which running watch do you have ?

[ktzmoh]

I'm so frustrated with inaccuracy in map my run and I'm finding it impossible to do tempo runs or intervals using it. I want to invest in a watch and was looking at the Garmin watches. I love the new frontrunner that combines the daily activity tracker with the running watch, but I really want a interval training feature.

Which do you have? What features do you like? Do you think that the garmin will be more accurate than mapmyrun? I like that i can opt for the shoe sensor for times when I'm running in trails and gps sucks.

[boston340]

I have the Garmin 220. I specifically wanted something that showed pace, overall time, and distance all on the same screen without me having to flip through screens. It also lays flat on my wrist, which I like.

[G22]

I have the Garmin 110 w/ the heart rate monitor. I've been using it for about 5 months and I love it. Its perfect for what I need. I really like being able to see my pace per mile as I go along. I also love being able to upload it online and see my splits and stuff.

[Susie]

May 6, 2014 13:38:54 GMT -5 ktzmoh said:

Which do you have? What features do you like? Do you think that the garmin will be more accurate than mapmyrun? I like that i can opt for the shoe sensor for times when I'm running in trails and gps sucks.

Why would it suck on trails?  Garmins use satellites rather than cellular signals, so I'm not following.  I've used my Garmin hiking in areas that are too remote for a cell signal to use Map My Run, and it's just as accurate as at home.  I only use my foot pod on the TM so I don't have to manually enter distance and can see pace (everything but the map) as if I was outside when I upload.

I have a 210, which is newer than the 110, not as new as the 220.  Compared to the 110, it is footpod compatible, does HR-based calorie counting* and I think has more interval options.  I don't know how it compares to the 220.

*This is important if you plan to wear it for things other than running and want to know calories.  Otherwise, it assumes you ran that bike ride, and calculates calories as if you just ran 40 miles (lol).

[jordylee]

Garmin 220. I LOVE that it vibrates instead of just beeping when I hit my mile laps. It gets satellites in no time, even in downtown Chicago (with my 110, it would seriously take about 5 minutes).

[runaways]

Garmin 305. It's kind of ancient and kind of huge but it's still trucking along. I'll keep using it til it does and then upgrade to something.

[gt7301b]

I have an old 405. Mr. GT recently upgraded to the 610. He was going to get the 620, but the 620 only shows pace to the nearest 5 sec.

[clseale]

May 6, 2014 14:19:14 GMT -5 Susie said:

May 6, 2014 13:38:54 GMT -5 ktzmoh said:

Which do you have? What features do you like? Do you think that the garmin will be more accurate than mapmyrun? I like that i can opt for the shoe sensor for times when I'm running in trails and gps sucks.

Why would it suck on trails?  Garmins use satellites rather than cellular signals, so I'm not following.  I've used my Garmin hiking in areas that are too remote for a cell signal to use Map My Run, and it's just as accurate as at home.  I only use my foot pod on the TM so I don't have to manually enter distance and can see pace (everything but the map) as if I was outside when I upload.

I have a 210, which is newer than the 110, not as new as the 220.  Compared to the 110, it is footpod compatible, does HR-based calorie counting* and I think has more interval options.  I don't know how it compares to the 220.

*This is important if you plan to wear it for things other than running and want to know calories.  Otherwise, it assumes you ran that bike ride, and calculates calories as if you just ran 40 miles (lol).

Same reason they don't always work in cities with tall buildings, maybe? Do you have closed in trails? My Garmin frequently doesn't stay accurate on our trails. 

OP, I have the Garmin 610 and so does DH. We both really like it.

ETA: When I was looking at the Avenue of the Giants marathon, they actually have this disclaimer on their site. lol

Course Description:
The course is a double out and back entirely on paved roads. The roads are lined with 300 feet tall old growth Redwood trees. While these provide shade and keep temperatures cool all morning, please note that they sometimes block out GPS signal on running watches.

[CallingAllAngels]

I have the 220. I wanted something I could wear while swimming and that was compatible with a HRM. It has a lot of other neat features, as others have pointed out.

[Deleted]

I have the 210 (black and teal coloured). I love it because I can see distance / overall time / pace on one screen. I never use the HRM that came with it. I probably should, but those other three things on one screen is exactly what I need. It finds the satellites here really quickly too and it is comfortable to wear. I also wear it on my bike, though it's assuming I am running. I just use it to know how far I have gone when I am on the bike, I use strava on my phone when riding to calculate calories.

[starburst]

I just got a 220. I've only used it twice and I'm still figuring out all the features, but so far I like it.

[ktzmoh]

May 6, 2014 14:19:14 GMT -5 Susie said:

May 6, 2014 13:38:54 GMT -5 ktzmoh said:

Which do you have? What features do you like? Do you think that the garmin will be more accurate than mapmyrun? I like that i can opt for the shoe sensor for times when I'm running in trails and gps sucks.

Why would it suck on trails?  Garmins use satellites rather than cellular signals, so I'm not following.  I've used my Garmin hiking in areas that are too remote for a cell signal to use Map My Run, and it's just as accurate as at home.  I only use my foot pod on the TM so I don't have to manually enter distance and can see pace (everything but the map) as if I was outside when I upload.

I have a 210, which is newer than the 110, not as new as the 220.  Compared to the 110, it is footpod compatible, does HR-based calorie counting* and I think has more interval options.  I don't know how it compares to the 220.

*This is important if you plan to wear it for things other than running and want to know calories.  Otherwise, it assumes you ran that bike ride, and calculates calories as if you just ran 40 miles (lol).

[ it actually didn't occur to me that they used different systems. Mapmyrun is horribly inaccurate in the trails near my house- but it sounds like garmin may be much better.