Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Polar S625X vs Garmin Forerunner
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/ba354f0c38c82df420f5c0197d09eda9_100.png)
I know this is not a new topic, but ... I've just spent HOURS reading hundreds of posts about these gadgets. Even read a learned thesis by a Belgian rocket scientist. My head is spinning.
I have been using a Garmin F201 for about a year. Overall I think it's a fantastic training tool and has helped me improve my running a lot. But sometimes I am disappointed by the accuracy of its distance measurement. Can't really complain because it's usually no more than 2-3% out - and I don't think GPS can do any better than that. Trouble is that can add up to as much as half a mile over a half marathon which feels like quite a lot.
And I want an HRM. Everyone seems to think they are a great way to train intelligently.
So I've been thinking about the S625X. But from all I've read there seem to be a lot of issues about its accuracy as well. Lengthy debates about how to calibrate it properly. Even when you do it doesn't seem clear to me that it improves on the 2-3% accuracy of the Garmin. I'm also worried it might be a bit too complicated.
So I've gone round in a circle and ended up thinking I'm quite happy with Garmin after all. So the question is, should I upgrade to a 301 to get the HRM - seems a bit extravagant when I've already got the 201. Or buy a good HRM. I think the latter: the Polar S601i looks like the business.
Does anybody want to tell me I've got this all wrong before I take the plunge?!
I have been using a Garmin F201 for about a year. Overall I think it's a fantastic training tool and has helped me improve my running a lot. But sometimes I am disappointed by the accuracy of its distance measurement. Can't really complain because it's usually no more than 2-3% out - and I don't think GPS can do any better than that. Trouble is that can add up to as much as half a mile over a half marathon which feels like quite a lot.
And I want an HRM. Everyone seems to think they are a great way to train intelligently.
So I've been thinking about the S625X. But from all I've read there seem to be a lot of issues about its accuracy as well. Lengthy debates about how to calibrate it properly. Even when you do it doesn't seem clear to me that it improves on the 2-3% accuracy of the Garmin. I'm also worried it might be a bit too complicated.
So I've gone round in a circle and ended up thinking I'm quite happy with Garmin after all. So the question is, should I upgrade to a 301 to get the HRM - seems a bit extravagant when I've already got the 201. Or buy a good HRM. I think the latter: the Polar S601i looks like the business.
Does anybody want to tell me I've got this all wrong before I take the plunge?!
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
I love them both, but if I could afford it I'd get the Polar S625X because I'm currently having to wear the Polar on my wrist and the Garmin on my upper-arm (and I'm thinking of getting an iPod Shuffle now with an armstrap.. but how much more crazy am I going to look?!).
BTW, I don't think you HAVE to calibrate the S625X, I think it's optional as it also has GPS technology.
I've had my 625x for 6 months, I have never calebrated it and it is spot on accurate. I think the accuracy problems come in if you are a forefoot striker.
I love my bit of kit with a passion :-)
I was put off a garmin firstly because of the size and also as it has problems in built up or heavily wooded areas, which is precisely where I run. My polar works anywhere, even on treadmills.
The worst thing is that I could buy one... but then I'd have less money for when I finish Uni..
Is it seriously that good without calibration?
I love it!
Easy to use, (although I was already familiar with Polar)and I haven't calibrated it yet.
Supposedly 97% accurate without calibration, and 99% with.
I've tested it at races, at the track and on the tready. It's usually out about 40 m's over 4 miles (sorry for the mixed units). It is accurate enough for my needs.
The best thing is downloading the graphs and analysing them afterwards.
I know some people have had problems but Polar seems to be keen to put them right.
interested to see you've tested yours on the tready.
Does it work?
Could I use the treadmill to calibrate mine?
Without having a good explanation as to why, I assumed the readings on a treadmill would not be reliable.
I've just a similar dilemma, in that I already have an hrm and was wondering if to buy a Forerunner.
I was thinking of another, cheaper, footpod without hrm. I think they're much of a muchness, and the technology is licensed from the same company anyway. I also think a footpod will be more reliable for my terrain, given that in summer I try to keep under the trees and in the shade. But the virtual trainer feature sold the Garmin to me.
Now that I've got a Forerunner, I find I use the two gadgets for different purposes - the GPS for running up to a pace, the hrm for recovery, ie running down. For me, the added expense of the combined functions was unnecessary, as I use them separately.
So if you're happy with the Forerunner, think about whether you'll want to use the SDM and hrm functions of the 301 or s625x separately or simultaneously.
a. measure it on an OS 1:25 000 map with an ancient map measurer
b. ride round it on the bike afterwards and check the distance, on an old Huret cyclometer in the early days, Cateye computer latterly
c. time myself over a few measured miles (measured earlier by bike) and calculate distance from average pace
Cross-checking these over the years I've come up with an accuracy of plus or minus a quarter of a mile up to 10 miles. I've always been very happy with this in training. In a race I would demand more stringent standards, but I don't race in training!
The Polar S625X measures up (if you'll pardon the pun) to these standards reasonably well. You'll never know the "exact" distance anyway unless you go round afterwars with a surveyor's wheel and even then the values will differ from one day to the next as you'll never follow the same line (unless you are severely obsessional, in which case I suspect you've stopped enjoying running)
The advantages of the Polar are, to my mind and my particular needs:
1. An excellent and reliable altimeter (I do a lot of hills) that records cumulative ascent - a real pain to calulate on a map.
2. An indication of relative, rather than absolute, steady state speed
3. Gives me the same estimate of distance as my previous methods did but with a lot less effort
I really don't see the value of comparing the Polar to mileposts in a race as in a race the objective is to get to the end as fast as possible, and the answer to that equation is not just a bald minutes per mile pace, but includes heart rate, perceived effort, psychological arousal, weather and a thousand other factors.
So, in conclusion - these things are tools (or toys!) to help you enjoy your running, not to take over from it. So what if today's run measured 7.1 miles and last week it was 7.3? I was out there, and it was great!
The HR monitor is good and it's nice to see heart rate and pace compared on a single graph. I have a Polar HR monitor which I used before getting the 301, and can't see that the F301 misses any features that I need.
I used the Forerunner in a 10k race a few weeks back and it was fantastic it helping me judge my pace.
There will be new gadgets out in years to come that will be spot on perfect. In the meantime I reckon the F301 is the puppy's privates.
Yes i love my 'toys', but they should add to my running not detrack from them which is what was starting to happen a month ago.
As a foot note i did the FLM without a hrm/odometre and i really enjoyed the day.
It was what i started running for - for fun!
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
The 625x works really well on the tready. I wondered if the difference in my gait would make it less accurate but I think the eveness of my gait on the tready makes it MORE accurate. I use it on the tready so that the miles I run are logged on the polar software.
no apology needed,
thanks for that, so do you think I should calibrate on the treadmill or not?
I salute you! You are certainly a better adjusted individual than me.
That said, I don't consider myself severely obsessional. I'm happy to say I've never even considered buying a surveyor's wheel.
But, much though I love my Garmin, I do yearn for a super-accurate running gadget that really can tell the difference between 7.1 and 7.3 miles.
But I've taken the plunge now and ordered the s625x. So please could people only say nice things about it from now on!
It's a nice colour...
Seriously, Idon't think you'll regret your purchase. I have a Garmin eTrex with built in barometer/altimeter but found that it was forever losing the signal and then telling me I'd done the last stretch at 23 mph! OK, so not a dedicated running GPS but it did suggest to me that GPS signals were not the most reliable in my area (with lots of tree cover).
And it's great to draw graphs after the run!
It's worth a try :-)
Never calibrated mine so I have no idea of the mechanics. I think it involves stopping suddenly in which case the tready might pose some problems.
Took it out for a four miler this evening. I felt a bit like the bionic man after I'd donned my chest strap, foot pod, wrist monitor (and my old GPS just to ensure fair play).
Anyway, pretty good. It measured 3.9 miles for what I know is just under 4.1, so I may have a calibration issue to sort out.
The only problem I've had is with the PC software. The watch correctly recorded my run at 27:23, but on the graphs on the PC it claims I only ran for 27:00. Anyone know why this might be?
Also, is it possible to get distance measurements to more than one decimal place?
You can get 3 decimal places by:
(1)Menu-(view)/(Listing)- This will show 3 decimal accuracy for each sample point.
(2)Menu-(view)/(laps times)/(speed) - Same accuracy but for each recorded lap.
You'll find good discussions for questions like yours at the following forum.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/S625x/messages
I've seen Josie's graphs and they look great, any method of uploading will do me though
I only found that out last night.
Which was nice (quoting the fast show!)
I did my second run with the S625X this evening: roughly 10K and again I'm pretty sure it was about 2-3% below the true mileage (based on a long term average taken from my GPS and measuring the route using Tracklogs). I'm planning on doing a few more runs over known distances and then recalibrating the watch based on the average discrepancy. Grateful for any views on whether that's a sensible approach.
Another question for seasoned users: how accurate is the OwnTest (which claims to give you an estimate of your HR-max and VO2-max just from measuring your resting pulse for 2-3 minutes)?
Polar's HR-max=170, actual=189
Polar's Vo2-max=51, actual=38 (57 years old)
I use the OwnOptimizer for getting resting HRs as it forces me to be consistent in making the measurement. I think it does aid in finding when you're overtraining and when you're about to get a virus. I use the OwnIndex as a relative index, but don't trust the actual value.