Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Any competitive runners with AW3?

molala said:
I use the stock app (as accurate as my garmin), then move the .fit file to garmin connect using an app called HealthFit. I don’t see cadence, stride length or vertical oscillation, but don’t really miss it
Click to expand...
Cadence matters to me; the other two not so much. I keep cadence on my main data field. Consciously working to get my cadence near 180 (I average mid to high 170s most runs) has made a real difference in my running.

If AW did cadence, it would be an important step towards being a Garmin killer for me.
 
Far from professional runner - but usually 4 marathons and a couple of halves a year and a London, Boston qualifier. I don't do much tempo work, but will usually use AW2 for that and link it to Strava. But for races I have AW on one wrist and Garmin 235 on the other. I think the Garmin is better at keeping track of distance (maybe a smoothing thing) as a recent marathon had AW reporting 44 km and Garmin somewhere just under 43. Battery life on a Garmin is much better, even lasting (just) an 8 hour ultra.

Definitely don't trust Apple Watch enough to use it in a situation where keeping track of distance and pace really mattered.
 
QCassidy352 said:
Cadence matters to me; the other two not so much. I keep cadence on my main data field. Consciously working to get my cadence near 180 (I average mid to high 170s most runs) has made a real difference in my running.

If AW did cadence, it would be an important step towards being a Garmin killer for me.
Click to expand...

I'm a very casual runner compared to the people in this thread, but I do notice that when I use HealthFit to transfer my workout from the Workout app to Strava, I can view a graph of my cadence on Strava's website for that run. Not sure if it's accurate or not, but it's there.
 
QCassidy352 said:
Cadence matters to me; the other two not so much. I keep cadence on my main data field. Consciously working to get my cadence near 180 (I average mid to high 170s most runs) has made a real difference in my running.

If AW did cadence, it would be an important step towards being a Garmin killer for me.
Click to expand...

That's interesting - I've also never made use of many metrics. I remember in college, my coach tried to direct us to get the cadence closer to 180 (I think Magness wrote an article about it at some point, and it caught on) but even that hasn't really stuck (or at least, I've never checked). Oscillation, time on each foot, etc...

I've never known any really competitive runners to use these stats, and (though I'm sure they exist), I'm perplexed as to who really does. An old teammate of mine who I'm always trying to catch (I think he's done 2:25:xx) doesn't even own a GPS watch.
 
I’ve had a lot of injuries since college. Maintaining a higher cadence is not itself necessarily the goal, but it forces me to run with a shorter, lighter stride, which in turn leads to lower impact forces and fewer injuries. So that’s why I monitor it.

Most of these “advanced metrics” (and the ability to track them from your wrist) are relatively new, so I’m not sure their current adoption rate is a great indicator of their level of utility. It wasn’t so long ago that HR tracking was brand new and hardly used, but now it’s on every smartwatch, and I think most serious runners would agree there’s utility to it.

Will things like cadence and ground contact prove themselves to the same degree in the long run? I don’t know, but I do think we need to see wider adoption before we can say for sure.
 
QCassidy352 said:
I’ve had a lot of injuries since college. Maintaining a higher cadence is not itself necessarily the goal, but it forces me to run with a shorter, lighter stride, which in turn leads to lower impact forces and fewer injuries. So that’s why I monitor it.

Most of these “advanced metrics” (and the ability to track them from your wrist) are relatively new, so I’m not sure their current adoption rate is a great indicator of their level of utility. It wasn’t so long ago that HR tracking was brand new and hardly used, but now it’s on every smartwatch, and I think most serious runners would agree there’s utility to it.

Will things like cadence and ground contact prove themselves to the same degree in the long run? I don’t know, but I do think we need to see wider adoption before we can say for sure.
Click to expand...

That's a good way of thinking about it. Our collegiate team hardly even used HR - in fact, I used it much more when I skied (cross-country) in high school. When you do a 4+ hour ski, it's more important to maintain your HR zones, I think. But you're right - all this stuff is so new that who really knows how/where it'll be adapted. Probably Galen/Salazar use it, in some form, but I have a hard time imagining that even lesser-tier elite runners (if you're familiar) go much into it.

It's probably something like sabermetrics in baseball - no one uses it, until everyone uses it!


**Edit: As for the whole point of this thread - I've done a few runs, both using the AW3 and the Forerunner 220. Milage splits are similar enough (and in many cases, exactly the same). HRM seems fine... as above, I don't really use it. The only workouts I've done have been tempos... Really, besides raise-to-wake being a little wonky, my biggest complaint with AW3 as a running watch is that the milage notifications aren't noticeable enough. When your Garmin hits the mile mark, that thing buzzes like hell ... that "gentle tap" that works when you're sitting at your desk doesn't translate as well to mid-workout. But!

Put in 65 miles last week, 50 of which were with AW, and had no major issues to report!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJ22
I use both an AW3 and a Fenix 5x. Every day, run, workout, ride, intervals etc are different.

Some days I want the AW simplicity and some days I want Garmin data.

IMO Garmin is leaps ahead of Apple as far as sophistication and real deliverables, from training plans and insights to on device real time data, that being said, the AW3 is nice to have and works better for me if I just want to play outside.

As far as racing, I typically go for the Garmin b/c it's real time pace will adjust an order of magnitude faster than the AW.
 
James.K.Polk said:
That's a good way of thinking about it. Our collegiate team hardly even used HR - in fact, I used it much more when I skied (cross-country) in high school. When you do a 4+ hour ski, it's more important to maintain your HR zones, I think. But you're right - all this stuff is so new that who really knows how/where it'll be adapted. Probably Galen/Salazar use it, in some form, but I have a hard time imagining that even lesser-tier elite runners (if you're familiar) go much into it.

It's probably something like sabermetrics in baseball - no one uses it, until everyone uses it!


**Edit: As for the whole point of this thread - I've done a few runs, both using the AW3 and the Forerunner 220. Milage splits are similar enough (and in many cases, exactly the same). HRM seems fine... as above, I don't really use it. The only workouts I've done have been tempos... Really, besides raise-to-wake being a little wonky, my biggest complaint with AW3 as a running watch is that the milage notifications aren't noticeable enough. When your Garmin hits the mile mark, that thing buzzes like hell ... that "gentle tap" that works when you're sitting at your desk doesn't translate as well to mid-workout. But!

Put in 65 miles last week, 50 of which were with AW, and had no major issues to report!
Click to expand...
There is a setting on the watch for pronounced haptics. I'm not sure how to set it, but I saw it on here one time & adjusted the setting. It seems to help in every day usage. Not sure about with running, as I used the Nike app up until a few months ago, and turned on the pronounced haptics back when I got the watch. It might help with your running notifications (although maybe not, it is still pretty subtle-t least on the workouts app).
 
  • Like
Reactions: James.K.Polk
mk313 said:
There is a setting on the watch for pronounced haptics. I'm not sure how to set it, but I saw it on here one time & adjusted the setting. It seems to help in every day usage. Not sure about with running, as I used the Nike app up until a few months ago, and turned on the pronounced haptics back when I got the watch. It might help with your running notifications (although maybe not, it is still pretty subtle-t least on the workouts app).
Click to expand...

Haven't tried the pronounced haptics - my only concern is that, when I'm just sitting at my desk, sometimes I feel like the haptics are too strong. It's really only in running that it's an issue... if only there were granular controls.

Did my first track workout with the Apple Watch. Actually meant to bring my old school Timex but forgot it and was forced to go AW-only. It went.... fine? The double-tap to split function is definitely not ideal. I just did 4 x mile (stupid wind) and 3/4 times the laps were perfect. On my third repeat, for whatever reason, I double-taped like 3 or 4 times and never got it to register the split.

That said, accuracy was dead-on. 4 miles with 400m jog recovery rendered exactly 4.75 miles on the Watch. Then of course Strava messed it up, for whatever reasons... I hate their data smoothing....

Regardless! Seems to be working well enough that I'll keep it around. I have an old FR10 (I think) that I'll use if I ever really feel like I need pinpoint accuracy... otherwise, I'll just keep at it! Reminds me, I wonder what the fastest marathon ever run in an Apple Watch is?
 
An update from my perspective. After 2 months with my Garmin 645M, I returned it because of a widely-reported issue that caused the watch to randomly reboot sometimes while playing music during an activity. I loved many things about that watch, but that was a deal-breaker for me, given its $450 price tag.

So I went back to an AW S3, and I'm having a much better experience with it than I did the first time, I think because I went into it with different expectations.

My overall sense from using both devices for weeks/months is this: Apple is a very, very good consumer electronics company, and they are mediocre at running/fitness. Garmin is a very, very good running/fitness company, and they are mediocre at smartwatches.

Purely as it relates to running, here are the main ways I find the AW lacking compared to the Garmin:

Apple Watch:
  • Erratic raise-to-wake is annoying while running
  • Touch screen that gets iffy with sweaty hands
  • One, cramped data screen on Nike Run Club
  • 4 types of data only: pace, distance, time, HR
  • Pace is very slow to update to real-time
  • No HR zones
  • HR is VERY erratic and unreliable during exercise (I regularly see a HR of over 200 on training runs at low-moderate effort. Seems accurate during rest and when just walking)
  • Needs to recharge every day (can get 2 days, but only if you don't do a GPS-based workout during the day)
  • No pre-set interval workouts
  • No post-run guidance
  • Nike+ website is pretty basic
(Yes, I know some of that is NRC-dependent, but I've not found any 3rd party app with close to what Garmin has on its dedicated devices)

Garmin 645M:
  • Always on, high contrast screen
  • Physical button controls
  • As many data screens as you want
  • Data types including cadence, lap time/lap distance/lap pace
  • Pace is also slow to update, but faster than AW
  • HR zones
  • HR seems accurate (corresponds well with effort level)
  • Can get through maybe 3-4 days of full-time wear plus workouts before recharging
  • Can easily create and load pre-set interval workouts
  • Post-run guidance including recovery time, training effect, and training load
  • Garmin connect website is very full-featured
Nonetheless, I'm going to stick with the AW. Why? First, because it's a vastly better smartwatch than the Garmin. When it comes to non-fitness uses, the AW is playing chess, and the Garmin is playing checkers.

And second, because if I'm being brutally honest with myself, I'm not competitive enough right now to need what the Garmin offers. The AW isn't a bad running watch, it's just basic. And that's Ok for me, for where I'm currently at in my life and training. But if I were to get back to truly competitive running, I'd definitely use a higher-end Garmin.
 
QCassidy352 said:
Thank you for that. Just took a look, and it seems like it offers a lot. I will check it out more.
Click to expand...

Also if you use ismoothrun on the watch you can purchase a Stryd foot pod which is extremely accurate in regard to distance and will provide cadence for those who need it.
 
igrover said:
Also if you use ismoothrun on the watch you can purchase a Stryd foot pod which is extremely accurate in regard to distance and will provide cadence for those who need it.
Click to expand...
Will this Stryd foot pod allow greater accuracy on the treadmill? That is the thing I miss most moving from my Garmin Vivosmart (with footpod) to the Apple Watch.
 
Absolutely it does. And it does better with distances run at different paces. Which is the main problem with the Garmin footpod - once you calibrate the Garmin footpod is stays calibrated for that particular pace. Try running some intervals with the Garmin and the distance is all over the place. Stryd handles that very easily. A little pricey but gets the job done. And no need to calibrate it once you receive it mine was spot on right out of the box.

And no I do not work for Stryd just very pleased with their product and very pleased with the integration with ismoothrun on the watch. Literally I now run with only the watch and AirPods and the Stryd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tobefirst ⚽️
igrover said:
Also if you use ismoothrun on the watch you can purchase a Stryd foot pod which is extremely accurate in regard to distance and will provide cadence for those who need it.
Click to expand...
Does it allow for in-run cadence or only after the run?

I have an older Garmin footpod, which doesn’t seem to be sold anymore. It CAN do pace, but my understanding is that when GPS is active, it only does cadence. If you’re indoors, or can’t get a GPS lock, only then will its data be used for pace, which makes sense to me. (Unfortunately, the AW cannot pair to this pod.)

I take it from your comments that the Stryd pod uses accelerometer data for pace even when GPS is active? If so, does it use both GPS and the accelerometer or only the latter? And if those two data sources don’t agree, how does it reconcile?

Sorry, lots of questions! Thanks!
 
In-run cadence. You choose what metric you want shown on the 2 ismoothrun watch screens and cadence is one of them. The Stryd pod replaces GPS so no accelerometer usage either.

Check out stryd.com for more info and you can ask them questions. They usually respond quickly.
 
From what I’ve read, the Stryd pod itself is using an accelerometer (its own accelerometer, not the one built into the watch) to get pace and distance.

I have to say, their website is quite confusing and not very educational for someone who wants to learn about what “power” is and why it’s useful. I’ve had to go to a bunch of external websites to learn the theory behind Stryd and why it could be useful. The Stryd website itself seems to assume the reader knows all that background.
 
I'm a competitive runner who has switched to using my AW3 full time. I just sold both of my Garmin watches this week in fact.

I use iSmoothRun and a Stryd power meter. Distance is extremely consistent, and pacing feedback is accurate and immediate.

The addition of the ability to use the side buttons for pausing a run or setting a lap is what really made the difference. The only reason I'd need a different watch at this point is for ultras lasting longer than about 7 hours - and I don't have any of those on my schedule for this season right now. I'm hoping that the next generation of AW will get close to 10 hours of run time.

QCassidy352 said:
From what I’ve read, the Stryd pod itself is using an accelerometer (its own accelerometer, not the one built into the watch) to get pace and distance.

I have to say, their website is quite confusing and not very educational for someone who wants to learn about what “power” is and why it’s useful. I’ve had to go to a bunch of external websites to learn the theory behind Stryd and why it could be useful. The Stryd website itself seems to assume the reader knows all that background.
Click to expand...

Correct. Stryd operates completely independent of the watch and its GPS. Stryd simply communicates with the watch in order to display its data. If you allow it to, it can replace GPS for distance functionality and it should be more accurate - although in practice I find them to be pretty consistent either way - but I'm not running short distances - typically longer distances on trails - so I don't care much if my watch is off by 100' or so.

Whether the power data is useful as a training tool is still a bit up in the air. Because Stryd has to estimate power rather than measure it directly there is a lot of question about how accurate it is. I've only been using it a short time, but I think so long as you understand its limitations, it provides better info than we've had previously. Pace and HR are not great indicators of training load because they can be affected by so many outside factors. The power reading you get is instantaneous (unlike HR). For me, training on heavily forested trails, getting accurate distance and pace under these conditions was worth the price alone. Seeing how high my power output spikes on climbs helps me reduce my effort in order to run stronger later.

And LOL @James.K.Polk 'not as competitive as you were'. Sub 2:30 would put you on the podium for most regional marathons and would have put you top 50 or better most years at Boston.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PatrickNSF
I kind of went the opposite direction of @QCassidy352 and switched to a Garmin 645 Music from an AW3 as my primary watch. I haven't had any random reboot issues, as I believe firmware updates have mostly fixed that.

I consider myself somewhat of a competitive runner .. still run about a 20:00 5K at 54 years old. I have used various AW's as my primary running watch for the past three years, but recently switched to the Garmin 645 Music. Not because the AW didn't work for me, just kind of got tired of it, and realized that I was only really using it for workouts (Running, Cycling, and Swimming), and those are really the thing a Garmin watch excels at. Other than that, I just used it to check the weather and the time and read/reply to an occasional text.

That being said, I plan to keep my AW3, and will probably wear both on long runs so I can use the LTE to contact someone if need be and really just for piece of mind. Most of my runs are < 5 miles so I have been using just the Garmin lately.

On the AW, I mainly used the iSmoothRun app recently which I found to be excellent with a 4iiii Viiiiva HR strap. I seem to never get good HR readings with my AW3 as it tends to lock on my cadence. I haven't had that issue yet with the Garmin 645 and have found its HR sensor to be excellent.

I really am liking the way the Garmin looks, especially with this Panerai replica watchface. Plus the readability outdoors is amazing, and the ability to store up to 500 songs on the device was the clincher. A quick shot of the Garmin 645M below. FYI .. I do miss being able to reply to texts on the Garmin .. but that's about it.

IMG_1413[1].JPG
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PatrickNSF and thefredelement
Bob, that 645 is a great looking watch! I have the 935 (and switch between that and an AW LTE), but I think the 645 has the 935 beat as far as looks for day-to-day use.

I'm generally still using the AW as my daily driver, but when I want to run with the 935 (say for a tempo run or intervals) I'll sometimes lock the AW and use it like a glorified iPod nano with cell service. It avoids the hassle of wearing both watches, but still lets me run without the weight of a phone. And the AW will still give me step credit.

I just wish Garmin integrated better with the Health app.
 
@PatrickNSF .. I agree with re:Apple Health integration. Not such a big deal for me since I gave up tracking steps and all-day heart rate some time ago. But I still would like to have activities sync to Health accurately, and not duplicate 30 times like GC was doing before I turned off the Apple Health sync. Now I just use RunGap to sync my workouts to Health from GC.

The 935, 645, and Fenix series are all great looking watches. Garmin has definitely made their watches much more stylish in the last year or so. I have been wearing my 645 all the time now and it is fine as my daily driver given its small size and somewhat conservative looks.
 
zhenya said:
I'm a competitive runner who has switched to using my AW3 full time. I just sold both of my Garmin watches this week in fact.

I use iSmoothRun and a Stryd power meter. Distance is extremely consistent, and pacing feedback is accurate and immediate.

The addition of the ability to use the side buttons for pausing a run or setting a lap is what really made the difference. The only reason I'd need a different watch at this point is for ultras lasting longer than about 7 hours - and I don't have any of those on my schedule for this season right now. I'm hoping that the next generation of AW will get close to 10 hours of run time.



Correct. Stryd operates completely independent of the watch and its GPS. Stryd simply communicates with the watch in order to display its data. If you allow it to, it can replace GPS for distance functionality and it should be more accurate - although in practice I find them to be pretty consistent either way - but I'm not running short distances - typically longer distances on trails - so I don't care much if my watch is off by 100' or so.

Whether the power data is useful as a training tool is still a bit up in the air. Because Stryd has to estimate power rather than measure it directly there is a lot of question about how accurate it is. I've only been using it a short time, but I think so long as you understand its limitations, it provides better info than we've had previously. Pace and HR are not great indicators of training load because they can be affected by so many outside factors. The power reading you get is instantaneous (unlike HR). For me, training on heavily forested trails, getting accurate distance and pace under these conditions was worth the price alone. Seeing how high my power output spikes on climbs helps me reduce my effort in order to run stronger later.

And LOL @James.K.Polk 'not as competitive as you were'. Sub 2:30 would put you on the podium for most regional marathons and would have put you top 50 or better most years at Boston.
Click to expand...


I am really enjoying the Apple Watch stryd combination. It’s made me really consider dumping the 935! I wear a chest strap if I need super accurate HR data, but the wrist HR on the AW is adequate.

How are you finding the accuracy of the distance? I seeing it off a bit.... do I need to calibrate ? Can you share what settings you use ? Thanks !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back