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?

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.

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!

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!

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:

Last year I was contacted by Timex about trying the Run Trainer GPS 1.0. They sent me a sample, but I had nothing but trouble with it. It was not intuitive to use (took me forever to even figure out how to start a workout!), and the watched crashed on me on at least three occasions, all of which required reinstallation of the firmware to get it working again. I wound up not using it enough to be able to formulate any kind of meaningful review.

Several months ago Timex contacted me again to ask if I’d be interested in trying out the Run Trainer 2.0. Given my experience with the original, I was interested to see how they might have improved the watch (simply functioning consistently would have been a solid improvement!). I’ve now used the Run Trainer 2.0 on and off for a few months, and now feel comfortable formulating a review. (Disclosure: this product was a media review sample provided free of charge by Timex)

I’ll start by saying that the Run Trainer 2.0 (RT2) is a vast improvement over the original in terms of both design and functionality. I’d go so far as to say that if I didn’t already own a Garmin Forerunner 610, I’d be completely pleased with the RT2 as my go-to GPS watch.

Construction/Build

In terms of construction, the RT2 is a slightly smaller watch than the original, which makes it much more suitable for all-day wear. It also has a square watch-face vs. the somewhat oval face of the RT1:

Timex Run Trainer 2.0 (left), Run Trainer 1.0 (right – battery not charged, hence the blank screen)

Compared to the Garmin 610, the Run Trainer 2.0 is a bit thicker and the face appears to be just a bit larger, though that may be simply because it is square rather than round:

Timex Run Trainer 2.0 (left), Garmin Forerunner 610 (right)

I’m not crazy about the wristband of the Run Trainer 2.0. I find that when I get the watch wet the band irritates my skin and I have to take it off until it dries. It’s not terrible, and it might just be a sensitivity unique to me.

One of the things I really like about the RT2 are the buttons. The buttons on the original Run Trainer were difficult to press, and the buttons on the RT2 are much improved in this regard. In fact, I vastly prefer the button navigation system on the RT2 over the touch screen interface of my Garmin 610. The latter is very poorly implemented in my opinion, and is a gimmick more than anything else.

There are 5 buttons on the RT2 – rather than list what they do, here’s an image that shows them clearly labeled:

Menus/Navigation

Pressing the orange MENU/SELECT button brings up a screen with five options to choose from – the user interface is simple and very intuitive, much better than on both the previous Run Trainer and the Garmin FR610:

To start a workout you simply select “Chrono” and the watch asks if you’d like to search for sensors:

Sensor options for the Run Trainer 2.0 include GPS, an ANT+ heart rate monitor, and an ANT+ foot pod. The watch can be purchased with or without the heart rate monitor ($50 price difference), and an optional foot pod is available for purchase separately. I already have a Wahoo Fitness Stride Sensor, and was able to sync it with the Timex watch without a problem (the Wahoo Sensor is about $15 cheaper than the Timex foot pod at Clever Training).

Connecting to satellites is pretty quick, especially if you tend to start each run from the same spot. No complaints there for me.

Back on the menu screen, the “Interval” option allows you to start an interval workout, which is configurable in the watch settings (or in the Timex Device Agent software). “Review” lets you view data from workouts stored on the watch.

The “Settings” menu on the Run Trainer 2.0 lets you configure all kinds of stuff. A few of the configurable options include (it’s worth noting that all of these options are also configurable via the Timex Device Agent software if you prefer to not do it directly on the watch):

1. Hands Free – let’s you set auto-lap and auto-pause features. For auto-pause you can specify a threshold speed below which the watch will automatically go into pause mode. The watch gives a nice vibration/buzz with each lap.

2. Units – allows you to switch between miles and km, MPH vs. KPH, etc.

3. User Info – allows you to program in your height, weight, age, etc. I assume these are used to calculate calories burned.

4. Display – the RT2 provides three configurable screens for each workout mode, and on each screen you can choose to show 2 or 3 lines of data. You toggle between screens during a workout by pressing the lower left button on the watch. There are a ton of data field options to choose from, so data junkies will not be disappointed – options include:

5. Other configurable options include the ability to set pace and HR zones, nutrition alerts, an alarm, and an option to switch the screen from a traditional black on gray to gray on black:

Performance

When it comes to a GPS watch, the real test is how well it performs during a workout. My experience with the Run Trainer 2.0 has been positive, but there is one nagging issue that may not really be an issue. Let me explain.

Having been a Garmin user for a long time, I’m very used to the distance tracking on Garmin watches. Most other watches I have tried tend to report workout distances that are just a tad shorter than those recorded on my Garmins. This is the case with both of the Timex watches I have tried. The Run Trainer 2.0 consistently measures my runs about 1% shorter than my Garmin 610. I had the same issue with a Soleus GPS 1.0 watch and the Timex Run Trainer 1.0.

Now, I must admit that I don’t know whether the Garmins are measuring long, or the other watches are measuring short. It’s just that I’m used to the Garmins and all of my regular run mileposts have been set according to my Garmin watches. When I get to my 1-mile from home orange mailbox and the Timex doesn’t buzz it bugs me. I have major OCD when it comes to run distances, and I’m a bit obsessive about round numbers! When I reach mile 10 on my Garmin, I feel compelled to run the extra tenth of a mile to get the Timex to a round number as well. From a purely practical standpoint, 99% congruency between the watches is pretty darned good, so this is kind of a silly thing to nitpick about.

The other area where the Run Trainer falls short of the Garmin in terms of workout tracking is real time pace – I feel like my Garmin is more stable in this area.

Two other things to note about the watch as a workout tracker. First, battery life has been excellent for me. The battery specs indicate 8-hours of run time with the GPS enabled, more with the GPS off. I have found battery life to be more than sufficient, so unless you plan to run 50K or longer this watch should handle just about anything (battery life was a concern with the Garmin FR10 which I reviewed a few months ago).

Second, the watch does not store a lot of workouts. I was getting alerts about the memory being full quite often, and resorted to simply deleting a lot of older workouts since I had not been syncing regularly with my computer (I always wore my Garmin 610 simultaneously for comparison). If you don’t plan to upload workouts frequently this could become a problem.

Workouts on the Run Trainer are uploaded to Training Peaks via a USB cord and the Timex Device Agent software. I don’t use Training Peaks to track my workouts, so can’t comment much on that, but the Device Agent software works well. Here’s a capture of my Device Agent upload screen showing some workouts from the summer:

Once I download the run data, it gets stored in a TrainingPeaks folder in the “My Documents” folder on my PC. From there it’s pretty easy to import the workout files into SportTracks (my primary workout log software) – here’s a capture of the SportTracks workout upload interface:

One negative for me with the RT2 is that Timex devices are not supported by dailymile.com, which is the other place I store my runs.

Conclusion

I’ll finish off this review by summarizing the key pros and cons as I see them when comparing the Timex Run Trainer 2.0 to my everyday GPS watch, the Garmin Forerunner 610 (note: the Garmin Forerunner 210 might be the more direct competitor to the Run Trainer 2.0 given pricing, but I have not used it and thus cannot compare. It seems to differ mostly in offering fewer data field customization options.).

Pros-

1. Price – the Run Trainer 2.0 is is $75 cheaper than the FR610 if you buy it with the heart rate monitor, $125 cheaper if you already have an ANT+ HRM or don’t need one. Is the Forerunner 610 worth the extra money? If I was on a budget and was not already heavily invested in using Garmin Connect, I’d probably say no.

2. User Interface and Navigation – I vastly prefer the button interface and simplified menu system of the Run Trainer 2.0. The touchscreen on the FR610 is not particularly responsive and is a pain in the butt to use, especially when sweaty.

Cons-

1. Measures Slightly Short, Maybe – As I mentioned previously, I’m not sure which watch is correct, but the Run Trainer consistently measures routes about 1% shorter than the Garmin.

2. Pace – real-time pace seems less reliable to me on the Run Trainer 2.0

3. Data Screen Limitations – I like the ability to have 4 data fields on a screen on the FR610 (versus a max of 3 on the RT2), particularly for interval workouts. Not a deal breaker, but a preference for sure.

4. No Wireless Sync – I put this under cons because some people will prefer to have the wireless sync of the FR610. Personally, I have no problem syncing via USB, and it reminds me to charge the watch more frequently when I sync via a cord.

So there you have it – the Run Trainer 2.0 is a vast improvement over the original, and is a worthy competitor to some of the popular GPS watches produced by Garmin. What’s more, the price is reasonable for a small form-factor GPS watch with as many options as this one has. I’m glad I gave it a try!

The Timex Run Trainer 2.0 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 support this site and help me to write reviews like this one. Your support is very much appreciated!

This is why @dcrainmakerblog is the best: dcrainmaker.com/2013/06/garmin…

— Sara J (@sarajacobson) June 11, 2013

Intrigued, I followed the link and my world changed. The skies cleared up, birds started singing, and my 3 year old told me he really wanted to take a long, long nap later today. Really.

If you’re not familiar with DC Rainmaker, he writes the most comprehensive reviews of fitness electronics on the web. If you think my shoe reviews are long and detailed, read one of his GPS watch reviews and you’ll see that I pale in comparison.

Anyway, in his post Ray shows us how to upload workout data directly from an ANT+ enabled GPS device (mostly Garmin) to various tablets/mobile devices. Android, iOS devices, and Microsoft Surface are featured.

I was under the impression that I could only download my Garmin data to a computer. So, suppose I worked out away from home. I’d have to wait till I got back to my desktop computer before I could look at the data in detail and post it to dailymile. I could do it manually, but what fun is that when a solution that involves gadgets is available??? (yes, I am a gadget geek in addition to being a shoe geek…) Enter DC Rainmaker with a solution. And it just so happens that I have all the equipment needed to accomplish this little trick, so I decided to give it a go and report on my results here.

So here’s what I required to make this work:

1. An ANT+ enabled GPS watch. Check! I happen to use the Garmin FR610 as my regular workout watch, and it’s the same watch Ray used in his post. Watches that require a USB cable for data download will not work with iOS devices.

2. A Wahoo ANT+ sensor for iPhone/iPad. Check! The sensor is a little plug that allows the watch to communicate wirelessly with your iOS device. They sell for $48 at Amazon. I’ve had one of these for a long time, and used to use it to view my cadence data recorded by a stride sensor. I stopped using it once I realized I could get the cadence data from the stride sensor directly on my Garmin. Ray reports that the 30-pin Wahoo sensor works with a lightning adapter for newer iOS devices. I don’t have an adapter, so can’t try it.

3. The Wahoo Fitness app, already have it on my phone. Free download at iTunes.

4. My iPhone (I have an iPhone 4). Also works with iPads.

I miraculously managed to locate my Wahoo sensor in the depths of my desk drawer, plugged it in, and fired up the Wahoo Fitness app. All of the images that follow are direct screen captures from my iPhone.

Following Ray’s instructions I pressed the history button, clicked “Import from Garmin Watch,” and waited while the app searched for my FR610.

I waited quite awhile, and nothing was happening. I then looked at the screen again and noticed that the message at the bottom had changed:

Ray mentioned this step in his post, but I’m not good at following directions. Maybe a little voice alert in the app that says “Read Me You Idiot” would be a helpful addition… On the 610 I went to Menu—>Setup—>System—>Data Transfer and turned initial pairing on. That did the trick and my data transferred over. Not sure why there are so many iterations of a workout on June 8 at 11:02 AM…

I chose the first workout in the list and it started to upload the data.

Voila! The workout appeared on the app interface, and clicking on it I was able to view data from my run yesterday as well as a map and mile lap splits. Very cool!!!

Next, I tapped the little “Mail” button on the upper right and it brought up an option to configure sharing of workout data. Looks like there are 10 possible upload destinations:

Since I use dailymile, I clicked that and was greeted by my dailymile login screen. I filled in my info and arrived here:

A click of “Allow” and I was set to go. I returned to my workout page, clicked the “Mail” button on the upper right again, and clicked “Upload to dailymile.”

The app started to talk to dailymile, and in a few seconds the workout was uploaded.

Here’s what it looks like on dailymile.com:

Now, all this does is upload the GPS track and run data to dailymile. You can’t describe your workout, plug in shoe type, or participate in any of the social functions that dailymile allows. But, if your goal is simply to get the data uploaded, this little trick works really well. It does require that I have the ANT+ iPhone sensor nearby, which might be problematic unless I leave it in my car or tuck it in my wallet. My bet is I’d lose it before long, but that’s just me.

From a practical standpoint, how often will I use this method of data upload? Probably not very often since I’m now mostly working from home, but I could see using it while traveling. When I was working at the college I’d often run after work and manually input my data in the car before heading home so I wouldn’t forget. There’s another situation where it might come in handy.

Anyway, hope this helps those of you who are Garmin and dailymile users. And a huge thanks to DC Rainmaker for putting up the initial tutorial – love finding tricks like this!