The reason for the change in approach is that I knew this year was going to be one of transition. As I’ve shared in a few recent posts, I’m heading back into the classroom, and have started a teacher certification program for high school biology. I spent last week at the high school where I am interning, and I taught my first lesson on Friday (nothing like jumping right in!). I decided to push running to the side for the week so that I could focus on the new experience. In years past, six straight days without a run would have driven me crazy, but I’m in a place now where I’m OK with it. No need to stress out about a few missed runs.

For much of this summer I’ve been trying to wrestle myself into a healthier relationship with my running since I knew things would be challenging come Fall. One of the first steps I took back in July was to start running more frequently without my GPS watch. Like many runners, my GPS had become an extension of my running identity, and a permanent fixture on my wrist. I obsessed about pace, and would feel guilty if I didn’t live up to what I felt I was capable of – can’t have a Strava report with a 10:00+ mile pace for a run! I obsessed about mileage – always need to add a bit to get to the nearest whole number, that 4.97 mile run just won’t do! I felt the need to reach weekly mileage goals, and heat and hills were no excuse for a slow-paced run.

Since I don’t have a Fall race planned this year, I thought it might be a good time to try ditching the GPS for a bit. I’m not gonna lie, those first few runs without the watch were tough. I seem to think that if a run isn’t recorded, it never really happened. Silly, I know.

To ease the transition away from the GPS, I decided to allow myself to use a heart rate monitor to gauge effort (displayed on a Garmin Vivofit – no GPS recording). The purpose was more to hold me back than to push me harder. I quickly came to realize that in the heat of summer (I tend to run in late afternoon), what I felt was my easy pace would have my heart rate way above the aerobic zone. So I started to allow myself to walk a bit if my HR went above 150 or 160 bpm (depending on how hot it was outside). Coming to terms with walking frequently during hot runs was also a challenge, but it has made for a much more enjoyable summer of running. And on cooler days I’ve found that it really hasn’t hurt my fitness very much.

As the runs without a GPS started to accumulate, I found that I was really liking the fact that I had cut the cord. I no longer felt the need to add on a bit at the end of the run to reach a whole number – though I generally had an idea of how far I’d run, the tenths and hundredths of a mile were impossible to estimate. It simply didn’t matter. And pacing was a total mystery – I just ran by how I felt on a given day. I have no idea what my pace was for most of my runs since mid-July. This bothered me a bit (a lot, really) at first, but after a tough, hilly 4-mile run in Maine in mid-August where I brought the GPS back I was comforted that my fitness hadn’t been destroyed by a lack of GPS recordings.

Running without a GPS has been an incredibly freeing experience. I feel like I am now enjoying my runs a lot more. I don’t feel guilty if I stop to take a photo or enjoy a view – that short break won’t mess up my pace report or GPS track, and no need to fiddle with stopping or starting a watch (heaven forbid I forget to restart the GPS!). There are times when I still find the watch to be helpful – for example, measuring out a route in a new place, after which it is no longer needed. And if I were training for a race there are times when I think knowing pace is important. But without any major race goals in the foreseeable future, I think I’ll continue to run mostly without the watch.

How about you, have you tried cutting the cord and running without a GPS?

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?

What I’m going to do is share data from a few runs that revealed some interesting patterns to give an idea of what you can learn from the device. I still find the data more a curiosity than something I would use to make changes to my form, but it is interesting to play with the information!

First, let’s take some data from a near-PR 5K I ran back in April – below you’ll see the run summary info and GPS track, as well as graphs for cadence, vertical oscillation, and ground contact time (GCT) all estimated by the HRM-Monitor:

For frame of reference, here’s how Garmin breaks down running dynamics across a range of runners ((note: I’m not sure exactly how Garmin determined these groupings):

Looks like my cadence and ground contact time during the race were on the high end (mostly purple – >95 percentile), whereas vertical oscillation was more middle of the road. This suggests to me that I have a short, quick stride with a moderate amount of up and down movement (assuming the HRM-monitor provides an accurate measure of vertical oscillation).

What’s kind of cool in the above graphs is that right after the 10:00 mark we went up, over and down an overpass, then returned over that same overpass just after 13:20. You can see how my cadence, vertical oscillation, and GCT changed going up and down the hill. You can also see that my cadence trended upward, and oscillation trended downward over the course of the race (presumably in part as I sped up at the end).

For an even more interesting view of data from the same race, I pulled the following graph off of the Connect Stats app, which pulls data from Garmin Connect and lets you look at it in different ways:

In the above graph you can see how my cadence changed from the beginning (blue dots) to the end of the race (orange/brown dots). You can also see on the right are two downward loops that probably represent the overpass mentioned above. What I find particularly interesting is that at the end of the race my cadence shot up way higher than it was at the same pace earlier in the race – wondering if this is a way of compensating for fatigue (it was a pretty flat course except for the one overpass so terrain doesn’t seem to explain this)?

You can see a similar pattern with the vertical oscillation data in the graph below – greater oscillation early in the race, less toward the end, even at similar paces run earlier on – perhaps I had to compensate for reduced air time by increasing my turnover?

Here’s one more graph from a different run (also in the Spring) that I found interesting:

This one was from an easy training run, and I was puzzled by the higher vertical oscillation at the beginning of the run (light blue dots). After a bit of thinking over a few runs I realized that my left knee had been bothering me at the time. When it does I often accentuate a forefoot strike and stiffen my leg on that side at the beginning of runs. However, once it warms up I settle into my more typical stride mechanics. My guess is that the early numbers represent modified form until I warmed up. Pretty cool, and suggests that you can get some interesting data from a device like this. I’m still not sure how accurate the numbers are, but I do think they are at least representative of general patterns, and there seem to be plausible explanations for some of the unusual patterns observed.

I’m curious now to try out the HRM-Run monitor for a comparison between a few different shoes – perhaps Hokas versus something more minimal. May just have to do some experimenting!

Have any of you played with the running dynamics data on the Forerunner 620. Any interesting patterns observed?

A few weeks ago some friends in the Running Shoe Geeks group on Facebook started a Shoe Geeks club/group on Strava. I’ve played with Strava a bit, but haven’t really dug into it in a major way, so I decided to give it another try (you can connect with me on Strava here). On the plus side it was successfully syncing directly from my Garmin 620, but it still required a trip to the Strava website to do so.

Yesterday I was filtering through my Feedly RSS feeds and came across a post from DC Rainmaker on a new auto-sync feature between Strava and Garmin Connect. In short, it allows Strava to pull workouts directly from Garmin Connect without the need to upload direct from your device to the Strava site. It basically works on the fly – your workouts upload to GC in the normal manner (e.g., wi-fi, Bluetooth to phone, USB upload via computer), then they automatically feed over to Strava (supposedly within 3-5 minutes).

I decided this morning to try and set this up using DC Rainmaker’s directions. It’s actually a very easy process. You simply go to your Strava account and click the UPLOAD button on the top right of the screen. This brings you to this page (note – I did not have my Gamin connected to the computer while doing this):

Near the bottom of this page you can see where it says “Enable seamless syncing by linking your Strava and Garmin Connect Accounts. Get Started.”

Click “Get Started” and you see this:

Under the Garmin logo click “Get Started” and you get a pop-up box:

Click the orange “Connect with Garmin” button, and you get a pop-up window asking for your Garmin Connect sign-in info:

Enter your data and you’re done!

You can see here that it quotes 3-5 minutes as the typical time for a workout uploaded to GC to sync with Strava. To test this I went outside and recorded a short walk up and down my street. Upon entering my house the workout uploaded to Garmin Connect via wi-fi immediately (this used to not work for me with the 620, but seems to have been fixed recently with one of their firmware updates). I then logged into Strava less than 5 minutes later and the “workout” was indeed there. Very cool! Ray on DC Rainmaker says that upon uploading your first new workout it should pull workouts from the last 30 days as well, but my run from yesterday (which I loaded to GC before enabling Strava sync) did not show up. Maybe this part takes more time? Anyone have success with this part?

There you have it, pretty easy and saves me one more step from my daily on-line life. The more I can streamline the better!

This auto-sync feature is also available for Training Peaks, RunCoach, and should be available soon at MapMyFitness and Endomondo. DC Rainmaker provides more detail for those services (I’ve never used any of them myself, though I need to try Training Peaks since my coach uses it for his athletes – for details on Training Peaks sync see DC Rainmaker’s post on the topic).

I’d love to see auto-sync added to dailymile as that site has my data from the past 5 or so years. They’ve apparently been working on a site update (and app) for awhile so here’s hoping that it’s among included features when that rolls out.

The main drawbacks of the FR10 for me personally were that it lacked the ability to upload complex workouts to the watch, had limited data screen customization (only 2 fields per screen), had a short battery life in GPS mode (about 5 hours, so frequent charging was necessary), and lacked the ability to sync a heart rate monitor. But for most of my runs the FR10 was more than sufficient.

About a month ago Garmin released the Forerunner 15, which is essentially an evolution of the FR10 (from the outside it looks identical). The FR15 adds in the ability to sync a heart rate monitor, increases battery life to 8 hours in GPS tracking mode, and most impressively it adds in a step counter. The FR15 basically takes the guts of the Garmin Vivofit activity tracker (I posted my Garmin Vivofit review yesterday) and stuffs them into an entry-level GPS watch. The combo makes this a very intriguing device!

Before I start the review, let’s get the disclosure out of the way. The FR15 I review here was sent to me by my affiliate partner Clever Training (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, thanks!). After writing this review I’ll pack it up and send it back to them. I’ll also point out that my day-to-day GPS watch is a Garmin Forerunner 620 (delivered by Santa Claus last Christmas), and I also regularly use a Garmin Vivofit that I bought myself.

On with the review! I’ve now been using the FR15 daily for a few weeks and given the similarity in most respects to the FR10, I’ve been able to gather my thoughts pretty quickly on this one. As is my practice with fitness electronics reviews, I’m going to organize the remainder of this review into a list of likes and dislikes.

Things I Like About the Garmin Forerunner 15

1. Solid GPS Tracking. One of the things that impressed me about the FR10 was how accurately it tracked my distance and pace for an entry-level device. In fact, I wore it in the VT City Marathon last May and it came closer to getting the distance right than the then top-of-the-line Garmin 610. The FR15 seems to do just as well in this regard. It has consistently recorded distances almost spot on with my Garmin 620 and iPhone (iSmoothRun app). And I actually prefer the real-time pace readout on the FR15 – it’s extremely stable, and reports pace in 5 second increments (e.g., 8:00/mile, 8:05/mile, 8:10/mile…) which I think makes things less jumpy. For basic pace and distance tracking on runs, the FR15 is great!

2. Activity/Step Tracking. This is the big draw for the FR15 over the FR10 for me. As a regular user of a Garmin Vivofit and a Garmin Forerunner 620, I find the idea of combining the two into a single device very appealing, if for no other reason than to open up some real estate on my wrists. With the FR15 I can have the watch/tracker on one wrist and the Mio Link on the other for heart rate. All of my bases are covered. With the 620, Vivofit, and Mio I start looking like a cyborg and find myself frequently removing the Mio. Now the 620 does not do activity tracking so I’m not out of the woods, but I wonder if it’s within the capability of the hardware to do so since it can track my cadence (step rate) on runs? The problem for Garmin is that adding in this functionality could prevent some Vivofit sales. Since this is a review of the FR15 though I’ll leave it at that.

In terms of activity tracking, the FR15 displays a step count directly below the time when the watch is not in GPS mode. Using the bottom left button you can switch to viewing your daily step goal, distance covered (a rough estimate based on your steps – more on this in my Vivofit review), calories burned, or the date. Initially I found the FR15 consistently recorded fewer steps over the course of the day compared to my Vivofit, and I had it on my dominant hand (both devices record “steps” while doing things like brushing teeth so step counts are not perfect). The FR15 counts were sometimes several thousand steps short of what the Vivofit recorded:

After a few days of use I connected the FR15 to my computer to upload data and it notified me that a firmware update was available. One of the fixes was apparently a tweak to the tracker algorithms, and since the update the daily step totals between the two devices have been much closer (though the Vivofit tends to usually count slightly more).

My take would be that if you have a FR15, you don’t really need a Vivofit unless you want sleep tracking capability (supposedly sleep tracking is coming to the FR15 in a future firmware update according to DC Rainmaker). If you don’t have either then other considerations come into play (see below).

3. Heart Rate Monitor Sync. This is the other big plus for the FR15 over the FR10. The Forerunner 15 can be purchased with or without a heart rate monitor – if you already have an ANT+ heart rate monitor you can save some cash (MSRP is $199 with the HRM, $169 without). I’ve been using the FR15 with a Mio Link wrist-mounted heart rate monitor and it has worked flawlessly. I initially had some trouble figuring out how to get the watch to communicate with the HRM, but after reading the manual (brilliant!) I realized that during initial pairing you have to put the watch right up against the active monitor (see pairing instructions image below). Once that initial pairing is made the watch will recognize the HRM the moment it is turned on. Heart rate data shows up as a third data screen during your workouts and displays heart rate and heart rate zone.

The FR15 will also sync with a foot pod if you have one, but I have not tested that since I rarely use a foot pod.

4. Size/Form Factor. The Forerunner 15 comes in two sizes – large and small. I have the large version, and compared to other GPS watches I have owned it is still a pretty sleek watch. It could easily be used as an all-day watch, unlike my old Garmin 205 which was like a brick on my wrist.

The FR15 is available in a lot of colors, so there are plenty of options to choose from for both the guys and the gals:

5. Menu Simplicity. I loved the menu system in the FR10, and it’s largely the same in the FR15. The FR15 has 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 which also functions to change the data displayed below the time of day when not in GPS mode (steps, calories, distance, etc.), and bottom right is the button you use to pull up and scroll menus and data screens.

Menus include a History menu that allows you to view your data from each run, your daily step counts for the past week, and your records (fastest mile, 5K, 10K, Half-Marathon, and Marathon distances; also longest run).

There is a Run Options menu that lets you program run-walk intervals (this would be great for my beginner 5K group runners!), set a virtual pacer, and configure heart rate alerts, auto pause and data display screens. You can also choose to set auto-lap each mile or turn the bottom left button into a manual lap button.

The Settings menu lets you set an alarm, configure the activity tracker, set your language and distance unit preferences, and configure your user profile (age, gender, weight, height, max heart rate).

6. Battery Life. This is more something I like relative to the FR10 than something I like in general. The FR15 gets a little boost in battery life from 5 to 8 hours in GPS mode. Both watches will more than handle a marathon for me, and now the FR15 might get me through a 50K. But the bigger issue is that the longer battery life means I can go a few extra workouts between charges. More importantly, for an entry level watch that may see people through 5-hour plus marathons, the FR15 is a safer bet to last the full race than the FR10.

7. Garmin Connect Data Consolidation. I mentioned this in my Vivofit review as well – even though I’m not super crazy about Garmin Connect, it is nice to be able to upload and store all of my run data and daily step data in one place. Cuts down on the clutter in my digital life!

Things I Don’t Like About the FR15

1. Limited Data Fields. The FR15 limits you to two data screens, each of which displays two data fields (a third data screen appears when a heart rate monitor is synced). On the plus side, 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.

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. All of this is the same between the FR10 and FR15.

For the vast majority of my runs the lack of added fields isn’t a big deal. Most of the time pace and distance are sufficient. It’s only on runs where I’m doing something like an interval workout on the track where I like to have a lap screen that shows lap time, lap pace, lap distance, etc. That’s where a higher-end watch like the Garmin 620 with up to 4 configurable data fields per screen shines.

2. Can’t Create Workouts. Really the only two features that keep me from going to a basic watch like the FR15 are the limited data field options and the inability to create custom workouts. I understand that added features come with a higher-end watch, so this isn’t really a complaint. A lot of the other features of a watch like the FR620 are fun, but aren’t really essential to my daily needs (e.g., running dynamics, VO2max estimate, etc.).

3. Satellite Sync Speed. It’s not as fast as my 620 at locking satellites, but seems faster than my old 205. Not really a big deal.

Things About Which I Am Indifferent

1. No Wireless Sync. To upload data from the FR15 to your computer you must do so via a USB cord. I’d like to say that one of the things I like best about my Garmin 620 is the wireless data upload. In reality, my 620 has had intermittent luck at best with uploading run data via wifi. More often than not the watch can’t seem to recognize my home wifi network.

On the other hand, my Garmin Vivofit has no trouble uploading data wirelessly via ANT+ to my computer or Bluetooth to my phone. It’s very handy, especially for a device that has a battery that is supposed to last a year. The reality with devices like the FR15 and FR620 is that they have to be charged at regular intervals anyway, so uploading via USB cord really isn’t a big deal – I just do it whenever they need a charge.

So Which Device Should I Buy?

The big question with a device like the Garmin FR15 is whether you should choose it over a basic activity tracker like the Vivofit, or over a more expensive watch like the Garmin 220 or 620. Here’s my take.

If you only want activity tracking and have no interest in GPS…

Get the Garmin Vivofit. It does a great job tracking steps and the incredible battery life is a huge plus over any current GPS watch on the market. Plus, it does sleep tracking if you care about that (I personally do not, though sleep tracking is supposedly coming soon to the FR15).

You can read my Garmin Vivofit review here.

If you want basic GPS functionality and don’t care about activity tracking or heart rate monitoring…

Get a Garmin FR10. It does almost everything the FR15 does minus activity tracking and heart rate monitoring. However, it has a slightly shorter battery life, so if you are planning to run a marathon and it may take longer than 5 hours, the FR15 is a safer bet to get you through the race.

You can read my Garmin Forerunner 10 review here.

If you want activity tracking and might someday want GPS…

Get the Garmin FR15. It tracks steps as well as the Vivofit, and the GPS will fill the needs of the majority of runners. Plus, for $40 more than the FR10 you gain the possibility of heart rate monitor integration and a built in activity tracker ($70 more if you want the HRM included). Unless you really need lots of screen customization options and the ability to create complex workouts that can be uploaded to the watch you won’t need much more than what the FR15 can do. You will have to charge the device far more often than a Vivofit, but how often will depend on how frequently you use the GPS (the FR15 is spec’d at 5 weeks or so of battery life in non-GPS mode).

If you want extensively customizable data screens, workout configurations, and other bells and whistles…

Get the Garmin 220 or 620. I have the latter and probably don’t need the vast majority of features that it offers. I got it mainly so I could play with the running dynamics features, and though they are interesting they’re probably not going to benefit most people (not sure I know what to do with a lot of the data it provides!). Though I haven’t used it myself, I’d say the 220 is probably the better choice if your budget is tight and a basic GPS watch like the FR15 isn’t enough for you. I should have a review of the Garmin 620 written soon.

Purchasing Options

The Garmin Forerunner 15 is available for purchase at my affiliate partner Clever Training (as are the other devices mentioned above). 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!

In general I loved the Fitbit Ultra, but as a distance runner one of my biggest problems with the device was that although it captured my walking steps well, it did a poor job of counting steps while running (it would always undercount by a significant margin). After some experimentation I determined that this seemed to be related to its location on my waistband – running with it strapped to my wrist yielded far better results. Given this, I decided that my new fitness tracker had to be a wrist-mounted model, and thus the clip-style Fitbit One and Fitbit Zip were out as replacement options. I knew there would be more potential for measuring random movements as steps with a device on my wrist, and that it wouldn’t handle step counting well while pushing my son in a stroller or while mowing the lawn, but as a runner the tradeoff of more accurately capturing my steps on runs would be worth it.

I narrowed my options down to three: Fitbit Flex, Fitbit Force, or the Garmin Vivofit. I quickly eliminated the Flex due to the lack of a step/data display. I like to be able to see my numbers. The Fitbit Force was appealing since I was already in the Fitbit ecosystem, but it had just been recalled since the band had a tendency to cause a skin rash in some people. That left the Garmin Vivofit, which had just been released.

I bought the Garmin Vivofit within a few weeks of its release earlier this year, and have been using it continuously since. I’ve been using Garmin GPS watches for years, so I’m as tied into the Garmin Connect ecosystem as I was into Fitbit (probably moreso). As a result, the change was easy. Overall I have been very impressed, though the device does have a few quirks which I’ll outline below.

Things I Like About the Garmin Vivofit

1. The Screen. I love having a fitness tracker that has an easy-to-read screen located in plain view on my wrist. It gives me a constant reminder of how active I’ve been on a given day. And the Vivofit screen has a little red bar across the top that slowly grows during periods of inactivity – a good reminder to get off your butt and move around a bit to make the bar go away.

2. Battery Life. Unlike my old Fitbit, the Vivofit does not require regular recharging. Garmin claims the battery will last for a year before needing to be replaced (it uses easily replaceable coin cell batteries). I’ve been using mine daily since March and have not had to replace the battery yet – so far, so good!

3. Run Step Tracking. The Vivofit seems to do a much better job of tracking run steps than my old Fitbit Ultra. I think placement on the wrist is the key here and I suspect any wrist mounted device will outperform a waist clip, at least based on how I move. I’m now much more confident that the device gives a good relative estimate of my level of activity on a given day.

4. Clock. It’s a small thing, but I like that the Vivofit can display time-of-day and can thus double as a watch.

5. Heart Rate Monitor Integration. I love the fact that the Vivofit can sync with ANT+ heart rate monitors. I’ve been using mine with a Mio Link wrist mounted HRM (review coming soon!) and have loved the combo. I have them side-by-side on the same wrist (see photo below) and it lets me have a continuous readout of my heart rate on one wrist while my Garmin 620 displays pace/distance/time etc. on the other wrist (I’m a bit of a gadget junkie!).

My one issue with using a heart rate monitor with the Vivofit is that while it is synced it records an activity. Since I always record my runs with a GPS watch this leads to two versions of each activity being uploaded to Garmin Connect (and thus needing to delete the Vivofit version). Not sure if there is a way to turn of activity syncing with the Vivofit, I only want the daily step data to upload – if you know, I’d appreciate a tip in the comments! I suppose the easy answer would be to just sync the HRM with the watch instead of the Vivofit, but this lets me keep HR constantly visible on the Vivofit while using the GPS watch for other data fields (I’m difficult like that).

6. Wireless Sync. The Vivofit can sync either with a computer via a USB ANT+ receiver (using Garmin Express software) or with a smartphone via Bluetooth. I like the fact that I don’t have to take the device off my wrist to sync my data – with the Fitbit this would often lead to me forgetting to put it back on, sometimes for days at a time.

7. Clasp. In four months of use I think the Vivofit has only been pulled off my wrist twice, both times because the clasp got caught on something. The clasp stays put very well for me and no risk so far of the Vivofit falling into the toilet (unfortunately this seems to be a common complaint about clip-based fitness trackers that attach to a waistband!). I should also note that the Vivofit comes with two different sized bands to customize fit to your wrist. You can also buy replacement Vivofit wristbands in different colors. If you’re concerned about the Vivofit falling off, you can also buy clasp fasteners to help secure the connection.

8. Waterproof. I would never have taken my Fitbit Ultra into the shower or for a swim in the lake. No problem doing either with the Vivofit.

9. Garmin Connect Data Consolidation. Garmin has recently overhauled the Garmin Connect website. I initially wasn’t crazy about it, but it’s getting better (I think I still like the old site better). What I do like though is that since I have been a long time user of Garmin GPS watches, I now have all of my fitness data located in one place (daily steps + run data). The more I can simplify my digital life, the better! Garmin Connect offers lots of ways to visualize your data, but mostly I’m just interested in daily and monthly activity counts:

10. Garmin Connect App. The Garmin Connect app on my iPhone syncs with the Vivofit via Bluetooth. This is handy since it allows me to download step data if I’m away from my computer (and the USB ANT+ stick). You can also view your data in the app:

Things I Don’t Like About the Garmin Vivofit

1. Movement/Tracking Sensitivity. Whereas I felt like the Fitbit Ultra missed steps frequently, particularly on runs, I feel like the Vivofit is a bit overly sensitive to non-step movement. For example, I often get a hundred or more “steps” when I brush my teeth. I switched the Vivofit to my non-dominant left wrist to combat this. Conversely, a wrist mounted tracker performs less well if you are pushing a lawnmower or baby carriage since your wrist will not be moving as much. Ultimately, I don’t expect fitness trackers to be 100% perfect, and the value for me is more in providing a relative estimate of my activity from day to day than in providing an exact measure of my steps. I’ll take the improved run step tracking over the extraneous “step” measurements since a large proportion of my steps each week occur on runs (though I do spend a lot of time mowing my lawn each week…).

2. Distance Tracking Accuracy. I don’t consider this to be a fault of the Vivofit, but rather a problem with any accelerometer-based tracking device. Though the Vivofit will convert your step counts into a distance equivalent, it will not be nearly as accurate as a GPS device if you are interested in workout distances (hence why I use a GPS watch like my Garmin Forerunner 620 for runs), particularly for running. The main reason is that distance covered over a given period of time is a function of step rate and step length, and both change as a function of speed, incline, decline, etc. The distance estimate from a device like this should be considered just that – an estimate.

As an example of problems with distance measures recorded by a device like the Vivofit, I ran a 5 mile run last week (measured by Gmap Pedometer) up to the top of a ridge in Maine and back down. My GPS watch recorded almost exactly 5 miles, whereas the Vivofit recorded the same run as only 4.4 miles, probably since my stride length and cadence varied dramatically on the up vs. down portions. I pushed the pace hard on the donwhill as well and probably covered quite a bit of distance with each step. A device like the Vivofit will likely be more accurate for walking distance than running unless you do all of your miles at roughly the same pace on relatively flat ground (or on a treadmill at a consistent pace).

3. No Backlight. Really not a big deal, but a backlight would be a nice addition to a future model.

4. Stair Counting. I kind of liked that the Fitbit Ultra counted stairs climbed each day. The Vivofit does not do this, but honestly I can’t say that I miss the feature enough for it to really bother me. The only steps I tend to encounter each day are the flight up to my bedroom or the flight down to my basement fridge (location of my IPA stash).

Things About Which I Am Indifferent

1. Sleep Tracking. You can put the Vivofit into sleep mode by pressing and holding the button until the word “Sleep” appears on the screen. It will record your movements while you sleep. Personally, I almost never use this, but if it’s something you’re interested in the option is available. I can usually tell how well I slept the previous night by how many cups of coffee I need to get me going the next morning.

2. Daily Goal. The Vivofit adjusts your daily target for steps based on recent activity levels. This could be a good motivator to keep active and push your limits, but I honestly haven’t made much use of the step goal determined by the watch. This might change during the winter when I’m not actively training for a race and my daily step counts tend to be much lower.

Conclusion

I have been extremely happy with my Garmin Vivofit so far. It’s been on my wrist almost every day since March, and I’ve found it to be a big improvement over my old Fitbit Ultra (may it rest in peace, wherever it is…). I love the screen, battery life is excellent, and the ability to sync it with a heart rate monitor is a great feature for me as a runner. Being able to consolidate all of my fitness data on Garmin Connect has also been nice. I highly recommend the Vivofit!

Update –I have now posted a review of the Garmin Forerunner FR15. The FR15 is an entry-level GPS watch that does step counting just like the Vivofit. If you want a device that combines activity tracking, heart rate monitor sync, and GPS tracking the FR15 is definitely worth a look!

Purchasing Options

The Garmin Vivofit and associated accessories are available for purchase at Amazon.com. The Vivofit 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 Garmin Vivofit 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!

I’ve had the FR 620 since Christmas, but have not spent much time using it yet since I fell in love with the Magellan Echo + iSmoothRun App combo. Now that my Echo review is done, I’ve transitioned to using the 620 again (with the Echo on the opposite wrist) and thought I’d take a peek at my recorded runs to see if any GPS track anomalies might be found. Furthermore, I also wanted to hear if anyone else who reads this blog has had issues with accuracy on their device.

In looking at my run maps on Garmin Connect, I will say that most of the time the 620 seems to record my tracks accurately. However, there are times when I have noted that it seems to lose track of itself for a bit and the tracks look a bit funny. For example, a look at the track below would suggest that I took a detour up a hill through the woods to the right, then crossed back over the road for a dip in (frozen) Snow Pond, and then drunkenly made my way back to the road near the intersection of Shaker Road and Snow Pond Road:

The entire stretch of road here is tree lined on both sides, though the part where the track deviates from the road is at a lower elevation and is bordered by a large forested hill to the right. Perhaps being stuck between a pond and a big hill has some effect?

In fairness, I ran the same route the next day with the 620 and it recorded accurately, so maybe it was just having a bad Wednesday:

Below are two iSmoothRun (iPhone app) track recordings for the same stretch (on different days) – both are rock solid:

Below are two maps from a run I did last weekend where I had both the 620 and iSmoothRun recording at the same time. The 620 recording is on the left, the iPhone recording is on the right.

Note that shortly after the 1-mile mark the track recorded by the 620 deviates from the road until about the 2 mile mark. Interestingly, the track appears to be the right shape, but it’s as if that entire segment was shifted south a bit. The rest of the recording is solid. Once again, the track recorded by the iPhone is dead-on the entire time. This particular route is a flat neighborhood, not a lot of thick forest or tall buildings or anything like that. The only thing in common with the Snow Pond run above is that the area just above the mile 4 marker is a wetland with a stream. I read somewhere that water bodies can mess with GPS tracks, can’t recall where that was, and no idea if that might have anything to do with the anomaly.

Here’s a blow-up of the 620 track showing me running through backyards and detouring through living rooms:

Again, in fairness, I should point out that I have run this neighborhood on other occasions with the 620 and the recording has been accurate:

And here’s another where there was a more moderate southward shift of the track in the same spot:

So what can I conclude from this? I’d say not much yet given the small sample of runs that I have to work with so far. The 620 seems to be accurate most of the time, but it also has moments where it seems to hiccup a bit. This is probably something that happens with most GPS devices on occasion depending on satellite connections, environmental interference, etc. The occasional lapse does not concern me too much since I expect that a watch on my wrist talking to a satellite orbiting the planet in outer space (just think about that for a second!) will occasionally have issues (as my Garmin 205 did during the Hartford Marathon, really bad timing there…). The question ultimately be how frequently these issues occur and how bad they are.

Given that Garmin has acknowledged an issue with the 620 and has pushed a software update (I just updated my unit yesterday) there is some reason for concern given that this watch costs $399. I’d say it’s worth keeping an eye on your 620 if you have one, and report accuracy issues to Garmin if you feel they are happening too frequently. I plan to keep an eye on my tracks going forward as I put the 620 to everyday usage, and will report if I frequently see issues like the ones posted above (I’m especially curious if the update makes a difference, off to run that same neighborhood right now!).

How about you – if you have a Garmin 620 have you noticed any accuracy issues?

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!

For example, I received a Garmin Forerunner 620 for Christmas. The Garmin 620 is unique among Garmin watches in that it adds in the ability to measure a slew of new variables as part of the new “running dynamics” suite collected by the HRM-Run monitor that pairs with the watch. I’ve only just started playing with the 620 (loving it so far, hopefully will get a first impressions post up soon), but I’m not yet sure what to make of the data it provides me.

Here’s an example data summary from a run from a few days ago:

First off, there’s no way my max heart rate hit 188bpm on that run – it was a slow run with my dog on very icy and wet surfaces – sometimes we need to be aware that these devices make mistakes.

In addition to standard heart rate data, the watch spits out data on Training Effect, Cadence, Vertical Oscillation, and Ground Contact Time.

Very cool stuff, but my questions are:

A) How accurate are these measures?
B) What is the practical significance of this data for a runner like me?
C) How do the data vary with things like speed, terrain, footwear, etc.?
D) What are the normal ranges observed for these data (is there even a “normal”)?
E) If I am way out of the normal range for any of them, is there any compelling benefit to making a change?
D) If I need to make a change, what’s the best way to do so?
F) Is there any risk associated with making a change?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a data geek, and being able to play with this stuff excites me. One of my goals for the coming weeks is to experiment with the watch and see how the numbers change with various conditions. I also hope to dig into the scientific literature a bit on a few of these variables and see what I can come up with that might be of practical value to everyday runners. But right now they mostly represent a curiosity (maybe with the exception of cadence, which I have a pretty good handle on).

The issue I have with some of the tech coming out is that complex biomechanical information may get overly simplified to the point where it loses meaning, or may actually do harm. To give an example, Techcrunch recently posted and article on the topic of health tech, and in it they feature the new Sensoria Smart Socks. The Sensoria socks contain textile sensors that can measure foot contact location, and they are thus able to give real-time feedback on foot strike (see Sensoria app image at left).

As someone who works in a clinic doing gait analysis, I can see value in a gadget like this (if it works well) for a client a who has a very good reason to consider altering their foot strike and needs something to help keep them on task.

But, my worry is when you see a line like this one in the Techcrunch article: “The Sensoria smart sock correctly diagnosed that I make the runner’s rookie mistake of heel striking, leading to a workout-stopping knee pain.”

I’m not sure I’d call heel striking a “runner’s rookie mistake,” nor do I think we have any strong evidence to say across the board that heel striking is bad or causes knee pain. What’s more, moving from a heel strike to a forefoot strike poses some amount of risk due to the changes in lower extremity loading that occur. Given that runners often tend to be overly enthusiastic (to put it nicely!) with things that promise performance improvement or injury prevention, the opposite result may be just as likely: The Sensoria tells you you’re a heel striker, you actively try to change that quickly because you think heel striking is evil, and you wind up breaking your foot or shredding your calves.

The point here is that if the Sensoria works as indicated, it could be a very cool tool under the right circumstances, but my fear is that in reality it will be a tool used needlessly to get people to change form who would be better off just staying with what works for them.

So, to end this rant, I’ll say that I’m as excited as anyone about the tech on the way. It allows us to measure things (or at least estimate things since accuracy may not be perfect) affordably that could previously only have been measured in a high-tech lab. But, lets not get overly enthusiastic about the stuff we measure until we have a good understanding of what it is telling us and what the practical meaning of such data is.

A Twitter friend suggested I try the optional velcro strap, so I went ahead and ordered one from Amazon. In reading the Amazon reviews, there was some concern about the pins that hold the strap on, and it was suggested that buying a set of 19mm spring pins would make things more secure. I bought a pair of those as well.

All relevant pieces have now arrived, and last night I attached the new watch band. At first I thought I had the wrong band because I didn’t realize you had to pull a little plastic anchor off before installing the new ones that came with the velcro strap (anchors are the little black plastic things in the photo below). After a bit of cursing and a quick trip to YouTube I figured out my error and got back to work.

The first step is to attach the new anchors, which is pretty easy once you push/pull out the pins and get all of the parts of the old band removed (a handy tool is included with the velcro strap). I should note that the tool in the image below (taken from the Amazon page for the 610 strap) is not the same as the one that actually comes with the velcro strap, nor are the pins. The velcro strap comes with 4 straight pins that don’t have spring tips, and the tool only has a single tapered point at the tip for pushing the straight pins through the holes.

This is what comes with the velcro strap – straight pins (4 total) and a different tool:

My impression of the anchors that come with the velcro strap is that they are made of a harder plastic material and seem more durable than those at the end of the original wristband, which almost seem rubbery and pliable. It took a bit of effort to get the pins through to anchor them, and I can’t imagine them coming loose.

The second set of pins included with the velcro strap are threaded through a second set of holes in the anchors and through a fabric loop on the strap to hold it in place. These pins did not fit as snugly, and I was concerned that they would slide out over time. This is where the set of spring pins that I bought separately come in. They fit perfectly and popped into place with what feels like a nice, secure fit (note, I initially thought the spring pins were to be used to attach the anchors, but they do not fit through that set of holes – this led to another bout of cursing until I figured it out).

Now that everything is assembled the band seems quite secure, and it fits comfortably. I used to use velcro straps with my old Timex stopwatches, so the fabric band is not a problem for me, though they do tend to take a bit of time to dry after being wet. The kit comes with both a long and a shorter band, I chose the longer band and it is almost too big for my wrist, so I suspect it will accommodate most people.

Here’s hoping this band holds up better than the original!

I got tired of having to cart around two watches, one for all day wear and another for workouts, so I decided late last year to upgrade to the Garmin 610. I asked Santa to bring one to me for Christmas (meaning my wife, meaning me ordering it and giving it to her to wrap up…). Sure enough, the 610 was under the tree on Xmas morning, and I’ve been using it almost non-stop over the past 10 months.

I have mixed feelings about this watch. I mostly love it, but there are a few things that I find rather frustrating, which I’ll get to below.

Rather than going into exceptional detail about what the watch can do (which would simply involve me regurgitating the feature list on the FR610 info page on the Garmin website), I’ll simply say that as one of Garmin’s top tier watches it does almost everything a runner would need. Lots of data screens, lots of customization possibilities for data fields, easily readable screen, HR monitor and foot pod integration, and so on. I have not found the watch features lacking in any way when it comes to my needs as a runner. (For a crazy detailed review of watch features, you can also check out DC Rainmaker’s FR610 review)

The approach I’ll take to this review is to keep things simple and discuss what I really like about the watch, and what I don’t like. Here goes:

Likes

1. Small Size. The Forerunner 610 is much, much smaller than my old FR205. It’s small enough that I can actually use it comfortably as an all day watch without looking like a total running geek with a giant GPS device on my wrist. The 610 was on my wrist 24/7 until recently, when the wristband suddenly broke (more on this below).

Garmin FR610 (left) and FR205 (right) – note the missing wristband on the bottom of the 610, waiting on a replacement!

2. Fast Satellite Acquisition. The FR610 acquires satellites very quickly, particularly if you tend to start each run from the same location. It’s faster than my 205, and this means less time standing in the road with my dog barking at me because he’s ready to run and I’m staring at the sky searching for satellites (I don’t know why I do this, it’s not like I can actually see them).

3. Solid Tracking. I have found both real-time pace and distance tracking to be rock-solid. This is criterion number one for me in a GPS watch, and I trust that data coming from the 610 without hesitation (recognizing the inherent limitations of GPS data).

4. Wireless Upload. I love the fact that the watch shoots data to Garmin Connect wirelessly via a USB ANT+ sensor. Since I’m not always great about downloading workouts, this makes my life just tiny bit easier.

5. SportTracks Sync. Garmin watches play nicely with SportTracks, which is the software I use to log all of my runs. I don’t like having to take extra steps as required with Timex watches and some other brands, and this is one of those other small things that makes me happy and saves a few seconds of my time.

6. Screen Customization Options. You can customize up to 4 data screens, each of which can hold up to 4 data fields. Data field options include everything I could want, and this watch gives me the ability to replicate the screens I used for years on the 205. The screen is smaller than that of the 205, so when you use 4 fields the text is a bit small, but I have not had issues reading the data on the run.

All of the above make for a nearly ideal GPS watch that does everything I need it to do and a whole lot more that I didn’t cover here, since I mostly don’t use the other stuff (things like back-to-start navigation, virtual pacer, etc.). However, there are two biggish issues that make the watch fall short of perfection. Neither is a deal-breaker in my opinion, but they are things that should be mentioned.

Dislikes

1. The Touch Screen. I’ll take a good set of navigation buttons (like those on the Timex Run Trainer 2.0) over the touch screen of the FR610 any day. The main problem with the touch screen on the 610 is that it is not particularly responsive. I typically have to drag my finger across the screen with a dramatic flourish to get it to do what I want. And, most of the time, this results in me pressing the wrong menu item unless I get the pressure just right. This is probably one of the reasons why I’ve resisted really getting into some of the more advanced features of the watch. I have it set to do what I need, and I avoid navigating the menus as much as possible.

On the plus side, the low sensitivity of the touch screen means that it does not often switch screens accidentally (once in awhile it’ll switch data screens if I brush it against a sweaty shirt, but that’s pretty rare). It also does not experience issues when wet – I ran the Vermont City Marathon in May with the 610 in a pretty steady rain and had no issues. Also no issue showering with the watch on (though I generally don’t use the GPS functions in the shower…). The sequel to the 610 (the soon-to-arrive Garmin Forerunner 620) supposedly has an improved touch screen so hopefully that will remedy the issue.

2. The Wristband. I was standing in the lobby of my office the other day chatting with our office manager and heard a thud. I looked at the ground, and there was my 610 sitting on the floor with the wristband broken off from the body of the watch on one side. I picked it up and it was clear that there was no way it was going to be re-attached – the connecting piece is made of softish plastic and had loosened to the point where the pins no longer secured it. I posted a photo on FB and Twitter and got many, many responses from other 610 owners who had experienced the exact same issue. It appears to be a design flaw with the watch. I proceeded to contact Garmin customer service, and they responded promptly that they would send out a replacement band (still waiting to receive it).

My Sad, Broken FR610 Awaiting a New Wristband

I have heard from several people that they have gone through multiple bands on their 610, so I’m not confident the replacement will be a long-term fix. I was given another tip that Garmin has an optional velcro wristband for the 610 that works much better, but that to get it to work you need to buy a set of 19mm spring pins since the ones that come with the velcro band don’t work too well. What a mess! Anyway, I just ordered the velcro band from Amazon for $18.75, and a set of 19mm spring pins for $4.50. Sucks that I have to pay extra to make the watch work, but better than giving up on a $300+ piece of technology. I will report back on how the new band works (Update 10/16/2013 – I now have the velcro strap and have installed it, you can read about it here).

Velcro Band for the Garmin FR610

Conclusion

So there you have it. The FR610 is a mostly great GPS watch that can be worn all day, but has a few flaws that hold it back from perfection. I can mostly live with the touch screen, but the watch band is an issue that just should not happen for an item at this price point. Should the velcro band solve the problem, I’ll be content, and with the 620 coming I’m guessing we will soon see a price drop on the 610 so buying the watch plus the velcro band will likely cost less than the original MSRP (the price has dropped to $309.99 at Clever Training.

Garmin Forerunner 610 Purchasing Options

The Garmin Forerunner 610 is currently on sale for $219.99 at my affiliate partner 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.

The Garmin FR610 is also available at Amazon.com.

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

I’ve tried a few products that were “almost there” in terms of being ground-breaking fitness devices – the Motorola MotoACTV is a good example. It was a touch-screen fitness watch and GPS tracker that was the closest thing I have seen to a smartphone fit into a watch-sized package. Unfortunately it suffered from some fatal flaws that made it come up well short of its revolutionary potential (lack of waterproofing of the headphone jack and poor battery life being a huge ones! – as far as I’m aware the MotoACTV has been discontinued).

Just this weekend I got an email from Garmin announcing the Forerunner 220 and 620 fitness watches. I watched the following video and have to say that I’m intrigued.

At first I though these might just be prettier, sleeker, color touch-screen screen versions of the Forerunner 610 (my current everyday GPS watch), but in watching the video they seem to be something a bit more than that. In particular, the ability of the FR620 to measure/estimate certain aspects of running physiology and parameters of the running gait jumped out at me.

I followed up with the Garmin rep and he indicated that they would be willing to loan me a sample to try out and return, so hopefully I’ll have my hands one a 620 soon to play around with some of these features and report back. If it lives up to expectations, I may be upgrading from my 610 in the not too distant future!

In the meantime, below is a summary of the features of the two watches, with some additional thoughts.

First, new features in the Garmin Forerunner 620 and 220 as compared to the 610:

1. Thinner and lighter than the 610. I wear the 610 as my all-day watch, and I like that GPS watches continue to get smaller.

2. Color screen. Self explanatory.

3. Built in accelerometer. The watch itself contains an accelerometer that can estimate speed and distance (the Motorola MotoACTV had this feature). My presumption is that this operates by counting steps in a manner similar to the Fitbit Flex or other wrist-mounted step counters. This could be handy on a treadmill, but probably won’t work if you are pushing a jogging stroller (i.e., when your hands are stationary – the MotoACTV did not count steps when I was pushing my son in his stroller), and accuracy will not be nearly as good as the GPS. But, this feature saves the trouble of having to have a separate foot pod.

4. Bluetooth Enabled. Allows direct upload of workouts through the Garmin Connect Mobile app on a paired smartphone. Also allows for real time tracking of a runner via Livetrack if they are carrying their paired phone with them while they are running. This seems like a pretty cool safety feature. Could also be handy for those crewing runners in an Ultra, though battery life may limit it’s utility in this application.

5. Battery life estimated at 6 weeks in watch-mode, 10 hours with GPS enabled (should be good for distance up to 50K).

6. MSRP for the 620 is $399 without the accelerometer outfitted HRM-Run monitor (see below), $459 with. So $50 more expensive than the FR610 currently sells for in those two packages. The 220 is $249 for the watch, $299 with the standard HRM, so $100 cheaper than the FR610.

The Forerunner 620 has a number of additional features not found on the 220:

1. Enhanced Touchscreen. The 620 has a touchscreen that Garmin claims can be operated even when wearing running gloves, so sounds like it will be more responsive than the woefully difficult to operate touchscreen on the 610. The 220 is operated via buttons (not a touchscreen).

2. Wifi Upload. The 620 can be synced with Wifi networks to upload workouts to Garmin Connect (thus no need for a USB dongle for wireless uploads like with the 610?). Apparently with each sync the next 7 days of satellite data are loaded to the watch to speed up GPS satellite signal acquisition time.

2. VO2max Calculation. I’m curious about this feature. Garmin claims that they can estimate VO2max using data on speed, heart rate, and heart rate variability. They are using calculations produced by a company called Firstbeat, who has published a number of papers on estimating physiological variables from heart rate data. I’m very interested to try this out given that I have had my VO2max calculated using the traditional laboratory based method (running on a treadmill with a mask on till I feel like I’m about to die). I can put the watch to the test and see just how close it comes to my lab-based measure.

3. HRM-Run Heart Rate Monitor. The heart rate monitor that can be purchased with the FR620 has an accelerometer built-in, and can also measure heart rate variability. Garmin claims that it can determine how well you are recovered for your workouts by using the HRM-Run – I presume this is based again on algorithms from Firstbeat, most likely heart rate variability. I haven’t read any of the literature on HR variability as an indicator of training stress, but it seems to be gaining popularity.

4. Running Gait Measurements. The accelerometer in the FR620’s HRM-Run monitor can apparently calculate/estimate ground contact time and vertical oscillation (see readout on watch below). This is perhaps the thing I’m most excited to try out. I’m curious how accurate it is, but if it works reasonably well it could be a great tool for gait training.

I’m hoping to have a loaner in the next few weeks, and will try to get some initial thoughts posted as soon as I have it in hand.

Both the Garmin Forerunner 620 and 220 are available for purchase at my affiliate partner, Clever Training. Clever Training offers Runblogger readers 10% off selected purchases with the code RunBlogXJT.

Below is the feature comparison chart for the two watches: