhile, but have held off since I’ve wanted to see if maybe a firmware update would resolve these issues. Unfortunately, they still happen often enough that I worry about recommending the watch to others. Curious if anyone else has noticed the loss of tracking accuracy following a real-time pace flip out?

I’ve spent the morning reading through a lot of the press about the Watch release. In many ways Apple did not disappoint – the Watch in general has a ton of interesting features, and on the fitness front it has a built in optical heart rate monitor that allows you to ditch a chest strap (looks similar to that on the Mio Link which worked quite well for me), does fitness tracking, and can do run/workout tracking (see more on this below though). However, I don’t see these fitness features as being that unique compared to other fitness devices already on the market, and I’m left feeling a little underwhelmed.

The video below provides a nice overview of the features of the Sport Watch:

The one feature that is missing that concerns me the most as a runner is the lack of integrated GPS. This means that for the Apple Watch to function as a run tracker, you need to have your phone with you on the run – the GPS chip on the phone does the recording, and the watch pulls the data from the phone. There are other devices on the market that function in a similar manner, including the Magellan Echo, and they can work well, but carrying your phone with you on every run can be a bit of  pain (particularly the larger iPhone 6’s that were announced!). I really like the Magellan Echo for example, but there are times when I really would rather leave my phone home and just head out with a wrist-based GPS device.

I’m not a tech expert so just speculating here, but I wonder if the absence of on-board GPS has to due with battery life issues. Apple has been quiet about expected battery life for the Watch, which could be another drawback for those who plan to use it as a fitness device. If I had to guess, we will at some point see an iteration of the Apple Watch that has built-in GPS, but without it my interest in this one is lessened significantly.

How about you, excited or underwhelmed by the Apple Watch as a fitness device?

This week the Outdoor Retailer show is being held in Utah. OR is a trade shoe where companies in the outdoor sports niche show off their new products (I wish I was there!), and it’s a week when I often get a bunch of press releases announcing new shoes, gear, and gadgets. For example, on Tuesday I wrote about 5 new shoe models released by Hoka. Yesterday I received two separate emails from Timex announcing a new GPS watch, the Timex Ironman One GPS+. It looks like an interesting device, so I thought I’d share (I’m a sucker for fitness electronic devices!).

I’ve largely been a Garmin user when it comes to personal use for running (205—>610—>620 is my progression over the past 5 or so years). However, I have tried a few Timex devices, and was impressed by the Timex Run Trainer 2.0. The Ironman One GPS+ looks to be a big step beyond what the Run Trainer offered, and in some ways reminds me of the MotoActv. I have not seen the One GPS+ in person, but I’ll provide an overview of the major features and some thoughts (I’m hoping to get a loaner unit to try out when they are available).

Here is a list of what Timex describes as the “game-changing” features (their phrase) of the One GPS+:

• Stand-alone wireless connectivity without a phone via AT&T 3G
• Email-based messaging capabilities
• Tracking capabilities that communicate the user’s location to friends and family anytime, anywhere with no phone needed
• Custom-built “Find Me Mode” safety solution, which allows users to send an alert with exact location in case of an emergency
• Ability to track speed, distance and pace in real-time and instantaneously share performance metrics through your favorite social media and online fitness platforms
• Water resistance up to 50 meters, an essential feature for water exposure, training in the rain or swimming
• Built-in MP3 component  with 4 GB of memory to play music via a Bluetooth headset
• Always-on, sunlight-readable, high-resolution touch display
• One year of data connectivity by AT&T included for U.S. and Canadian subscribersAnd here is a video overview of the device:

  Some Thoughts

1. Touch Screen – I’ve used several touch-screen GPS watches. Some have been really well done (Motorola MotoActv), some less so (Garmin 610). I currently use a Garmin 620 for most of my training (still need to review it), and though the touch screen is more user-friendly than that on the 610, it’s nothing like the screen of a smart phone or even the MotoActv. It’ll be interesting to see how the interface works on the Timex One – the screen looks nice in the images, and they even go so far as to say the images are not doctored (see screen-capture below, though it looks a bit less vivid than the screen in the image at the top of the page) to make them look better than in reality (like Garmin did for the 620 – the crisp, vivid colors on the product pages for that watch are a far cry from reality). If the interface is anything like the MotoActv it’ll be a big plus.

2. 3G Connectivity – Perhaps the biggest selling point for the Timex One is the ability to access AT&T’s 3G network directly, no paired phone required. This allows for features like messaging (via email) on the run (not that I necessarily want to get messages while I run…), real time tracking (if my wife wants to know where I am, a solid safety feature and great way to view progress in long races), “Find Me Mode” for emergency messaging (could have used this yesterday after my 15 mile run in the heat!), auto-upload to 3rd party sites, etc.

Timex says that a purchase of the watch will come with a year of AT&T data service, but there is no hard number yet as far as I can tell regarding what pricing will be for subsequent years. This to me will be the big hurdle for this watch – if the data plan for subsequent years is priced too high, I imagine it will prevent a lot of people from going with the Timex One. I’m not sure what I’d be willing to pay, but it would not be a big number since carrying my phone paired to my Garmin 620 on a long run is less of a hassle than a big, recurring hit to my wallet.

3. Music – This is actually the feature that most appeals to me. I loved being able to stream music via Bluetooth on the MotoActv – it allowed me to ditch my phone/iPod on the short runs when I wanted music but wasn’t concerned about safety (I almost always take my phone on long runs for safety reasons). The Timex One has 4gb of music storage, and it streams to synced Bluetooth headphones (I use a pair of Jaybird Freedom Bluetooth headphones paired with my phone when I need music on a run – they have been rock-solid in terms of performance). Questions here will be Bluetooth signal strength (I sometimes get signal dropouts when hand-carrying my iPhone on a run, same happened from time to time with the MotoActv on my wrist).

4. Workout Tracking – There’s not a lot of detail on the product preview page regarding workout tracking options, and accuracy is always something that needs to be assessed hands-on with a unit for a few weeks. DC Rainmaker posted yesterday on this device and provides some hands-on detail about the workout features, and looks like the watch will allow construction of custom workouts (e.g., intervals), pace/heart rate alerts, etc. Bascially everything a high-end GPS watch should do.

5. Size – it’s hard to tell without comparative photos, but this looks like a big watch. Might not be the best choice for wear with a suit (like the guy in the photo to the left!).

6. Battery Life – this was the biggest issue for me with the Motorola MotoActv, and will be a thing to watch for with the Timex One. Timex is estimating 8 hours in GPS + cellular mode, but only 4 when you add music in. This could be problematic if you are not a sub-4 hour marathoner and would like to use the device with music in a race. Be prepared for frequent charging if you regularly use the streaming music on your training runs.

As mentioned above, I hope to get a demo unit to play with at some point, but if you’re looking for a bit more detail you can check out the Timex webpage for the One. It’s due to be released around the beginning of November, and MSRP is $399 or $449 (with Heart Rate Monitor).

For much more detail, I’d also encourage you to check out DC Rainmaker’s hands-on preview post about the Timex One GPS+. He covers a lot more detail than I can since he’s had a chance to play with it a bit. He also covers the release of three other new Timex fitness devices, including a Garmin Vivofit-like activity tracker (Move X20), and entry-level GPS watch (Run X20), and a Magellan Echo-like watch (Run X50+) that interfaces with smart-phone apps.

A few months ago a company named Mio contacted me to ask if I’d be interested in trying one of their wrist-mounted heart rate monitors (Disclosure: the product reviewed here was a media sample provided free of charge for review purposes – you can read about my approach to writing honest blog reviews here). I really like the concept of wrist-mounted HRMs. I can wear it as I would a watch, and leave it on my wrist indefinitely if I feel like it. No more strap to worry about taking on and off, no sweaty bands to rinse out, etc. I was game to give it a try, and they offered a choice between the Mio Link and the Mio Alpha.

The main differences between the Link and Alpha are as follows:

• Mio Alpha (below right) has a screen and looks like a regular wristwatch
• Mio Link can communicate via both ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart, whereas the Alpha lacks ANT+
• Mio Link costs $99, whereas the Alpha costs $199

Since I already have a GPS watch with a screen on one wrist (Garmin 620) and a Garmin Vivofit activity monitor on the other wrist (also with a screen), the Mio Alpha seemed like overkill. I’m used to wearing lots of electronic devices, but three screens is a bit much! So I agreed to try out the Link, and I’ve now been using it regularly for a bit over a month.

How It Works

The Mio works by shining two green LEDs through the skin, and there is a sensor between the lights that can monitor pulsing blood flow below the device. Pretty cool! On their website, Mio points out that similar technology is used in hospitals with those little heart-rate sensing clips they put on your finger, but the challenge was to create a device that can measure an athlete on the move, not a patient sitting or lying down in a hospital. This is dependent on a tight light seal between the device and the skin – more on this in a bit.

You can see the Mio Link with the LEDs turned off and on in the two photos below. The sensor is located between the two lights.

The Mio Link is simple to operate – you just press the button on the top of the device and a light flashes. It can then be paired either with a watch or phone via ANT+ or Bluetooth Smart (a device compatibility list can be found here). Connectivity has been a breeze for me with my iPhone 5s, the Garmin 620, a Garmin Forerunner 15, and the Garmin Vivofit. You can see the Vivofit reading data from the Mio Link in the photo below (the first number denotes HR zone, second number is current heart rate) – they both fit comfortably on the same wrist and the proximity makes for a solid and stable connection. I have also recorded concurrently with my Vivofit and Garmin 620 (on the opposite wrist) without issue.

While running, the Mio Link has a light that flashes different colors to indicate your current heart rate zone. You can set these zones up by connecting your Mio to a phone and adjusting settings in the Mio Go app – a red flashing light indicates zone 5, purple is zone 4, yellow is zone 3, and so on… The Mio App also has basic workout features, but my guess is most people will use the device in tandem with a GPS watch or with one of the more dedicated fitness apps (e.g., Strava, Wahoo Fitness, MapMyRun, Runkeeper, etc.).

Personally, I don’t pay much attention to the Mio itself while running since I have the HR readout displayed on my synced GPS watch. This gives better real-time feedback of heart rate, and is why I’d probably opt for a Mio Alpha if I didn’t already have a watch that could sync with the Link.

The Mio is powered by a rechargeable battery, and Mio claims about 8-10 hours of recording time per charge. This is pretty consistent with my experience. To charge, I simply pop the Mio unit out of the wristband and place it on its USB charging cradle. I’ve gotten in the habit of charging the Mio anytime I charge my Garmin 620 – keeps them both fresh and ready to go. Couple of complaints about the charging cradle – I wish the cable was a bit longer, and it’s tough to get a good cradle lock unless you take the Mio hardware out of the band (the band doesn’t lay flat very well and tends to pop it off the charger).

Performance

My experience with the Mio Link so far has been very positive. I’d seen mixed reviews (e.g., check out the comments section on DC Rainmaker’s excellent review or the reviews on Amazon.com), with some people reporting that it experiences lags or drops HR signal from time to time, whereas others seemed to love it and have had no such problems. I’d put myself in the latter camp.

For the most part the recording from the Mio Link has been solid and consistent for me when paired with either my Vivofit or Garmin 620. The only time I have seen drop-outs with any regularity is during walk breaks when the signal to the 620 on my opposite hand seems to get disrupted, perhaps because my body is between the devices (apparently the ANT+ signal has trouble passing through the body). I’ve never seen a dropped signal on my Vivofit located on the same wrist as the Mio Link.

On rare occasions I have noticed the Mio Link stutter a bit, and every time this has happened I have found that simply tightening up the band a bit solves the problem. The key with devices like this is to create a tight light seal between the device and the skin – not uncomfortably tight, but you don’t want the device shifting around to much relative to the skin surface. It may also help that I wear it a bit higher up on my wrist since it is next to the Vivofit. This part of the wrist is a bit less bony, and may make a tighter light seal.

I should note that I have somewhat meaty forearms, and this may also facilitate a good seal on me. I also have a compact, high arm carry while running, and my hands tend to stay in front of my body (as opposed to walking when they swing forward and backward in front of and behind my hips). Some runners have a lower, more exaggerated arm carry where it may be more likely that the hands become blocked by the body for some portion of the stride – it may be that this type of form will create more problems with stable signal transmission.

For people with connectivity issues, Mio recommends a few things to try:

1. Wear the Link on the same wrist as your watch.

2. Wear the Link higher up on your wrist away from the bony bits (a tight light seal is critical).

3. Wear the Link with the sensor reading from the underside of your wrist rather than the top.

I’d suggest that if your body/form is not a good match for the Mio (e.g., you have connectivity/signal drop issues), contact customer support and ask for a refund.

Sample Heart Rate Tracks

My experience so far is that heart rate data recorded by the Mio is quite consistent with my perceived effort, so I’m very happy with recording accuracy. For a few examples of recorded heart rate data, below are heart rate tracks produced via the Mio Link and captured by my Garmin 620. The graphs are screen captures from Garmin Connect.

First is from a hilly 6 mile run up in Vermont last week – the downward spike just before the 25 minute mark was a water stop, and the smaller downward spike around minute 42 was due to the arrival of a thunderstorm and downpour that necessitated a stop to put my phone and camera into a ziploc bag. Pretty solid!

Second is a graph from a hilly 15 mile run I did a few weeks ago. All but the first (bathroom stop at the bottom of a hill) of the downward spikes represent walk breaks on big uphills (practicing race strategy for a hilly ultra this Fall).

Dislikes

My only real complaint about the Mio Link so far is that the band can be a bit finicky. It seems like every other buckle hole leads to the little nubs at the end of the strap misaligning with their corresponding holes. Not a big problem, but you have to fiddle with the band a bit to get everything lined up right. I’ve also noticed that the holes on the band get a bit uncomfortable against the skin when the band gets wet and the Mio is cinched tight. Loosening it up when not in active use takes care of this (again, it has to be pretty tightly cinched against the skin when in use).

Conclusion

I was kind of skeptical about the accuracy of a wrist-mounted heart rate monitor like this, especially after reading some complaints about connectivity issues and signal dropouts. After using it regularly for awhile I can say that I’ve been extremely impressed by the device, with the caveat that my forearms are meaty (thus create a good light seal) and my running form may be a good match for stable signal connectivity (compact, high arm carry).

Tracking has overall been very solid, and I love the fact that the Mio allows me to ditch the chest strap. The fact that other companies are integrating Mio technology into their devices (e.g., adidas, TomTom) adds further support that it is being viewed as stable and accurate technology by 3rd parties.

If you like to monitor heart rate but hate messing with a chest strap, the Mio Link is definitely worth a look!

Update 1/8/2015: I have now reviewed the Scosche Rhythm+ and prefer it to the Mio Link. Check out the review here.

Purchasing Options (Affiliates)

The Mio Link is available for purchase at Amazon.com (it comes in two sizes depending on your wrist size – make sure you check which is right for you). Amazon also carries the Mio Alpha if you prefer having a screen.

The Mio Link is also available at Clever Training (Clever Training offers a 10% off discount to Runblogger readers on select products using code RunBlogXJT).

Outside of the US, the Mio Link is available at Amazon UK and Amazon Canada.

Purchases made from retail sites linked above provide Runblogger with a small commission and help me to produce detailed reviews like this one. Your support is very much appreciated!

My only real issue with the 205 was that it was big. Too big to wear as an all-day watch. The nuisance of having to swap watches for runs prompted me to buy the smaller Garmin 610 a bit over a year ago (I’ve since sold the 610 and now have a Garmin 620).

Over the past few years Garmin has released out a few successors to the 205/305. First came the 310XT (still available, under $200 at Clever Training). The 310XT was marketed as a triathlon/multisport watch – it boasted ~20 hrs of battery life, easy swapping between wrist and bike mount, and a waterproof housing that could be worn while swimming. The 310XT was followed by the Garmin Forerunner 910XT, which maintains the big battery life (also ~20 hours) and waterproof housing, but adds additional bike and swim tracking features.

Clever Training sent me a sample of the Garmin Forerunner 910XT to try out (it was a loaner and will be returned to them after this is published). I’m going to keep this review short because I’m not a triathlete – I have not used any of the bike or swim oriented features (check out DC Rainmaker’s 910 XT review for more on these aspects of the device). My comments below are geared toward the runner who might be interested in this watch.

After spending some time with the 910XT I’ve concluded that for a runner, this watch is pretty similar to the old 205/305. It’s a bit bulky – slimmer than the 205/305, but still not an all-day watch. It has a big, easy to read screen that allows up to 4 data fields and a ton of field customization options. And it’s rock-solid when it comes to recording accuracy. All are things I loved about the 205.

I loaned the 910XT to my buddy Brett to use in the VT50K last Fall, and as an example of recording accuracy here was the result:

Only one-third of a mile short over 31 trail miles is pretty darned solid (~99% accurate).

Where the 910XT improves on the 205/305 (I never tried the 310XT) is with its multisport/triathlon features (again, read DC Rainmaker’s review for more on these, he evaluates them far better than I could) and the fact that it doubles the battery life. It also connects to satellites a bit faster, which is nice.

The big question for a runner is: “Do I really need a bulky, $399 GPS watch?”

My answer would be maybe. It really depends on what your needs are.

Battery life is the major (only?) reason why some runners might need a watch like the 910XT. For example, ultrarunners would benefit from a battery that lasts well over 10 hours. The 910XT should cover most people up to 50 miles, and might even work for particularly fast 100 mile racers like my buddy Nate who ran sub 20:00 at Vermont 100 last year. There aren’t a lot of other options for GPS watches with big battery life – others that I’m aware of that run 20+ hrs are the $500 Suunto Ambit2 and the Garmin Fenix (which DC Rainmaker did not review glowingly for runners; the Fenix 2 is coming later this month, but don’t know much about it). The other potentially appealing feature of the 910XT for ultrarunners is the barometric altimeter, which should record elevation data more accurately than other watches.

The other two situations I could see where this watch would be a good fit would be for a runner who also does a lot of hiking and wants to track that as well, or for a runner who might want to keep a door open for triathlons in the future. In most other cases a cheaper, smaller watch should suffice.

Conclusion

The Garmin Forerunner 910XT is a power-packed watch targeted at multisport athletes. It’s probably more watch than is necessary for most runners, however, super long battery life sets it apart from most other GPS running watches. If you need a big battery, the 910XT would be an excellent choice.

Garmin Forerunner 910XT Purchasing Options

The Garmin Forerunner 910XT is available for purchase at Clever Training. Clever Training specializes in fitness electronics, and has agreed to provide a 10% off discount to Runblogger readers on most products that they carry – just enter the code RunBlogXJT at checkout.

Purchases made at Clever Training support this site and help me to write reviews like this one. Your support is very much appreciated!

Update 7/8/2014  –I have now posted a review of the Garmin Forerunner FR15. The FR15 is basically an update to the FR10 that adds step counting, heart rate monitor sync, and longer battery life.

One of the first reviews I wrote here on Runblogger was of the Garmin Forerunner 205 GPS watch. That was way back in April of 2009! I loved the 205, and it was a mainstay on my wrist for a long time. It tracked distance and pace accurately, provided a ton of customization options on its large screen, and the battery seemed to last forever. On the downside, the 205 was huge! It was not a watch that you’d wear around all day.

Last Christmas I finally upgraded to the Garmin Forerunner 610. From a functional standpoint, the 610 does pretty much everything the 205 does (with the exception of crazy long battery life), but does so in a smaller form factor that can stay on my wrist all day (no more swapping watches for workouts!).

I’ll have a review of the 610 coming soon, but I started this review with mentions of the 205 and 610 to make a point. When it comes to GPS watches, I’m a Garmin fan. I’ve tried watches from other brands, but none of them have yet satisfied my needs as well as Garmin watches do. A big part of that is that I can easily import Garmin data into Dailymile.com and Sporttracks, which are the two places I sync my running data. That fact alone has kept me loyal to Garmin.

A few weeks ago I entered a affiliate partnership with Clever Training whereby they’d occasionally provide me review samples of products that they carry (you can get 10% off most purchases at Clever Training by using the code RunBlogXJT – purchases support this site and allow me to write in-depth reviews like this one!). Here’s how it works – they send me a product, I try it out, write a review, then send it back to them. Their suggestion for a first review was the Garmin Forerunner 10 (FR10) GPS watch. I agreed to try it out, and have been using it for the last several weeks.

The FR10 is essentially the “entry-level” GPS watch in the Garmin lineup. I was initially skeptical about it as my experience with other more basic GPS watches has not been great (e.g., Soleus 1.0, Timex Run Trainer 1). They tend to lack the functionality that I look for, current pace tracking has been iffy, and easy export of data to my preferred sites/programs was lacking.

I’d read a few reviews of the FR10 which discussed its limitations, and I wasn’t sure I was going to like it. At $129.99 MSRP it’s the cheapest GPS enabled watch in Garmin’s lineup, and it lacks the customizability of siblings like the 205, 610, and so on. However, I’ve come to realize that the simplicity of the FR10 is its biggest strength, and I’ve actually been blown away by this little device. It pains me that I have to send it back!

Let’s dig into the review.

Size/Form Factor

First and foremost, compared to other GPS watches the Forerunner 10 is small. In fact, it’s not a whole lot bigger than a standard stopwatch that has no GPS. If you saw it on somebody’s wrist, you’d be hard-pressed to identify it as a GPS-enabled device.

 From left to right: Garmin Forerunner 610, FR10, and FR205. My cat Mokey seems to like the FR10 best, and the 610 still thinks it’s in Oregon.

Not only is its form-factor compact, the FR10 is also very light. My Garmin 205 and 610 weigh 2.8oz each, and the FR10 is only 1.5oz, and the difference is noticeable when wearing it on your wrist. It’s a super comfortable watch for all-day wear – hand’s down the best option I have tried for a GPS watch that stays out of the way. The FR10 also comes in a slightly smaller form factor for women with black, pink, green, and violet as color options (see photo at left).

Menus/Options

In terms of menu navigation, the FR10 is as simple as it gets, and this is a huge plus. I like my FR610, but the touch screen isn’t very user friendly and there are a ton of menus to sift through. The FR10 has only 4 buttons, and they are intuitive and super easy to use. On the top left is a backlight button. On the top right is a button that serves to initiate a workout and functions as the “enter key” in menus. Bottom left is a back button, and bottom right is the button you use to pull up and scroll menus. Simple!

I was most worried with how the FR10 would handle my data needs on the run. I loved the 205 because it had a big screen and I could configure the 4 data fields to show just about anything I wanted. I could also toggle between three separate screens, so that allowed 12 fields total! More than anyone really needs on the run, but I’m a data junkie. The FR10 limits you to only two data screens, each of which displays only two data fields. But, because there are only two fields, the text is large and easy to read.

There are 6 data field combos that can be shown on each screen: Time/Distance, Time/Pace, Time/Calories, Pace/Distance, Pace/Calories, Distance/Calories. You get to choose two of these via the Run Options—>Data Fields menu on the watch.

Sampling of data field display options

There is an additional level of customization for the Pace field. In the Run Options—>Pace/Speed menu you can configure the Pace field to show any of the following: Current Pace, Lap Pace, Average Pace, Speed, Lap Speed, Average Speed. You only get to choose one, so you can’t have one data screen show Current Pace and another show Average Pace. I mainly use Current Pace, and I have auto-lap enabled so after each mile it spits out my lap time, so it gives me what I need.

Other menus include a nice History menu that allows you to view your data from each run (see photo below), and a Records menu that records your fasted time at the mile, 5K, 10K, Half-Marathon, and Marathon distances (also longest run). In the Run Options menu there is a Virtual Pacer that allows you to set a target pace and get alerted if you deviate, and a Run-Walk/Interval option where you can set run times and walk/recovery times. You can also turn on/off a manual lap button (lower left button during a workout).

Summary data from yesterday’s 10 mile run

Performance

I’ve used the Garmin Forerunner 10 on almost every run for the past several weeks. I even wore it when I ran the Vermont City Marathon a few weeks ago, with the FR610 on the other wrist for comparative purposes. I did another 10 mile run with both watches yesterday for a final test.

I have to say that I’ve fallen in love with this watch – when wearing both the FR10 and FR610 I often find myself looking at the FR10 more often than I look at the FR610. If it weren’t for just a few missing features (e.g., wireless data transfer, better interval workout capability, foot-pod sync) I’d consider selling my 610 on Ebay and buying FR10’s for myself and my wife.

As I mentioned above, my main data screen on the FR10 while I run displays current pace and distance. I have Time/Pace on the second screen. For the majority of runners that’s all that’s really necessary. Most of the time that’s all that I need as well.

What I love most about the FR10 is that the current pace readout is rock-solid. It reports pace in 5 second increments, so 8:00/mile, 8:05/mile, 8:10/mile etc. At first I didn’t think I’d like this, but what it accomplishes is a lot less fluctuation in current pace readout (and let’s be serious, current pace readouts on GPS watches probably aren’t accurate to the second). When running my marathon, I relied on the FR10 almost exclusively for real-time pacing and used the FR610 for it’s lap display (the main reason why I’ll keep it – being able to display lap time, lap distance, current pace, and lap pace all on one screen).

I have found tracking accuracy in the FR10 to be right in line with the much more expensive FR610. In fact, the FR10 measured the Vermont City Marathon course more closely than the 610 (26.37 miles for the FR10 vs. 26.48 miles for the 610 – need to work on running those tangents!). On my 10 miler yesterday, the FR10 measured 10.13 miles at an average pace of 8:22/mile, the 610 measured 10.12 miles at an average pace of 8:23. Pretty solid agreement! The Forerunner 10 has earned my complete confidence in its ability to track pace and distance.

The FR10 is rated at 5 hours of battery life with the GPS on, and it made it through my marathon no problem. It’s not the life that my old 205 had (I swear that thing had a Prius battery in it and recharged while I ran), but it’s sufficient for my needs up to now.

My only performance complaint about the FR10 is that it tends to not track that well under dense tree-cover (few watches that I have used do this well). If ultras are your thing, the combo of 5-hour battery life while recording and sub-par forest performance mean you should look elsewhere.

One other thing to note – as an entry-level watch the FR10 does not include a heart rate monitor. I don’t generally use a heart rate monitor, so no big deal for me.

Data Export

As mentioned above I use Dailymile.com and Sporttracks to store my run data. The FR10 syncs with Sporttracks without issue, but dailymile import does not seem to be supported at this time (note – I initially reported that it does sync with dailymile – this was an error on my part as it was uploading the data from my 610, not the 10 – I was wearing them both on the same runs for comparison). I’ve also started using Garmin Connect a bit and really like it. If I hadn’t been using Sporttracks for years I might even consider using Garmin Connect as my main run storage location. Below is a sample screen from Garmin Connect showing the FR10 recording of my run at the Vermont City Marathon:

As an entry-level watch, the FR10 does not upload wirelessly (I like this feature of the 610). It connects via a USB cable that snaps securely into place on the back of the watch.

Garmin FR10 – Sync Cable and Back of Watch

Garmin FR10 – Sync Cable

The only data I typically look at that is not recorded on-board the FR10 is elevation (e.g., you can’t get elevation in SportTracks). However, when you upload the data from the watch to Garmin Connect you can view an elevation profile that is based on your GPS track (I suppose similar to how a site like MapMyRun or GMap Pedometer computes elevation profiles when you create a route manually on a map). Otherwise the data I get in Sporttracks is essentially the same as the data I get from the 610.

Summary

Given the fact that the Garmin Forerunner 10 is positioned as an entry-level GPS watch, I wasn’t expecting to love it as much as I do. Everything that it does, it does well, and for the majority of my runs it’s really all that I need. The only place it falls behind a bit is when I need more detailed lap data for an interval workout. Other than that, I could easily see using this is my full-time GPS watch, and given how much smaller and lighter it is than the FR610, I’m half-tempted to buy one for myself as an all-day watch and save the FR610 for more complex workouts (though I’d have a hard time justifying that purchase to my wife!).

The FR10 is an ideal GPS watch for a beginning runner, and for the experienced runner who doesn’t much care about anything besides how fast and far they ran, it is an equally good choice. At $129.99 MSRP the price is right as well.

Big thumbs up for the Garmin Forerunner 10!

Update 7/8/2014  –I have now posted a review of the Garmin Forerunner FR15. The FR15 is basically an update to the FR10 that adds step counting, heart rate monitor sync, and longer battery life.

The Garmin Forerunner 10 is available for purchase at Clever Training in the colors seen below. Clever Training specializes in fitness electronics, and has agreed to provide a 10% off discount to Runblogger readers on most products that they carry – just enter the code RunBlogXJT at checkout. Purchases support this site and help me to write reviews like this one. Your support is very much appreciated!

The reason for my change in outlook is that the Motoactv has started to feel like a beta version that was released before all of the kinks could be worked out. This is frustrating because the device is pretty darned amazing in many ways, but it’s limitations make it hard for me to recommend that anyone buy it right now.

Let’s start with the good stuff. Basically, the MOTOCACTV is like an iPod Nano crossed with a Garmin Forerunner. It can both record a GPS signal and spit out pace, splits, etc., and it can also play music. It does both of these things quite well. When running with both my Garmin 205 or 305 and the MOTOACTV the GPS results are very close, and I have found the accuracy of the MOTOACTV to be overall excellent. This is one of the reasons that I have been willing to go solo with the MOTOACTV for so long – it works very well as a workout recorder.

Though bigger than a typical watch, when attached to the optional wristband the MOTOACTV is not so big that it cannot be worn as a full-time wristwatch – I have done so for a few months and have found it plenty comfortable (and it has prompted a lot of comments!). The interface is clean and very well designed, and there are plenty of options to customize the data displayed on the screen (for workouts, you can choose up to 4 customizable data fields at a time), and the full color display looks beautiful. The screen is touch sensitive, so a simple swipe will allow you to jump from the real-time data readout to a listing of your splits. You can even swipe to a real-time map showing your location and running route (though cool, this is limited by the size of the screen, and the lack of detailed map labeling makes it of limited practical utility). There are also multiple clock-face options for using the MOTOACTV as a watch, and you can set the device to function as a pedometer that records the number of steps that you take (accuracy is questionable, especially if you do a lot of walking while pushing a baby carriage…).

The ability to play music is also a huge plus for this device as it means one less gadget that I need to lug around in my workout bag – I actually have not had to use my IPod Nano for several months. Importing music to the device is simple, it plays files purchased on iTunes with no issues, and sound quality is very good. Having an all-in-one device like this is really nice, and is the major draw for me.

So, the MOTOACTV has a beautiful and user friendly interface, records GPS signals accurately, and can play music – sounds like a dream device, right? Not quite. There are some serious issues that in my opinion need to be addressed before the MOTOACTV becomes a prime-time player in the workout GPS world. Here’s a rundown of what I see as the biggest issues.

1. The headphone jack is problematic. Because the headphone jack does not have a cover, it’s wide open to sweat, water, etc. After about a month of use, I started to notice that my headphones would not work sometimes when I plugged them in – sometimes I could get them to kick on by twisting the plug around, but success with this technique was spotty. This problem has gotten progressively worse, and now I have completely given up on using plug-in headphones – the jack is essentially non-functional. In perusing the MOTOACTV online forum, I have seen numerous people reporting this same issue, and it is a major flaw in the device (apparently you can call and ask them to send a rubber grommet to stick in the hole – this should have been standard with the watch). My workaround is that bluetooth headphones continue to work just fine, so I have been able to continue to use the device as a music player. It would appear that the problem is thus specifically isolated to the jack. I would not recommend buying the MOTOACTV unless you plan to invest in a pair of bluetooth enabled headphones to go with it.

2. Battery life is not great. Motorola has been proactive on this issue and has issued several firmware updates to improve battery life, but let’s just say I still would not risk using the MOTOACTV as a GPS device for any race longer than a half marathon. I have not done a multi-hour run with it so I can’t comment on absolute battery life, but it’s not terribly great in active GPS recording mode (especially with music playing). Even just using the device as a watch, it needs a charge every other day or so. Thus, battery life lags far behind most every other GPS device currently on the market.

3. The “Start” button on the top of the watch is touchy (wither that or there is some weird software issue). I find that the watch will randomly start workouts while I’m walking around, and after pausing the workout on a run the watch will frequently restart the workout on its own before I am ready to go and without me touching it (very annoying!). This is a big pain, especially since the online software does not make it particularly easy to delete mistaken workouts.

4. There is currently no streamlined way to export data from the Motoactv to the workout recording platforms that I use (Sporttracks and dailymile). It is possible to export workouts as CSV files and then import these into Sportracks, and there is a bookmarklet that facilitates upload to dailymile, but indirect uploads are cumbersome and have gotten old fast. Furthermore, some of the CSV files I upload to Sporttracks need to be corrected, so I have concerns about accuracy using this method (I’ve uploaded a few 8000+ mile runs – wish I was capable of that!)I haven’t played around much with the Motorola workout site since I don’t have any desire to adopt yet another recording platform.

My general feeling about GPS devices is that hardware manufacturers should worry about making the hardware work well, and allow users to choose their workout platform. So may of us are already tied to one site or another and for various reasons have no desire to switch. Thus, facilitating the ability to sync a device easily across platforms should be a priority (maybe this is planned for the future, I don’t know). I kind of view this analogous to the days when manufacturers would make digital music players that couldn’t play iTunes files – no way was I going to abandon my investment in all of my iTunes music to adopt a different piece of hardware. To be honest, even given its flaws, I probably would still use the Motoactv regularly as is if I could simply download data directly into Sporttracks. Without this, it’s one more nuisance to have to deal with that my trusty old Garmin 305 solves effortlessly.

The above points are what I view as critical flaws or nuisances, some of which may be fixable or at least improvable with firmware updates, others of which are design issues (the headphone jack). Clear these up and this would without a doubt be one of the most innovative GPS devices out there, and the Motoactv would be on my wrist every day.

I also have a wish-list of things that could be easy improvements for the watch.

1. Add additional data screens. My Garmin 305 has 3 screens, each of which is capable of displaying four separate data fields. I use all of these regularly – one for general run stats, one for lap data, etc. This would seem to be an easy fix to make via a firmware update – add a few additional screens that can be swiped to view, each which of which can be configured like the standard data screen.

2. Do more with the map view. This is a cool feature, but not of much practical use right now. More detail, return to home capability, etc. would be great.

3. While I’m in the asking mood, since Motoactv is hooked into Wifi, allowing the ability to do a one touch upload to various workout sites would be amazing.

I will finish by saying that there have been a few firmware updates that I have not yet loaded onto my Motoactv. I have hesitated to do so since one of them introduces a “shake to wake” feature that sounds like a total disaster to me (note, my random workout starts are with the firmware just previous to the one that introduced this feature, so that is not the issue with my watch). On the plus side, the folks at Motorola have been pretty proactive about issuing firmware updates for the device, so they do seem committed to improving user experience. I hope they continue to do so, and I hope they continue development on the hardware as I truly believe that Motoactv has game-changing potential. It’s just not quite there yet.

For the past 3 or so years I’ve been running with my reliable old Garmin Forerunner 205 or a Garmin 305 that I bought for use by students in my Exercise Physiology class (the Garmin Forerunner 205 was actually one of the first pieces of running gear that I reviewed on this blog). Both are incredible little watches – though rather large, they give me a ton of information and they have far exceeded my expectations in terms of durability and battery life. Both watches have been rock solid and still have plenty of life left in them.

My one complaint about the Garmin 205/305 is that their large size makes them a poor choice for wearing around as an everyday watch when not in use for running. This necessitates popping the watch on and off prior to and after runs, and also requires that I remember to bring the watch with me if I plan to run at work. This is not a big deal, but I’ve long coveted a GPS watch that could also serve as a full time wristwatch.

Back in early December, I received an offer from Soleus to try out their first ever GPS watch (disclosure: the Soleus GPS 1.0 reviewed here is a media sample provided free of charge by the manufacturer). Soleus has been around for a bit, and they specialize in affordable, colorful stopwatches for active people. I was intrigued by the watch for two reasons: 1) it looked slim enough to use as an everyday watch, and 2) it was priced at under $100, which is quite affordable for a GPS watch, thus making the technology accessible to a larger user base.

Here’s how Soleus describes the GPS 1.0:

Our brand new Soleus GPS 1.0 has everything you need, nothing you don’t.  Simple, easy to use digital watch that will accurately track your speed and distance.  Auto lap splits at every mile and night light mode helps for your late night runs. Our GPS 1.0 knows exactly where to find the same global positioning satellites orbiting miles above the Earth that are going to help you navigate your run, walk, or hike.

You can even Personalize your Soleus GPS 1.0 by inputting your personal data to track calories burned during that rough exercise routine.

Best feature is its compact design. One of the smallest GPS watches on the market today for your wrist.

I’ll start by saying that the Soleus GPS 1.0 works pretty much as advertised. It’s a simple watch with a fairly low-profile form factor, which means that it’s plenty suitable for all-day wear. When you’re ready to run, the GPS is easily turned on by pressing the yellow “GPS” button on the left hand side of the watch (see photo above). Syncing takes about the same amount of time as the Garmin 205/305, so I have no major complaints about that. Once you’re ready to go the watch will use the GPS to calculate and display your current speed or pace (min/mile), and distance traveled. That’s pretty much it – no frills with this watch. However, for the vast majority of my runs, this is really all the data that I need. At the end of the run you can get your total distance and average pace for the entire run, as well as for each lap (you can set the watch to auto-lap every 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 miles).

Given that the Soleus GPS 1.0 only really provides two metrics (current speed/pace and distance), the big question is how accurately they are reported. I’ve now run with the Soleus on one wrist and the Garmin 305 on the other on several occasions – I’ve been extremely happy with the accuracy of my Garmin after several years of constant use so I find it a useful benchmark on which to base a comparison. I’ve found that current pace on the Soleus seems to not track closely with what is shown on the Garmin (or with my self-perceived effort), possibly due to the Garmin recording waypoints more frequently or the Soleus using some sort of smoothing algorithm. The Soleus doesn’t seem to jump around as much, but it also therefore doesn’t seem to as closely track sudden changes in pace. For real-time pace measurement I’d give the edge to the Garmin 305.

In terms of recording average pace and distance, the Soleus is spot-on. Comparing the results between the Garmin and the Soleus at the end of a run demonstrates a strong congruence between the two watches. As such, although the Soleus does not seem as good at moment-to-moment pace reporting, the average pace reported for the run matches very closely what is reported by my Garmin. Thus, I’m wondering if a firmware update might allow for alternate ways to report current pace on the Soleus watch.

Perhaps the biggest limitation of the Soleus GPS 1.0 is that it currently has no mechanism for uploading data to a computer. This is the main deal-breaker for me as I upload all of my workouts to Sporttracks – doing this manually gets old quick. However, in his recent (excellent!) review of the Soleus watch, DC Rainmaker reports that uploading support should be coming soon (unfortunately at additional cost for a peripheral connector, but should still probably cost less combined than other GPS watches on the market).

Battery life has so far been excellent. I can use the watch for well over a week without need for a recharge as long as I shut the GPS off in between uses (very easy to do). Charging is accomplished via a USB clip cable, and the watch recharges quite quickly – no complaints.

Conclusion

All in all, this is a very nice little GPS watch at a very reasonable price (currently $89 at Amazon, similar pricing at Running Warehouse). Pluses are the low price, low profile form factor, long battery life, and accurate recording of average pace and run distance. Minuses are somewhat iffy current pace reporting, inability to upload data to a computer, and limited data field options on the watch face (most of these could probably be improved via firmware updates and the planned addition of a peripheral uploading device).

If all you need in a GPS watch is a measure of how far you ran and what your average pace was, then this watch is a fine choice. If you’d like a bit more data and the ability to upload to a computer, then springing for a more expensive watch might make sense. I still love my Garmin 205 and 305, and these can be purchased quite cheap nowadays, with the only real downside in my opinion being their large size. If you want a watch that does it all and more (but at a higher price), stay tuned for my review of the Motorola Motoactv, which has pretty much become my full-time watch these days. 

If you want a personal running computer that will allow you to take your running to the next level and permit you to mix up your training runs with speed and long distance, you’re going to need something more than Nike+. I, unfortunately, am a perfectionist, and the inaccuracy of the pacing and distance data provided by Nike+ continually bugged me (and I was growing tired of mapping my runs on-line to figure out actual distances that I had covered). So, after about six months of consistent use, I decided to relegate the Nike+ to the treadmill only, and I asked Santa for a Garmin Forerunner 205 for Christmas (thanks Mom and Dad, I mean Santa, if you read this!). Sure enough, the fancy new GPS wristwatch was in my stocking, and it has not been absent from my wrist during a run in over a year. Simply stated, this is one of the coolest and most useful gadgets of any kind that I own, and it has allowed my running to progress in ways that probably would not have otherwise occurred.

First, let me explain the difference between the two current-generation Garmin Forerunner models (a fancy new model is on the way – the Garmin Forerunner 310 XT – but I’ll explain why I’d still go for one of the current ones for now if you’re considering a purchase). The two current models are the Forerunner 305 (the red one in the picture above) and the Forerunner 205 (the blue one in the picture above). The only real differences between the two watches (besides color) are that the 305 can sync with an included heart rate monitor, an optional footpod acceleromoter (for the treadmill), and an optional speed-and-cadence sensor for your bike. Otherwise, from what I can gather, they are identical, and the 305 is only about $10.00-$15.00 more than the 205 at Amazon. Given the minor price difference, most of the links here are to the 305 since I feel it is probably well worth an extra ten dollars to upgrade to this model (I wish I had done so, but the price difference was much greater a year ago).

So, I have now been using the Forerunner 205 regularly for over a year, and I have absolutely nothing but good things to say about it. The pacing data is right on (I have run enough chip-timed races with the 205 to verify this), as is the distance data. In addition to time, current pace, and distance, I have three data screens (which is the max on the 205/305) set up to show such variables as average pace, elevation, percent grade, calories burned, and time of day. Of all of these, the only one that seems somewhat iffy from time to time is the elevation, though if you smooth it out in one of the training programs that syncs with the Forerunner, elevation patterns look pretty good as well. So far, I have pretty much exclusively used the Forerunner in its most basic mode – to simply track my data while I run. It is possible to configure things like training/pacing partners and interval workouts on the watch, and to use it as a (very) basic real-time GPS mapping device for things like hiking, but I haven’t used it much for this. In addition to running, I have used it while walking, snowshoeing, and biking (less extensively), and it works great for all of the above.

For me, the two features that matter most from a training and racing standpoint are accurate pacing and distance measurements, and as I said above this is where the Forerunner blows away the Nike+. I actually trust the Forerunner more than most of the on-line mapping programs when it comes to calculating distance, and being able to import all of my data into the computer is great. For the latter, I have skipped the included Garmin Training Center software and instead use an amazing, free program called Sportracks. Sportracks downloads all of the data from the Forerunner and lets you look at it in almost any way that you could possibly want. Here are a few examples:

First, here’s a route map I recorded from a recent 5k race I did at Epcot Center in Florida – The Royal Family 5k (my race report for this one is here). I picked this route map since many people will recognize what’s on here (Spaceship Earth, aka the “Big Ball,” is near the whitish are in the center; you can click on the image for a bigger view).

Second, here’s an entire screen capture from Sportracks that shows data (route map and mile splits) recorded during my running of the Vermont City Marathon (again, you can click on it for a bigger view; my Vermont City Marathon race report is here):

The data from the above screen can also be graphed in a number of ways. First, here’s a split chart showing how I “hit the wall” in Vermont (the scribble was my addition from another blog post – I only wish the Forerunner was smart enough to tell me I was in trouble at the time, but it can’t do everything I guess):

Lastly, here’s a pace vs. elevation chart from my running of the incredibly hilly Manchester City Half-Marathon last November (probably my best ever race – no race report on this one):

To summarize the analysis and performance tracking options available for your training and racing are nearly limitless. As a scientist who loves data, Garmin Forerunner + Sportracks makes me one very happy runner.

A few last comments and I’ll stop esposing my love for all things Garmin. One of the concerns I initially had about these watches was their size. Yes, they are big, but I have never noticed it as a nuisance while running, and I actually think the size is a positive rather than a negative since it makes it easier to read your data on the run. This is one of the major reasons why I would probably never consider the smaller Forerunner 405 – if you pack too many data streams on a small screen then things are awful hard to read at mile 20 of a marathon. The other concern someone in the market for a GPS watch might have is the forthcoming new Garmin Forerunner 310 XT. As I explained in my preview post for this model, it would take a lot for me to spend an extra $100-$200 to choose to purchase the new 310 XT over the current 305. The new watch looks cool, and the wireless sync feature is nice, but I don’t really care if I can dive to 50m with it on. If for some reason I’m out for a run and I wind up 50m underwater, I probably won’t be resurfacing to make it back home anyway (though in all seriousness, I can see how the 310 XT might be useful to a triathlete. For me, I’ll stick with the 205/305.

Hopefully I’ve given you a feel for what the Garmin Forerunner 205/305 can do. Really, there’s probably a lot more that it is capable of than what I have discussed here, but the best way to experience it is to try it out. As a runner who has now completed 1,266.01 miles (I love accuracy!) with the Garmin Forerunner 205 (and it’s still going strong, with no major problems), I can honestly say that next to my running shoes, this is the most essential piece of running gear that I own. I highly recommend the Forerunner – get one and you won’t be disappointed.

Update 3/31/2010: Garmin has just released a new “entry-levl” Forerunner – the Garmin Forerunner 110.

Note – as I mentioned above, prices are dropping on the current model Forerunners. Amazon is now selling the Garmin Forerunner 305 for around $150.00 (price fluctuates daily – see below for current price), which seems like a pretty good deal relative to where they were a year ago. The Forerunner 205 is about $20.00 less. I’ve also added a link below to the Forerunner 405, which is smaller (i.e., more wrist-watch like in size), though more expensive than the 205/305, as well as some accessories that sync with the 305 and 405.

Amazon offers free shipping for any order over $25.00, which would clearly apply to most of the items below.

Feel free to drop me a comment if you have any thoughts about this review or can think of anything that I’ve missed.

Happy running!