This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A couple of factors have led to this question, but ultimately I'm looking at options from moving on from my fitbit.
The fitbit has been great (though both versions have need to be replaced due to failure or falling apart). The stats element really motivates me and my steps and activity have really taken off. I've had fitbit for 18 months now and enjoy the positive impact it has helped me to achieve. I also love the fact that I can just check progress on my iPhone really easily - I don't often log onto laptop to do this.
My running at the same time has also become more regular and culminated in a 1/2 Marathon PB yesterday in Chester which I'm delighted with. I've also pushed up my 5k PB and have an eye on a PB for 10k which, having done so well yesterday seems like something that is very achievable in the near future.
Currently I have a lot of faff between using the fitbit Charge, my iphone (in a runner's belt) as well as having a single earpiece to give me split times. Looks like some kind of gps watch linked to smartphone app might be the way to go. I'm not convinced by the durability of fitbits due to the replacements I've had to have.
I have seen the Vivioactive from Garmin advertised, looks great, but what else would others here recommend as the move on?
Thanks in advance.
The fitbit has been great (though both versions have need to be replaced due to failure or falling apart). The stats element really motivates me and my steps and activity have really taken off. I've had fitbit for 18 months now and enjoy the positive impact it has helped me to achieve. I also love the fact that I can just check progress on my iPhone really easily - I don't often log onto laptop to do this.
My running at the same time has also become more regular and culminated in a 1/2 Marathon PB yesterday in Chester which I'm delighted with. I've also pushed up my 5k PB and have an eye on a PB for 10k which, having done so well yesterday seems like something that is very achievable in the near future.
Currently I have a lot of faff between using the fitbit Charge, my iphone (in a runner's belt) as well as having a single earpiece to give me split times. Looks like some kind of gps watch linked to smartphone app might be the way to go. I'm not convinced by the durability of fitbits due to the replacements I've had to have.
I have seen the Vivioactive from Garmin advertised, looks great, but what else would others here recommend as the move on?
Thanks in advance.
In reply to Rampikino:
I've got a vivoactive, but haven't used it much as I've also got a Fenix - but it seems fine as an activity tracker and a sports watch. I think I might be tempted by the Forerunner 225 as that has a built-in HRM as well (and it's the Mio one, so it works).
I've got a vivoactive, but haven't used it much as I've also got a Fenix - but it seems fine as an activity tracker and a sports watch. I think I might be tempted by the Forerunner 225 as that has a built-in HRM as well (and it's the Mio one, so it works).
In reply to andy:
Thanks. So a quick question - what is it about the vivioactive that isn't compelling you to use it and makes you defer to the Fenix?
Thanks. So a quick question - what is it about the vivioactive that isn't compelling you to use it and makes you defer to the Fenix?
In reply to Rampikino:
If you take your iPhone running why not use RunKeeper, the GPS in a phone is better than anything than you'll get in a watch.
If you take your iPhone running why not use RunKeeper, the GPS in a phone is better than anything than you'll get in a watch.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Not necessarily true - it depends on the device. Several tests online show that precisely the opposite is true.
Not necessarily true - it depends on the device. Several tests online show that precisely the opposite is true.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
How easy is it to look at your phone while you're running?
> If you take your iPhone running why not use RunKeeper, the GPS in a phone is better than anything than you'll get in a watch.
How easy is it to look at your phone while you're running?
In reply to tony:
I never bother. Runkeeper gives me distance and pace every kilometer through the headphones.
> How easy is it to look at your phone while you're running?
I never bother. Runkeeper gives me distance and pace every kilometer through the headphones.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
So, horses for courses. I'd far rather have a watch that I could look at whenever I want than have to carry something extra and only get the information as and when.
> I never bother. Runkeeper gives me distance and pace every kilometer through the headphones.
So, horses for courses. I'd far rather have a watch that I could look at whenever I want than have to carry something extra and only get the information as and when.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
It really, really, really isn't - I don't know whether it's how often it takes a reading, but my iPhone's running distances are significantly (up to 10%) off what my numerous Garmins have measured - confirmed by track sessions and measured miles on the road.
> If you take your iPhone running why not use RunKeeper, the GPS in a phone is better than anything than you'll get in a watch.
It really, really, really isn't - I don't know whether it's how often it takes a reading, but my iPhone's running distances are significantly (up to 10%) off what my numerous Garmins have measured - confirmed by track sessions and measured miles on the road.
In reply to Rampikino: There's not much in it, but the Fenix has a better screen and also has (for me) a better cycling mode. I also wanted the Fenix for ski touring, basic navigation and grid refs etc, and it'll also control my Garmin Virb camera (not sure if the Vivoactive does that). The VA does have a pretty good golf mode for distances to the hole etc for the twice a year I play golf!
In reply to andy:
Interestingly I had the updates in my ears all the way through the Chester Half Marathon yesterday.
The mile markers out on the course and the updates I was getting varied but never by much - sometimes I got the mile update just before the marker, sometimes it was after I had passed it. On one occasion it came right as I was level with the mile marker. At the end the iPhone said I had run 13.08 miles which is not far off given that a 1/2M is 13.1. That's an error rate of a bout 1.5% by my guess.
To answer other points - I do take my iPhone now and use the fitbit run tracking as well as a single earphone for the splits. However, it's a faff and I have to get the phone out near the end in order to stop the timing which means having to unlock it on the run when it would be much easier to just press a button on a watch.
Keep in mind I do like the stats, so I like to see the mapping data, elevation and splits displayed hence why I have been using the fitbit activity tracker.
Interestingly I had the updates in my ears all the way through the Chester Half Marathon yesterday.
The mile markers out on the course and the updates I was getting varied but never by much - sometimes I got the mile update just before the marker, sometimes it was after I had passed it. On one occasion it came right as I was level with the mile marker. At the end the iPhone said I had run 13.08 miles which is not far off given that a 1/2M is 13.1. That's an error rate of a bout 1.5% by my guess.
To answer other points - I do take my iPhone now and use the fitbit run tracking as well as a single earphone for the splits. However, it's a faff and I have to get the phone out near the end in order to stop the timing which means having to unlock it on the run when it would be much easier to just press a button on a watch.
Keep in mind I do like the stats, so I like to see the mapping data, elevation and splits displayed hence why I have been using the fitbit activity tracker.
In reply to andy:
Fair enough, thanks. That's a whole bunch of extra stuff that I wouldn't be doing so that helps.
Fair enough, thanks. That's a whole bunch of extra stuff that I wouldn't be doing so that helps.
In reply to Rampikino:
I'm not really sure what the fitbit does, but a basic GPS watch will give you all the run data you want, generally more accurately than your phone and with less faff starting and stopping.
It won't give you your pace in your ear, but you can just check your wrist very easily.
I'm not really sure what the fitbit does, but a basic GPS watch will give you all the run data you want, generally more accurately than your phone and with less faff starting and stopping.
It won't give you your pace in your ear, but you can just check your wrist very easily.
In reply to Rampikino:
You can't take the difference as a measurement of error in the iPhone GPS accuracy because a. the person measuring the race distance also has a measurement error and b. you won't have run the exact path of the person who measured it. All you can say is that the measurements are pretty much the same.
Usually, when the iPhone GPS is not accurate it has to do with how it is oriented or the case that it is being used. I find that when I put my iPhone in a silicone rubber armband the GPS performance is much worse than when I keep it loose in a pocket. My guess it is either because the rubber is slightly conductive or because the part of the phone with the GPS antenna is being pressed against my skin (and people are mostly water) so there's a shielding effect. The one thing the GPS in a watch has going for it is that it isn't getting put in a case or a pocket.
> At the end the iPhone said I had run 13.08 miles which is not far off given that a 1/2M is 13.1. That's an error rate of a bout 1.5% by my guess.
You can't take the difference as a measurement of error in the iPhone GPS accuracy because a. the person measuring the race distance also has a measurement error and b. you won't have run the exact path of the person who measured it. All you can say is that the measurements are pretty much the same.
Usually, when the iPhone GPS is not accurate it has to do with how it is oriented or the case that it is being used. I find that when I put my iPhone in a silicone rubber armband the GPS performance is much worse than when I keep it loose in a pocket. My guess it is either because the rubber is slightly conductive or because the part of the phone with the GPS antenna is being pressed against my skin (and people are mostly water) so there's a shielding effect. The one thing the GPS in a watch has going for it is that it isn't getting put in a case or a pocket.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You're being a little disingenuous here. If for example I wanted to go for a 2 hour run after work, and I last charged my phone overnight how much of those 2 hours do you think it would work?
You're being a little disingenuous here. If for example I wanted to go for a 2 hour run after work, and I last charged my phone overnight how much of those 2 hours do you think it would work?
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I'm not sure how much you know about AAA course measurement rules, but I can assure you that if it's been officially measured then it will be pretty much bang on 13.1m - but a phone saying 13.08 is well within what I'd expect from a Garmin.
However my experience is that my iPhone is that it's unacceptably inaccurate for a serious runner, and all the Garmin devices I've used have knocked it into a cocked hat.
> You can't take the difference as a measurement of error in the iPhone GPS accuracy because a. the person measuring the race distance also has a measurement error and b. you won't have run the exact path of the person who measured it. All you can say is that the measurements are pretty much the same.
I'm not sure how much you know about AAA course measurement rules, but I can assure you that if it's been officially measured then it will be pretty much bang on 13.1m - but a phone saying 13.08 is well within what I'd expect from a Garmin.
However my experience is that my iPhone is that it's unacceptably inaccurate for a serious runner, and all the Garmin devices I've used have knocked it into a cocked hat.
In reply to andy:
We are talking about a difference of 0.02 miles which is 1609 * 0.02 = 32 metres out of 13.1 miles = 21,078 metres so a factor of 0.0015 or 0.15%. That is so accurate it is almost unbelievable given the real world nature of what is being measured. Choosing slightly different lines on corners or changing path slightly because of other runners could accumulate to 32m over 21km.
> I'm not sure how much you know about AAA course measurement rules, but I can assure you that if it's been officially measured then it will be pretty much bang on 13.1m - but a phone saying 13.08 is well within what I'd expect from a Garmin.
We are talking about a difference of 0.02 miles which is 1609 * 0.02 = 32 metres out of 13.1 miles = 21,078 metres so a factor of 0.0015 or 0.15%. That is so accurate it is almost unbelievable given the real world nature of what is being measured. Choosing slightly different lines on corners or changing path slightly because of other runners could accumulate to 32m over 21km.
> However my experience is that my iPhone is that it's unacceptably inaccurate for a serious runner, and all the Garmin devices I've used have knocked it into a cocked hat.
In reply to TomBaker:
If I have a big ball of string and I cut a largish chunk off how long do you think it is now?
It depends. I've got no idea which model iPhone you have, how old the battery is, what apps you run, how often you check messages, whether you make lots of calls, how far you are from the basestation, whether it is on WiFi most of the time etc etc. My iPhone lasts a few days between charges, I don't usually run as long as 2hrs, probably if I was going to use Runkeeper on that length of run I'd charge the phone first it doesn't take long to top it up..
> You're being a little disingenuous here. If for example I wanted to go for a 2 hour run after work, and I last charged my phone overnight how much of those 2 hours do you think it would work?
If I have a big ball of string and I cut a largish chunk off how long do you think it is now?
It depends. I've got no idea which model iPhone you have, how old the battery is, what apps you run, how often you check messages, whether you make lots of calls, how far you are from the basestation, whether it is on WiFi most of the time etc etc. My iPhone lasts a few days between charges, I don't usually run as long as 2hrs, probably if I was going to use Runkeeper on that length of run I'd charge the phone first it doesn't take long to top it up..
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: I think I was agreeing with that - 13.08 for a half is just fine. My experience of running with an iPhone is that it'd measure more like 12.5 miles and that's not even slightly fine.
In reply to andy:
Well, unless it was part of a triathlon
> I think I was agreeing with that - 13.08 for a half is just fine. My experience of running with an iPhone is that it'd measure more like 12.5 miles and that's not even slightly fine.
Well, unless it was part of a triathlon
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Certified courses are guaranteed to be accurate within 0.1% (10 metres on a 10k) and will always be at least the advertised distance , so a 10k may be 10,010m. In my experience on dozens of certified courses, watch type GPS units are rarely more than 1% out, but phone GPS can be as much as 10% out (usually long), this is particularly the case with routes with lots of twists and turns, I suspect that this might be down to sampling rate. Add to this the fact that phones are a PITA to stop / start or even just simply carry if you are in to running in any serious kind of way.
Certified courses are guaranteed to be accurate within 0.1% (10 metres on a 10k) and will always be at least the advertised distance , so a 10k may be 10,010m. In my experience on dozens of certified courses, watch type GPS units are rarely more than 1% out, but phone GPS can be as much as 10% out (usually long), this is particularly the case with routes with lots of twists and turns, I suspect that this might be down to sampling rate. Add to this the fact that phones are a PITA to stop / start or even just simply carry if you are in to running in any serious kind of way.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
To me it's more like an r-squared equation and that being the case is close enough!
To me it's more like an r-squared equation and that being the case is close enough!
In reply to The New NickB:
My iphone typically reads about 5% longer than my Garmin for a given route, and the Garmin agrees better with my readings from OS Maps. I am always amazed at how consistent the Garmin is for a route. For example, it always gives me well within 1% the same distance for a 10 mile route from my front door.
I use the iphone instead sometimes if I want to get a run quickly up onto Strava, and know that I won't be able to do that with the watch, for example if I am away from home.
You can lop off the last bit of a run on Strava, so the seconds that go by as you fumble to get at the phone, get into it then stop the timer can be got rid of, but a phone is nowhere near as handy during the run as a watch.
My iphone typically reads about 5% longer than my Garmin for a given route, and the Garmin agrees better with my readings from OS Maps. I am always amazed at how consistent the Garmin is for a route. For example, it always gives me well within 1% the same distance for a 10 mile route from my front door.
I use the iphone instead sometimes if I want to get a run quickly up onto Strava, and know that I won't be able to do that with the watch, for example if I am away from home.
You can lop off the last bit of a run on Strava, so the seconds that go by as you fumble to get at the phone, get into it then stop the timer can be got rid of, but a phone is nowhere near as handy during the run as a watch.
In reply to The New NickB:
A combination of the faff and also the link to the app. I like all my stats and numbers but don't want to be logging in at home all the time - would prefer app based.
A combination of the faff and also the link to the app. I like all my stats and numbers but don't want to be logging in at home all the time - would prefer app based.
In reply to Rampikino:
You can push a GPS watch to Strava and then on to Fitibt, so there is no faff. Some of them will even push directly I believe.
Alternatively, why not get a surge? Does all the fitbit-y stuff plus is a GPS watch. It means you need to spend the thick end of £200, but there seems to be a reasonably strong market for 2nd hand activity trackers.
You can push a GPS watch to Strava and then on to Fitibt, so there is no faff. Some of them will even push directly I believe.
Alternatively, why not get a surge? Does all the fitbit-y stuff plus is a GPS watch. It means you need to spend the thick end of £200, but there seems to be a reasonably strong market for 2nd hand activity trackers.
In reply to ianstevens:
Mostly because my two different fitbit devices so far have been decidedly flakey and both needed replacement. My experiences with fitbit stats haven't been great and their customer services is patchy. I'm a bit tainted!
Mostly because my two different fitbit devices so far have been decidedly flakey and both needed replacement. My experiences with fitbit stats haven't been great and their customer services is patchy. I'm a bit tainted!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...