Where you are less likely to see the Free 5.0 is at a running race. The reason is that the immense popularity of the shoe is tied more to it’s use for casual wear rather than for running. In terms of typical usage, it’s more of a fashion shoe than a running shoe.

I’ve been running in various versions of the Nike Free since 2009, and they have consistently been among my favorites. With their moderately thin, super-flexible soles, and minimally structured uppers, the Frees are intended to provide a more minimal, barefoot-inspired ride. Nike described them as a training tool to be used on occasion to strengthen the feet and legs. I tend to use them more as a lightweight trainer for shorter to moderate distance runs. And for that purpose they have served me very well.

The 5.0 is the most amply cushioned member of the Free collection. I’ve run in a few previous versions (it used to be called the Free Run+), but the 2014 model was a no-go for me due to a constricting band at the base of the lace rows. It dug into my foot and caused pain, an experience others with high-volume feet have reported as well. When I first saw the pictures of the 2015 version of the Free 5.0 it appeared that this band was gone, so I ordered a pair to give them a try. I’m glad I did as the problem has been fixed, and I’ve really enjoyed running in the shoes over the past several weeks.

Specs

Per Running Warehouse, the Nike Free 5.0 2015 weighs in at 7.6 oz in men’s size 9. Stack heights are 23mm heel, 15mm forefoot.

Upper and Fit

I’ll start by saying that the Free 5.0 is a ridiculously comfortable shoe, and I think this is part of what drives its popularity. Yes, they consistently look great. Yes, they come in a rainbow of colors. Yes, they have a swoosh on the side. But add in the fact that they feel like slippers on your feet and you have the makings of a bestselling shoe for the masses.

The 5.0 has a generous fit in the forefoot which is a major plus for the comfort factor. I think most people are used to wearing shoes that are a bit narrower – put on a shoe like the Free and you can feel the difference when your toes have a bit of room to move around. I almost always go up a half size in Nikes, and I did so in this shoe as well – the bit of extra space up front makes for an even roomier experience.

One of the things I’ve always loved about the Free shoes is that they lack a heel counter. In case you’re not familiar with the terminology, a heel counter is a firm, plastic insert located in the back of many shoes to give the heel region structure. In the Free 5.0 there is no counter at all, and this adds to the slipper-like experience. The lack of a heel counter is also one of the reasons why I often recommend the Free to people with insertional Achilles tendon issues that may be aggravated by a plastic counter in the heel.

The remainder of the upper is soft and flexible, and the interior is super comfortable and suitable for sockless wear. The laces are slightly offset to the side, and loop through flywire bands that help to lock the middle of the foot down. The mesh over the forefoot has a bit of give/stretch – very nice.

Overall, I’d go so far as to say that the Free 5.0 is the most comfortable shoe I have worn this year. I’m having a hard time keeping them off my feet!

Sole

The sole of the 5.0 has the characteristic siping grooves that are featured on all Nike Free shoes. The sipes make for an extremely flexible sole that bends and rolls with ease. Your foot will basically do what it wants in this shoe, which could be either a good thing or a bad thing. I love a minimally controlling shoe so they work very well for me, but they can also exaggerate foot movement in some cases. For example, I filmed my wife running in an older version of the Frees and the sole flexibility tended to exaggerate her pronation on one side (she has a bunion on one side and tends to cave some shoes during late-stage pronation).

Scientific studies have actually found that people transitioning to Frees can experience higher impact loading due to the reduced amount of cushion, and another study found that runners transitioning into Frees had higher injury rates than those transitioning into either the Nike Pegasus or Vibram Fivefingers. This points to the potential risk of a moderately cushioned shoe like the Free 5.0. There is enough cushion that it probably won’t stimulate a major change in your stride, but there is probably less cushion than you are used to having to deal with the impacts of running. As such, it is suggested that you use some caution when beginning to run in a shoe like the Free 5.0.

In terms of the ride, I find the Free 5.0 to be semi-firm with not a lot of rebound. It’s a smooth shoe due to the extreme flexibility of the sole, but it is not the most responsive shoe on the market. It’s not a shoe you would choose for your next 5K, and probably not the best choice for a marathon unless you have done extensive training in them. I prefer them for runs from about 3-10 miles. My max in the 5.0 2015 is a bit over eight miles in one run, and short of a few hot spots on the inside of my heels (not sure what caused this) they worked just fine.

A quick comment on durability. After about 30 miles of running and extensive casual wear the soles of the Free 5.0 look pretty good. The only exception is that one of the black outsole patches near the heel has worn down on one side to reveal a different colored rubber below (I’m a bit of a scuffer). I don’t expect this will be a problem from a functional standpoint, but you may not get hundreds of miles out of a shoe like this that has such a small amount of rubber on the sole.

Conclusion

The Nike Free 5.0 2015 is lightweight, flexible, and incredibly comfortable. If your sole reason for wanting them is for casual use, go out and get a pair right now, they are that good. For running, they aren’t fast and they aren’t super cushioned so not the best choice for an all-around trainer. But for short to moderate length runs where you want a very flexible, minimally controlling ride with some cushion they are a solid option. And if, like me, you couldn’t wear the 2014 version due to that tight band over the forefoot, rest assured that the problem has now been fixed.

The Nike Free 5.0 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse US, Running Warehouse EU, and Zappos. You can also customize a pair in whichever color combo you could imagine via Nike ID. Sales made through these links help to support this site – thanks!

The Zante is the third addition to the Fresh Foam collection (the FF Trail was released earlier this year). The Zante isn’t actually going to be available widely until next year (now available at Running Warehouse), but they released a special edition version of the shoe for the NYC Marathon. I purchased a pair and have put enough miles on them now to share some thoughts.

Specs

Stack Height: 6mm drop (I measure roughly 26-27mm heel, 21mm forefoot)

Weight: 7.5oz

To get an idea of how New Balance is positioning the Zante, here’s an excerpt from the description on their website:

“The Fresh Foam Zante NYC fits like a supportive sock, hugging your arch while allowing your toes to spread out comfortably. Compared to the original Fresh Foam 980, it’s sleek fit feels more like a racing flat. The toe spring helps the shoe look fast and feel fast, assisting with the quick transition of the foot from heel to toe.”

Unlike the marketing for the 980, I’d say they are pretty spot-on in describing the Zante. It’s like a sleeker, better fitting version of the 980, and I’ve really enjoyed running in them.

Upper and Fit

Compared to the 980, the both the upper and fit of the Zante are much improved. The front half of the upper is composed of a stretchy mesh that feels quite soft and stretchy. This allows for a much greater degree of toe wiggle than in the toe squishing toebox of the 980. It also feels as if there might be a tad more room up front, and the fit is near perfect on my average width foot (I did go a half size up as I did in the 980).

There is minimal structure to the upper over the forefoot, just a few welded overlays. One possible point of concern is that I am seeing some tearing of the upper just in front of the arch on my right foot (see image below). In fairness, I’m not sure if this is due to wear and tear from running, or if I might have snagged the upper on something. There is no evidence of tearing on the left shoe. I’d be interested to hear if anyone else has experienced this? I’m hoping I just snagged it as I’d hate to see an upper flaw ruin an otherwise solid shoe.

The back half of the upper is slightly thicker and more structured, and the heel counter, though present, is soft and very flexible. Internally, the Zante is soft and comfortable. I haven’t tried running sockless in them, but I’d be willing to try once things warm up where I live.

The tongue of the Zante is attached to the upper on both sides, giving the shoe a bootie-like construction. It hugs the foot nicely, and I’d have to say that this is one of the best uppers I have seen on a New Balance shoe in awhile.

I also want to add that I really like the look of the Zante – it’s not a flashy shoe, but the upper has a really nice design and the NYC colorway is pretty sweet.

Sole

This is where things get interesting. I’ve talked to a few other people who have run in the Zante and the comparison I am seeing frequently is a a cross between the Pearl Izumi Road N1 and the Saucony Kinvara. My initial thought was a cross between the Skechers GoRun 1 and the PI Road N1. The reason being is that it has the firm sole feel and smooth transition of the Pearl N1, and a midfoot bump and upper reminiscent of the Skechers GR1.

One of the first things I noticed upon putting the shoes on my feet was the distinct midfoot bump. Some might call it arch support, but to me it feels more like a bump or ridge that extends across the width of the shoe under the arch. In this sense it’s like the GR1 or maybe the original Brooks PureConnect (the PI N1 even has a bit of this type of feel). It was a bit disconcerting at first, but like the bump in the GoRun the sensation went away after running in them a bit. You will feel it while standing in them, but it has been a non-issue for me on the run.

My first run in the Zante was on a very cold day, and I felt that the sole was very firm, much like that of the 980. After running in them in a variety of temperatures for the following several weeks I’ve come to think that the Zante is a tad softer than the 980, moreso under the heel (as with most shoes, the sole feels firmer in the cold). The midfoot through forefoot are firm and responsive, and unless you are a heavy heel striker that’s probably how you’ll describe the Zante experience. However, when forcing a harder heel strike (I’m a light heel striker) I was better able to feel the softness of the heel and the smooth transition from heel to forefoot. I think the Zante will appeal to both types of runners, and it’s interesting how different the ride feels depending on how you contact.

The outsole of the Zante is full coverage rubber – as a result, I expect durability should be decent.

Conclusions

The New Balance Fresh Foam  Zante is the kind of shoe that will work well when you pick up the pace due to the firm and responsive forefoot, and it’s also well-cushioned enough to handle longer runs. Overall it’s a very versatile shoe that should appeal to a wide range of runners. If the upper tear on my shoe is not a widespread issue I’d rank it among the better shoes I have reviewed this year. I highly recommend the Zante!

For other takes on the Fresh Foam Zante, see this review by Sam Winebaum and this review by Peter Stuart on Believe in the Run.

Purchasing Options

The New Balance Fresh Foam Zante is available at Running Warehouse, NewBalance.com, and Zappos. Outside of the US the Zante is available at Running Warehouse EU. Purchases made via these links provide a small commission to Runblogger and help to support the production of reviews like this one – thanks!

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!

Writing that opening line is a big deal for me because the original Nike Free 3.0 remains one of my favorite shoes of all time. That shoe was lightweight, ultra-flexible, ran silent, and had a sock-like upper that was about as near perfection as a minimal shoe upper can get. My only complaint about the 3.0 v1 was that it was a bit narrow. The new 4.0 Flyknit matches the original 3.0 on all of the positives, and improves on it by having a much wider toebox. It’s an amazingly good shoe.

Interestingly, I almost passed on trying the Free 4.0 Flyknit. Several weeks ago I purchased the new 2014 model of the Nike Free 5.0. I hated it. It had a tight band around the forefoot that dug into my skin, and quite honestly it felt and looked a bit cheaply made. I wasn’t impressed and it went back to the store unworn. However, I’d heard from some fellow shoe geeks that the 4.0 was going to be the big winner among the 2014 Free models, so I spent the $100+ to buy a pair (MSRP is $120). This might be one of the few times where I feel that the relatively high cost might be justifiable – I like the shoe that much.

So what is it that makes the Free 4.0 Flyknit so special? Well, pretty much the entire package. The shoe simply feels like an extension of my foot. It gives me everything I need, and almost nothing that I don’t, and that is exactly what I want in a shoe.

Shoe Stats

Weight: 7.4 oz in men’s size 9; 6.3 oz in women’s size 8 (per Running Warehouse)
Stack Height: 20mm heel, 14mm forefoot (per Running Warehouse)
Sizing: I went a half size up as I typically do in Nike shoes, might have been unnecessary

Upper Construction

The Flyknit upper of the Free 4.0 is minimally structured. No overlays, no heel counter, just a stretchy woven mesh with a few Flywire bands on either side of the lace rows to lock the foot down. It feels like a sock, and it hugs my foot in all of the right ways. Not too tight, not too loose. Just perfect. The heel and midfoot are snugged in tightly, and the forefoot opens up so that the tight weave does not constrict or squeeze the toes. The entire upper flexes and moves with the foot in a way I have rarely experienced in a running shoe.

The upper mesh is open in the midfoot and forefoot to provide for some air flow. Unlike the new Free 3.0 Flyknit, which I have heard fits fairly tightly, the 4.0 has a traditional tongue, and I think this allows for better customization of fit. I’ve run sockless in the shoes a few times and have had a bit of abrasion on one run near the midfoot/arch (maybe from one of the Flywire bands?), but this has been inconsistent. May have just been a hot day with more sweat leading to chafe. No issues at all while wearing socks (side note – these shoes seem to hold a stink when you use them sockless).

Sole Construction

Like the upper, the sole of the Free 4.0 Flyknit is super flexible and moves really well with the foot. The sole is typical of other Nike Free shoes in having individual pods separated by deep grooves to maximize flexibility. The drawback of the grooved sole is that the grooves do tend to collect rocks and pebbles, but this has never really bothered me in any of the Frees and they are easy enough to get out by taking the shoe off and flexing the sole around after a run.

The majority of the sole is exposed midsole cushion, so you can barely hear your footfalls while running in them – I love a silent shoe! The tradeoff to this design is that there is minimal outsole coverage – rubber pods are only present at the back outer heel and under the big toe. As such, sole durability is something to keep an eye on if you tend to be a scuffer. Interestingly, my wear pattern only seems to be from the anteriormost heel pod forward through the midfoot – much more of a midfoot landing wear pattern than I tend to observe in most other shoes that I run in.

You can see that after 40 miles I’ve ground down the protruding portions of the white pods directly above and to the right the 4.0 in the image below:

I’m wondering if the slightly rounded heel, curved sole, and flexibility of the shoe have something to do with this more anterior wear pattern?

Performance

I’ve honestly found it really hard to not pull these shoes out for most of my recent runs (though the Saucony Kinvara 5 is giving them a run for the money as current favorites). I’ve run just over 40 miles in them so far, with a max long run of 14 miles. I’ve run from easy pace down to 5K pace. They’ve worked well for just about everything. I’d have no hesitation in taking them beyond 14 miles in a single run, I might even consider them for a marathon. They are a bit too flexible for my taste for speed or a 5K, and the sole grooves would probably collect too much debris for off-road use, but they are versatile enough to handle just about anything else I could throw at them.

I’m really hard-pressed to come up with anything negative about this shoe – I think the only issue I’ve had was with the fact that the size tag is stitched to the underside of the insole and I can feel the stitching under my heel. It wasn’t bad with socks, but it was noticeable when I went barefoot in them. It might be possible to cut the tag and remove the stitching, but I was lazy and just swapped the insoles out for an identical one from an older pair of Free 5.0s.

In addition to running in them, I’ve also found the Free 4.0 Flyknit to be a fantastic casual shoe. I bought a pair in black since I like to have a few conservative looking shoes for casual wear, and I’m typically sockless in them while walking around. They are amazingly comfortable.

Conclusion

The Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit is a fantastic shoe, easily one of my favorites so far this year. If you want something with a minimal upper, a flexible sole, and a roomy toebox these should be at the top of your list of options to try.

Purchasing Options

The Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit is available in a variety of colors at Running Warehouse and Road Runner Sports. Outside of the US they can be purchased at Wiggle.co.uk. Purchases made via these retailer links help to support this site – thanks!

I continued to enjoy the Kinvara in its second and third iterations, but the wheels kind of fell off for me with v4. The sole still felt great, but the fit was way off – very tight and restrictive at the front of the toebox. In my review of the Kinvara 4 I wrote the following: “…the Kinvara 4 is a step back for Saucony, and unless you have narrowish feet or don’t mind a lack of toe freedom they aren’t going to be a great choice. And durability is a potential issue for the forefoot upper.” It was not a shoe I would choose to run long in, and I’d seen/heard of enough people experiencing tears in the upper that I was hesitant to even recommend them to those with narrow feet.

I usually aim to put about 30 miles on a shoe before writing a review. I can usually peg a shoe after 1 or 2 runs, but 30 miles gives me time to break the shoe in a bit and get a good feel for it on various types of workouts (there are times when my impression changes after a few runs – the Pearl Izumi Road N1 being a good example). However, I’ve been asked a bunch of times in the past few weeks if I’ve tried the new Kinvara 5. The questions, particularly regarding fit, were frequent enough that I wanted to get some thoughts up as quickly as possible to point people to.

Saucony sent me a pair of the Kinvara 5 last Friday (Disclosure: these shoes were media samples provided free of charge by the manufacturer). Fit can be addressed by simply trying a shoe on, but I wanted a bit more from this post so I ran 11 hilly miles in them yesterday, enough to get a good feel for the shoe. If a double digit run in a brand-new shoe goes well, it typically bodes well for how the shoe will continue to perform. I plan to add more miles in the coming week (Update 5/19/2014: I have now run a bit over 40 miles in the Kinvara 5, you can read my updated thoughts here).

Saucony Kinvara 5

Fit

Let’s get to the big question right off the bat – how does the Kinvara 5 fit?

I’m happy to report that Saucony has fixed the fit issue I had with the Kinvara 4. I’d go so far as to say that the Kinvara 5 has a spacious fit in the forefoot. I feel no forefoot or toe squeezing, no unusual pressure. It’s a very comfortable shoe. I did opt to go for a size 10.5 as I did in the K4, and I think it was the right choice – I have about a thumb width in between my big toe and the tip of the shoe (I wore a 10 in Kinvara v1-v3).

Upper Construction

The upper of the Kinvara 4 was composed of a tight, plasticy kind of mesh that is prone to tearing with repeated flexion. It had very little give, and I think that contributed to the fit issue with the shoe. The Kinvara 5 swaps out the mesh for a stretchier, thread-like mesh (I don’t know fabric terminology!) similar to that found on the Saucony A5. It’s very breathable, and I suspect it will hold up much better over time (in all of the photos below the red shoe is the Kinvara 4, the blue shoe is the Kinvara 5).

Saucony Kinvara 4 (left) and Saucony Kinvara 5 (right). Note the change in upper fabric to what I expect will be a less tear-prone material.

In the Kinvara 5 Saucony added a feature they are calling PRO-LOCK to the upper. PRO-LOCK consists of a triangular piece of material that extends from the sole up the midfoot on either side of the shoe. It’s sandwiched in between the outer mesh and a soft piece of interior mesh that attaches to the tongue. There is a lace hole at the apex of the triangle, and the intent is that PRO-LOCK will cradle the midfoot on each side for a more secure fit (you can see the yellow PRO-LOCK lace holes in the image above). I’m kind of ambivalent about this feature – you do sense the wrap when lacing tightly, but the triangle on the inner side bends and causes the upper to pucker outward away from the arch when you roll inward. I might just need to play with the lacing a bit to dial it in.

A third change to the upper is that Saucony beefed up the ankle collar with a bit more cushion and a softer lining (see photo below). I really like the feel of the new collar, and the same material also lines the underside of the tongue. I think the beefing up of this area might be part of the reason why people have said the K5 looks a bit more trainery than previous versions. The height of the internal plastic heel counter has been increased a bit, but it didn’t bother me (it’s pretty flexible, not hard plastic).

Saucony Kinvara 4 (left) and Saucony Kinvara 5 (right). Note the increased padding in the ankle collar.

Sole

The sole of the Kinvara 5 has been changed from v4 to v5. The shoe is still 4mm drop, and Saucony reports weight at 7.7oz in men’s size 9. Saucony describes the new sole as follows: “The Kinvara 5 midsole/outsole platform is also new, and made from an enhanced EVA+ material with better abrasion resistance than ever before. On the outsole, we also added small placements of iBR+ rubber to provide more durability and cushioning on the outer side of the foot, where heavy wear is typical for many Kinvara fans.”

Saucony Kinvara 4 (bottom) and Saucony Kinvara 5 (top).

My sense is that the shoe feels a tad softer than v3-v4, almost more like the original Kinvara (Thomas over at Believe in the Run reported a similar feeling in his Kinvara 5 review). I like a softer shoe, and it felt great over the 11 asphalt miles that I covered yesterday. I did feel a minor bit of irritation along the inner ball of my right foot as sometimes happens in softer shoes, but it never progressed to a blister or pain. More of an awareness, and is something I’ll keep an eye on over additional miles.

The outsole has been modified slightly – it’s easier to demonstrate with a photo than to describe in words:

Saucony Kinvara 5 (left) and Saucony Kinvara 4 (right).

Still no rubber up along the lateral forefoot – wear in this area has not been an issue for me, but I know that some forefoot strikers tend to chew the soles up in that region. I’m wondering if the added softness I feel is due to the fact that the outsole patches on the heel and midfoot (yellow and orange rubber in the photo above) are attached to EVA pods that extend a bit further out from the sole than in the Kinvara 4? Hard to describe this in words.

Conclusions

My initial response, and this is based on one 11 mile run so keep that in mind, is that the Kinvara has once again become a top pick among lightweight training/distance racing shoes (Update 5/19/2014: I have now run a bit over 40 miles in the Kinvara 5, you can read my updated thoughts here). If I were to run a marathon this Fall (still not discounting the possibility entirely), it would be a frontrunner for race day alongside the New Balance 1400v2, adidas Adios Boost, and maybe the Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 (due out in November). It probably has the most generous forefoot fit of any of those mentioned, and feels like just a bit softer under the forefoot compared to the others.

My plan going forward is to put another 25 or so miles on the Kinvara 5 in the next week and update this review with any further thoughts. My only real concern so far is the faint hot spot I felt on the ball of my right foot, but that’s likely an issue that results from my gait and not something that will happen to everyone (it happens to me frequently in soft shoes). As of right now I can highly recommend the Saucony Kinvara 5, feel free to ask any questions you might have in the comments!

The Saucony Kinvara 5 is available at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com. Outside of the US they can be purchased at Wiggle.

For another take, read Thomas Neuberger’s review of the Saucony Kinvara 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s dig into the review.

Size/Form Factor

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

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

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

Menus/Options

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

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

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

Sampling of data field display options

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

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

Summary data from yesterday’s 10 mile run

Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Export

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

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

Garmin FR10 – Sync Cable and Back of Watch

Garmin FR10 – Sync Cable

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

Summary

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

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

Big thumbs up for the Garmin Forerunner 10!

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

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