Calling all runners-discussions on GPS/HR/Battery and run stuff.

[Long Run Nick]

As a follow up to a thread I posted concerning GPS battery drain, several posters requested more run related things with the AW2. Hopefully this will result in folks joining in and relating their experiences, training ideas, race results and other run related info.
I "humbly" post some of my running credentials which will hopefully lend some credence to replies I may present to fellow forum members:
73 year old male, seriously running since 4/76. Currently at 85,478 running miles and counting. Competed in over 525 races over the years from 1 mile to 50+ milers. Was fortunate enough to have coached the All Army(US) Marathon team back in the early 80's. Have coached probably 100's of neighborhood class runners.
I am a gadget geek and have tried, run with about every running device that has come down the pike.
Looking forward to see if this generates some interest for runners and maybe catches the attention of some newbies and can help motivate them to get beyond the 30 minute active workout. Join in. Thanks, Nick.

 

[dallison13]

Glad to see this thread, as i enjoyed your previous post. I run with My AW2 and since I love stats, use Strava's app whilst carrying my phone, usually with a Flipbelt. The current Strava app is ok (I like the segments and voice notifications) but is not customizable, and has a noticeable lag when looking at the AW.

I actually like the AW built in app, if it weren't for the fact that your data is mostly locked onto the watch and the workout app with no way of exporting.

I have used the Pear Sports app on the AW which uses GPS, but the apps themselves leave a lot to be desired.

Folks, give me some advice...I owned a Garmin Fenix which I sold to get my AW2 SS. I took for granted running with that watch, but MOST EVERYTHING else about that watch is inferior to the AW (and I used the Fenix for over a year). Of course on is a smartwatch and the other is an outdoors watch with a few smartwatch features - I get that. But I am really tempted to pick up a Garmin235 (and run with both) or something until the app developers get their apps updated so I won't feel hamstrung for the next 3-6 months.

Should I just hold out or what? Your thoughts and experiences?

 

[Julien]

...But I am really tempted to pick up a Garmin235 (and run with both) or something until the app developers get their apps updated so I won't feel hamstrung for the next 3-6 months.

Should I just hold out or what? Your thoughts and experiences?

I have been running with a Garmin 620 since S0 launch day. Watch is a great general fitness device but it is NO comprehensive running device. Garmin 620 for all my cardio records and Watch as backup and overall fitness monitor/smart watch. Good to have 2 wrists.

 

[dallison13]

I have been running with a Garmin 620 since S0 launch day. Watch is a great general fitness device but it is NO comprehensive running device. Garmin 620 for all my cardio records and Watch as backup and overall fitness monitor/smart watch. Good to have 2 wrists.

Makes sense but to be fair you have a S0 without GPS so that is to be expected. Based on purchasing a S2 and after a month of driving a ferrari and attracting no hot chicks, something is lacking!

Maybe its my personality?

 

[Julien]

Makes sense but to be fair you have a S0 without GPS so that is to be expected....

I have carried my iPhone running well over 98% of the time since 2007 so I have the same Watch GPS experience as the S2.

 

[exxxviii]

But I am really tempted to pick up a Garmin235 (and run with both) or something until the app developers get their apps updated so I won't feel hamstrung for the next 3-6 months.

Should I just hold out or what? Your thoughts and experiences?

If you are into running, analyzing performance, and capturing data in a way that you can look back at what you have done and how you have progressed, get a Garmin 235. It is one of the best running devices money can buy. It will be years before the AW platform even approaches Garmin. By then, your 235 will be worn out and we will be on the AWS5. Apple GPS accuracy will probably always be good, but 10x inferior to Garmin. And, the data any AW app captures today is very rudimentary compared to a dedicated running watch. As Julien said, you have two wrists, use them.

 

[Long Run Nick]

I have run with the FR 235 for nearly 11 months. I have found it to be superior to any of the previous iterations. Believe me, I have tried most of them.
The AW2 has impressed me. The HR is for the most part pretty tight compared to my Garmin. Distance is a little off. A 9 mile run today measured 9.09 on the AW2. I have run with both the Garmin and AW2 on 10 runs since getting the AW on 10/6- a total of 83 miles. Once I figured out a light touch will pause the run and that auto pause only works if you actually stop. I will probably continue running with both watches, my sickness continues. Nick

 

[Fthree]

Found It! Subscribing to this EPIC thread
[doublepost=1476753285][/doublepost]New to running distances as of this last year. Was able to complete 4 half marathons, one 10k, 2 5ks and one marathon this last year. Loving the ability to track and keep up with my runs via my garmin 630. (Preordered the Nike Volt edition)

 

[dallison13]

Nike Run Clubs' newest app is updated to use watches GPS.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/series-2-gps-3rd-party-apps.1995147/page-6#post-23789087

 

[BarracksSi]

tl;dr: What matters is what you plan to do with your workout data.

I started using a Forerunner 410 about five years ago (I think). The big players at the time were Garmin and Polar; there wasn't any other platform worth paying attention to. What mattered to me at the time was how well the data was supported on my Mac, and as best as I could figure out, Garmin was wiping the floor with Polar. Polar didn't even seem to care about Mac OS integration, yet Garmin had expanded to building an iOS app.

I've accumulated a lot of data with the 410. I used it for running, biking, weight training, cardio, yoga, soccer, -- I logged at least a couple sessions of every physical activity I did, if only just to see numbers describing how my body responded.

I never bothered using all that data, though. It had become a mere curiosity for me. "Hey, look, my heart rate went to 198 when I climbed that hill." "The GPS plot is kinda jagged, but I could still spell out 'M-O-M' in the park for Mother's Day." Meh. MEH, I tell you.

I started using the 410 less and less. I didn't like it as a daily-wear watch because it was so bulky, so I often let it sit unattended -- which allowed its battery to run down -- which meant it was usually dead when I wanted to wear it for another biweekly jog. It has no other tricks besides exercise logging (dismissing its in-session functions like virtual partners and audible timer), which meant it was just another digital watch the rest of the day.

So what does all this rambling have to do with the Apple Watch?

If I cared enough about analyzing exercise data, I'd be researching all the third-party apps, or maybe I'd try writing my own app. I'll put this part aside for now, though, because I now "measure my fitness" by how many pullups I can do, how I feel after a run, and how nicely my clothes fit.

For what I want to know these days during exercise, I don't care about much more than time elapsed (and time of day), distance, and maybe total calories (if I ever get back to logging calorie expenditure and intake). I already get these in Apple's app.

In everything else where the Garmin fell short, the AW does fine. It's not too bulky, it's comfortable, it looks nice, and it does all the expected smartwatch tricks.

I also don't miss seeing the same data that the Garmin gave me because, as I said, I never really used all the Garmin's data anyway.

So, again, IMO, the real question is, What do you plan to do with the data?

 

[exxxviii]

So, again, IMO, the real question is, What do you plan to do with the data?

That pretty much sums it up. If you are running, biking, or swimming recreationally or just for general fitness, then the AW is great. If you are interested in performance improvement, then get a Garmin. Because, the data analysis and integration helps with performance improvement far better than what is available on the AW today.

P.S. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... That 410 is probably the worst GPS watch Garmin ever produced. So, it is no wonder you did not like it; few people liked that watch. Garmin discontinued it years before the AW was even a twinkle in Apple's eye. The modern watches, like the 230, 235, 630, 735, and fēnix 3 are far better performers and actually out-smart the AW in some small areas.

 

[BarracksSi]

That pretty much sums it up. If you are running, biking, or swimming recreationally or just for general fitness, then the AW is great. If you are interested in performance improvement, then get a Garmin. Because, the data analysis and integration helps with performance improvement far better than what is available on the AW today.

Right, and if I was using things like a Powertap on my bike, I'd have even more data to analyze. I haven't looked into power & cadence for iOS that didn't need workarounds or dongles for ANT+.

P.S. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... That 410 is probably the worst GPS watch Garmin ever produced. So, it is no wonder you did not like it; few people liked that watch. Garmin discontinued it years before the AW was even a twinkle in Apple's eye. The modern watches, like the 230, 235, 630, 735, and fēnix 3 are far better performers and actually out-smart the AW in some small areas.

Regardless of which Garmin I was using, the data collected is going to be about the same, and I never cared enough to use all of it.

I still think that digging deep into workout data is worth it only if I'm going to match it up with other factors, like weather, nutrition, equipment (tire pressures, wheels, which helmet I wore, etc), and other stuff like that. Should I eat an omelet or granola before the weekend shop ride? How many days off works best between upper-body workouts?

Meh.

 

[Long Run Nick]

Kind of interesting that with all the data/ metrics available to us Marathon finishing times have slowed. Back in the 70's under 4 hours was considered pretty pedestrian. Now with all the tech gear, improvement in running shoes, etc. there are a lot of folks taking over 6 hours to finish. I am not knocking anyone, great that they are out there moving for 6 +hours, maybe we suffer from TMI.

 

[Julien]

Kind of interesting that with all the data/ metrics available to us Marathon finishing times have slowed. Back in the 70's under 4 hours was considered pretty pedestrian. Now with all the tech gear, improvement in running shoes, etc. there are a lot of folks taking over 6 hours to finish. I am not knocking anyone, great that they are out there moving for 6 +hours, maybe we suffer from TMI.

Back in the 70s only highly conditioned athletes were running marathons. Even women running in marathons was extremely rare. In 1972 there were only 272 people and only 6 women (and they were the first to every do it) running in the NYC marathon. Now it is about 40,000. Your comparison is apples to oranges.

 

[exxxviii]

Kind of interesting that with all the data/ metrics available to us Marathon finishing times have slowed. Back in the 70's under 4 hours was considered pretty pedestrian. Now with all the tech gear, improvement in running shoes, etc. there are a lot of folks taking over 6 hours to finish. I am not knocking anyone, great that they are out there moving for 6 +hours, maybe we suffer from TMI.

I don't think that has anything to do with performance as much as race directors keeping courses open longer to try to attract more paying runners to do that bucket list distance. A few decades ago, when the course cutoff may have been 4:00 or 4:30, only the speedy need apply. Now, with courses open 6 hours or longer, someone who is 50 lbs. overweight can get through the distance. And, the foolishness of keeping marathon courses open too long has led to far more cases of hyponatremia, something that rarely occurred long ago.

 

[Long Run Nick]

Back in the 70s only highly conditioned athletes were running marathons. Even women running in marathons was extremely rare. In 1972 there were only 272 people and only 6 women (and they were the fist to every do it) running in the NYC marathon. Now it is about 40,000. Your comparison is apples to oranges.

I can assure you when I ran my first marathon back in 1977 there were quite a few "neighborhood class runners" competing and finishing under 4 hours. A lot us we're not highly conditioned athletes. You have to realize there were no GPS/HR/cadence/VO2 readings, etc sitting on our wrists. Don't get me wrong, I like all the data, I sometimes wonder how I ran close to 40,000 miles without the info, closing in on 86.000 miles run I am glad we have it, but surprised times are what they are for "neighborhood class" runners, given the personal coach on our wrists.

 

[Julien]

I can assure you when I ran my first marathon back in 1977 there were quite a few "neighborhood class runners" competing and finishing under 4 hours. A lot us we're not highly conditioned athletes. You have to realize there were no GPS/HR/cadence/VO2 readings, etc sitting on our wrists. Don't get me wrong, I like all the data, I sometimes wonder how I ran close to 40,000 miles without the info, closing in on 86.000 miles run I am glad we have it, but surprised times are what they are for "neighborhood class" runners, given the personal coach on our wrists.

You can not compare the numbers now to your subjective memory then and make ANY meaningful statistical comparison. For instance the percentage of people who drop out now is much lower. These people are the ones finishing with a longer time. They used to just quit but now finish.

...And one final piece of research to report: run247.com has looked at every London Marathon since its inaugural running in 1981, in particular how many people have completed the course. The results show that over the years, the number of finishers has steadily increased – from 88.66% in 1981, creeping up through the 1990s and maintaining an impressive 97-98% since 1996....

EDIT: Here is some info to support my previous post:

...As the sport has become more popular among mainstream runners, charity runners and run-walkers, participation has increased, and so have finishing times. In 1980, the median marathon time was right around 3:30 for men and 4:00:00 for women. In 1980, however, only 143,000 Americans participated in marathons...

 

[Fthree]

what apps are yall using to gps your runs? just got my nike AW2 in and wondering what i should use tomorrow. (nike/strava)

 

[Bob190]

what apps are yall using to gps your runs? just got my nike AW2 in and wondering what i should use tomorrow. (nike/strava)

If you plan on running without your phone you only have the following choices if you want GPS map data:

Pear Sports app - buggy, records poor GPS track, syncs to Strava
Nike Run Club - GPS track more accurate, export to Strava with RunGap
Native Workout app - works well, but holds your GPS data captive in app .. No export.

I started out using Pear, switched to NRC as it is much more polished.

 

[Julien]

what apps are yall using to gps your runs?...

• Workout app on my Watch
• Nike+ (NRC) on my iPhone
• Garmin 620 on my right wrist

 

[kylera]

So, again, IMO, the real question is, What do you plan to do with the data?

This nails it for me as well.

I'm no pro runner myself; if I have to pigeonhole myself into a level, I would consider myself high beginner, low intermediate at best, and I run for general fitness, not for a living.

My current running watch is a Garmin Forerunner 225, and during the past year I owned and used it, the features and data I have used or perused the most are as follows:

- instantaneous and average speeds
- map of my runs
- heart rate
- heart rate-based training plans
- pedometer (activity training)

The 225 is capable of much more than that, but I haven't bothered because I'm not that hardcore of a runner.

During my search for something that could replace it, I came across an app called Runmeter (link: https://appsto.re/us/qMFDt.i). I noticed that the app has the exact features I have consistently used on my Garmin, though some of them are behind a subscription paywall ($10/year). Initially, I was repulsed because I have to pay every year for the features. Furthermore, there haven't been any announcements for an update that would make the app work independently without an iPhone.

However, a couple thoughts came to mind that made me reconsider my initial disdain. For one, this whole past year, I always had my iPhone on me while running. Because of my schedule, I run on my way home after classes or work.

A second thought came up regarding the price. An entry-level Garmin costs $130 brand new. There is no guarantee that that model will last me 13 years, especially since my year-old FR225 is suddenly unable to keep track of steps as of a couple weeks ago.

This suddenly made me more receptive to that app, and now I'm waiting for my SS S2 to finally ship so I can give it a whirl.

 

[nicho]

If you plan on running without your phone you only have the following choices if you want GPS map data:

Pear Sports app - buggy, records poor GPS track, syncs to Strava
Nike Run Club - GPS track more accurate, export to Strava with RunGap
Native Workout app - works well, but holds your GPS data captive in app .. No export.

I started out using Pear, switched to NRC as it is much more polished.

if only NRC would export the map to the native workout app (which it doesn't seem to do even after the new update, judging by peoples screenshots) then i'd be all over it.

 

[Fthree]

have to say I'm pretty impressed, ran for the first time with the nike AWS2 this am on my treadmill. I had my garmin 630 on my right wrist my HR strap on and the nike watch on my left. I figured that the AW was going to be way off since i havent "calibrated" it or done anything with it. It was .03 off of my garmin and the heart rate on both devices were identical.

 

[Long Run Nick]

This nails it for me as well.

I'm no pro runner myself; if I have to pigeonhole myself into a level, I would consider myself high beginner, low intermediate at best, and I run for general fitness, not for a living.

My current running watch is a Garmin Forerunner 225, and during the past year I owned and used it, the features and data I have used or perused the most are as follows:

- instantaneous and average speeds
- map of my runs
- heart rate
- heart rate-based training plans
- pedometer (activity training)

The 225 is capable of much more than that, but I haven't bothered because I'm not that hardcore of a runner.

During my search for something that could replace it, I came across an app called Runmeter (link: https://appsto.re/us/qMFDt.i). I noticed that the app has the exact features I have consistently used on my Garmin, though some of them are behind a subscription paywall ($10/year). Initially, I was repulsed because I have to pay every year for the features. Furthermore, there haven't been any announcements for an update that would make the app work independently without an iPhone.

However, a couple thoughts came to mind that made me reconsider my initial disdain. For one, this whole past year, I always had my iPhone on me while running. Because of my schedule, I run on my way home after classes or work.

A second thought came up regarding the price. An entry-level Garmin costs $130 brand new. There is no guarantee that that model will last me 13 years, especially since my year-old FR225 is suddenly unable to keep track of steps as of a couple weeks ago.

This suddenly made me more receptive to that app, and now I'm waiting for my SS S2 to finally ship so I can give it a whirl.

Not sure why you think 13 years with any tech device would be a satisfying experience. Actually your 225 was old tech 1 year ago when the 235 hit the market. Just sayin.
[doublepost=1477768698][/doublepost]

have to say I'm pretty impressed, ran for the first time with the nike AWS2 this am on my treadmill. I had my garmin 630 on my right wrist my HR strap on and the nike watch on my left. I figured that the AW was going to be way off since i havent "calibrated" it or done anything with it. It was .03 off of my garmin and the heart rate on both devices were identical.

I have now run over 150 miles with both the AW2 and my 235. Still impressed. BUT, I have noticed the HR for both show on the app the same a lot of times. While in Garmin Connect I get the HR from my 235, either wrist or strap. I find the AW is a little generous with HR, meaning it measures higher and distance is longer.

 

[exxxviii]

One other thing to consider... I only expect a couple years of useful life from a frequently used fitness device. They are in an extremely hostile environment, and the salt and constant movement take a heavy toll. I used to try to eek three years out, but most devices are really only good for a couple years if you are sweating heavily and working out with a it three or more times per week.