Help me choose the perfect GPS watch.

April 9, 2009 7:09 AM

I am interested in purchasing a GPS watch for fitness training (Garmin, Suunto, Timex, ect). I would mainly use it for running (marathon training) although I am not opposed to one that is waterproof and has features for hooking it up to a bicycle. I have been reading reviews online but would like to have opinions from the hive mind. So...please tell me if you have used one of these watches, the pros, the cons, the features you liked, the features that were worthless, the necessary "add ons," the way it left a rash on your arm...anything to help me in deciding the perfect watch to buy. Price is not an issue. The very least I want out of it is to track mileage, pace per mile, elevation (and elevation change), and heart rate.
posted by catseatcheese to Health & Fitness (7 answers total)

I have a Garmin Forerunner 405, and before that I had a 305. They're very fun toys if you like data and numbers, and for me at least they're a fantastic motivator (very cool to see your monthly average speed go up while your monthly average heart rate goes down). It tracks everything you want to track and more.

The Garmin Forerunner series is really meant for running, but the bike cadence thing is passably accurate after some fiddling. The shoepod thing for indoor use without a signal never got terribly accurate for me. It is not waterproof, although plenty of triathletes stick it in a plastic bag under their swimcap and do fine with it.

The 405 is nice-looking enough to wear as a sporty watch and is not too bulky, but has a cheesy touch-bezel control (think iPod) that is a little frustrating when your fingers are cold or sweaty (and forget about using it with gloves). The battery life is about 8 hours in use, which may be too short if you want to run full triathlons. The display will only show three pieces of data at any given time, which is pretty much enough (I set mine up to show heart rate, pace, and total distance). The antenna is powerful and locks onto a signal within seconds. The 305 is clunky-looking, enormous, but has much friendlier controls and longer battery life. It displays up to four items at a time, which is awesome. It takes forever to lock on, which is annoying when it's cold outside. The training "programs" on both are pretty much useless, and it's obnoxiously convoluted to set up your own heart rate training programs.

The Garmin training center software is terrible, but luckily there are some really great third-party options that are much more robust - Ascent for the Mac, online communities like MapMyRun, etc. Garmin only recently introduced Mac support for the 405 after promising it for over a year, which is about typical and typically infuriating - for a long time, I had to boot up in Windoes to grab the data off my watch, export the file in Garmin format, and then bring it back up in OSX to load it into Ascent.

All that said, they are really fun tools. I love using mine in conjunction with MapMyRun or Gmaps Pedometer to plot out routes in unfamiliar cities (I travel a lot). I've gone on a lot of really fun runs that way. But they're certainly not necessary for fitness - they're rather expensive toys more than anything else.
posted by peachfuzz at 7:26 AM on April 9, 2009

I've been using a Garmin Forerunner 305 for both running and cycling for a few years and I love it. There's a mount you can buy to attach it to your bike, but I just fold the strap under the body of the watch and use a simple velcro strap to secure it to my stem. I've seen other cyclists use a piece of foam insulation around their handlebars and strap the watch to that.

I really like that it has a huge display, and that you can customize the screens with up to four pieces of information (and you have 3 screens to use at a time). For example, I can have one screen displaying only heart rate, so that the number will take up the full real estate of the screen. I can have a second screen displaying elapsed time and distance, and I can have a third screen showing average speed, lap speed, lap time, and elevation gained. Or whatever. There are about 25-30 different fields to choose from. When I'm racing all I really care about is heart rate and distance, so I know how much longer I have until the finish line. All of the data I get after the download is nice, but I'm not really paying attention to it during the race.

I agree that the Garmin Training Center software is crap. I have a subscription to TrainingPeaks.com that I use to track/analyze/schedule workouts and nutrition. It's worth it to me. There are free alternatives out there as well.

It's perfect for running, and it does very well on a bike as well (Garmin makes another line specifically for cycling, but there's no easy way to strap it to your body). One nice thing for the bike is that it's totally wireless, so you don't have a cable going to a speedometer or cadence sensor. The cadence sensor is a worthy investment if you care about things like that. You just zip tie it to the chain stay and tape/glue a magnet on your crank.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 8:24 AM on April 9, 2009

Oh, and if you care about geocaching, it's capable of that as well. A couple of years ago I dumped a ton of geocache locations into the watch. Now when my three-year old daughter and I are bumming around town or in a park, and if I have the watch with me, I can ask her if she wants to "treasure hunt". Five minutes later we've found the cache location, signed the log, and she usually gets a trinket. To her, treasure is everywhere, you just have to look for it.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 8:28 AM on April 9, 2009

I was given a Timex Ironman Triathlon combined HRm and GPS a few months ago. I have used it for training leading up to a half marathon which I have just completed. I was a little surprised to see that the GPS was a separate unit rather than built into the watch - not so good if you want the GPS for everyday use rather than just a run. The whole thing encourages you to get a bit obsessive about collecting information - but the most useful elements for me are really "time" and "distance" - both of which could be measured a lot less expensively. On the plus side I would agree with the idea that some of the other information is useful when it comes to monitoring progression of fitness.
posted by rongorongo at 8:50 AM on April 9, 2009

I totally agree with peachfuzz about the 405, but add one note: the seemingly-sturdy rubber watchband is kinda crap. The little excess-strap holder broke off of mine, and then, a few months later, the rubber holding the buckle ripped. I'd be super pissed if I hadn't just sent it in for the repair-- it has to be factory replaced since the antenna is part of the band. Before I sent it in, electrical tape kept it adequately in place. All-in-all, I think it was a good purchase (though, for the last few days, it's been really fun to run without it and have no idea how fast I'm going!).
posted by activitystory at 9:35 AM on April 9, 2009

I love my Garmin 305, and I'll add another reason that hasn't been mentioned. I travel a lot, and while you can't do really navigation with the Garmin fitness watches, you can mark locations and view simple maps. So often, when I'm in a new city, I'll just take off toward a hill or a park or whatever, and not worry about getting home, because I can view the map and see how far and in roughly what direction home is. It's crude, but very useful.
posted by Mngo at 7:38 PM on April 9, 2009

Gamin 305

I'm a gadget girl, and have everything that's going on the market. Polar 800 with gps, used the Timex etc, etc, but for a singel unit the Forerunner 305 has the goods.

nthing what others have said above, except that it is an effective fitness and marathon training tool, having the support of the heart rate function which is pretty accurate. Again, don't worry about the training centre software that comes with the unit (I still use it as a backup of data), but look as Sportstracks, for PC-based recording and MapMyRun and Motionbased for web-based options.
posted by Flashduck at 2:07 AM on April 10, 2009