HRM with GPS

antomagoo

Still fairly new to running but training well and aiming for first marathon in October with several half's between now and then. Bike is my first love and will be hoping to work on my swim later in the year with a view to doing tri's next year.

what would be the best/cost effective HRM with GPS for someone in my position? I want to get something soon to maximize training sessions.

Was looking at the Garmin 305 as you can get a cadence sensor for the bike, but only covered for 1m in water so cant wear it during swim phase of Tri.

I think the 310XT is prob a little outside my price range for a few months. Also I have read that the HRM on the Garmin watches is not great?

Not keen on the way the Polar watches have the GPS device/foot pod separate to the watch. Any die hard polar users who swear by them?

The last one on my list is the Timex Ironman Global Trainer. Like the way you can customize the display, may be a bit of a gimmick. Cadence and power for the bike is done through ANT+.

Long post I know but any advice would be greatly appreciated, cheers

Krusty_Clown

antomagoo wrote: »

Still fairly new to running but training well and aiming for first marathon in October with several half's between now and then. Bike is my first love and will be hoping to work on my swim later in the year with a view to doing tri's next year.

what would be the best/cost effective HRM with GPS for someone in my position? I want to get something soon to maximize training sessions.

Was looking at the Garmin 305 as you can get a cadence sensor for the bike, but only covered for 1m in water so cant wear it during swim phase of Tri.

I think the 310XT is prob a little outside my price range for a few months. Also I have read that the HRM on the Garmin watches is not great?

Not keen on the way the Polar watches have the GPS device/foot pod separate to the watch. Any die hard polar users who swear by them?

The last one on my list is the Timex Ironman Global Trainer. Like the way you can customize the display, may be a bit of a gimmick. Cadence and power for the bike is done through ANT+.

Long post I know but any advice would be greatly appreciated, cheers

You'll be hard pushed to do better than the 305 for £105, from Amazon.co.uk. It's not terribly useful for the swim, but I gather most triathlon participants don't bother to wear one during the swim (or locate it in their swim-hat).

sconhome

I recently did a comparison in use of a Polar with GPS and Garmin.

The data was tracked the same, HRM stayed stable and the distance, pace etc all matched. Now I wasn't being tricky or attempting to fool either unit into failure, I used a regular run route of mine which would be regular use.

In use they perfomed the same function. Yes, the Polar used a separate GPS receiver on my upper arm, very quickly you won't notice it there. The Garmin is very tidy on the wrist and you don't need to pair it up with anything extra.

The notable difference is in the upload or recording of the data for your training files. Garmin is one click upload to Garmin Connect and your data and mapping is there to be analysed and shared (if you want). Polar is a little more cumbersome, you connect the watch to the flowlink or infra red link, upload data and then click though personal trainer.

Polar mapping is a track line which you then need to export to Google Earth if you wish to see where you actually were.

On the upside, Polar is waterproof and is a nice watch (sorry, I have the RS800 and Garmin 305). Garmin 305 is shortish battery life, good for training & racing, then recharge, but not the prettiest for casual wear. The Polar RS300x will do the same job as the RS800 on the GPS.

As KC suggests at that rate the 305 is exceptional value and I would put up with the 'annoyance' of swim-hatting the watch if open water tracking is important to you. If doing this, I would suggest a quick fit bike mount and wrist strap to avoid fiddling in transition.

HTH

mloc123

If you want HRM with GPS go for a Polar
If you want GPS with HRM go for a Garmin

Garmin HRM is flakey.

catweazle

I have the Garmin 310xt, i think its excellent. At the start I didn't wear it for triathlons but I have got into the habit now, while its far from being the most streamlined watch in the water, with the wet suit pulled over it, its not too bad.

For a year or so the HRM worked reasonably well on it, then it started to spike at the start of a run and after a few months it never went below 200 bpm even if I was walking. I would expect the winter layers wasnt helping as well.

From recommendations on here I bought this Polar HRM strap which works with the 310xt and it has been perfect ever since. The strap is more comfortable to wear also and doesn't slip down at all. Its only 14 euros

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/polar-spare-elastic-strap-wearlink/?&source=MaxiFeed&id=5360016103

The 305 is a great price and I know plenty of people that wear it in the water with no bad effects, however i dont think the Polar strap above is compatible with this. However I dont know if the 305 suffers the same spikes as the 310xt anyways

TFBubendorfer

catweazle wrote: »

For a year or so the HRM worked reasonably well on it, then it started to spike at the start of a run and after a few months it never went below 200 bpm even if I was walking. I would expect the winter layers wasnt helping as well.

I've had that issue with my 305 twice and both times a new battery for the HR strap solved the problem.

And I'm pretty sure it's the strap that's the problem, not the receiver, so the 305 and 310xt would show up the same values. I think when Garmin changed their HR strap from the old plastic one to the new "premium" one, the problem got a lot worse.

Krusty_Clown

catweazle wrote: »

From recommendations on here I bought this Polar HRM strap which works with the 310xt and it has been perfect ever since. The strap is more comfortable to wear also and doesn't slip down at all. Its only 14 euros

Do you need to 'doctor' the polar elastic strap? Unfortunately it seems to be available in XXL from Wiggle only.

catweazle

No there was a button on the strap that clicked into the back of the Garmin receiver, all set up in seconds. If you wore a padded bra while running Krusty or a pair of chicken fillets the x-large would work for you

Krusty_Clown

catweazle wrote: »

No there was a button on the strap that clicked into the back of the Garmin receiver, all set up in seconds. If you wore a padded bra while running Krusty or a pair of chicken fillets the x-large would work for you

Ah right. So this fix will really only work with the 'luxury' Garmin strap, and not the 'middle-lower class' strap which doesn't have the snap-on fasteners.
Risking salmonella poisoning seems a little extreme in order to get the heart rate monitor working for the first mile of my runs, but I'll give it some consideration.

antomagoo

I think I'll go with the 305, thats a great price on amazon seeing as wiggle have it for £178stg

tunney

mloc123 wrote: »

If you want HRM with GPS go for a Polar
If you want GPS with HRM go for a Garmin

Garmin HRM is flakey.

QFT - the new range of Polars look good.

Gringo78

tunney wrote: »

QFT - the new range of Polars look good.

Are there any Polar HRM's with GPS that would be good enough for HRV also?

sconhome

With either the 300x or 800x you should be able to log a sample HRM reading which will allow you to upload to something like this http://www.hrvathlete.com/default.aspx

There is a new multisport Polar due out in May the RCx5 which is aimed squarely at the position the Garmin 310xt is sitting in. Full details are thin on the ground even through Polar. It will have a new GPS receiver which is the size of a USB key.

Hopefully an update of the personaltrainer.com site will come with it bringing this site more in line with the Garmin connect site in terms of user friendliness.

antomagoo

This is an arguing with myself out loud post

Up till yesterday I was pretty sure I was going to go with the Garmin 305 but then a friend gave me a Polar footpod. I know they cost a few quid so I decided to look into getting a polar HRM to go with it. I was looking at the RS300x (as its in my price range) but as far as I can tell none of the cycling accessories (cadence/speed etc) are compatible. I don't fancy having 2 computers on the bike when 1 can do the job. Also from what I've been reading the footpod is not great for accuracy, so would it only be a matter of time before I would need to upgrade to a GPS sensor?

Ah my heads wrecked with options

tunney

antomagoo wrote: »

This is an arguing with myself out loud post

Up till yesterday I was pretty sure I was going to go with the Garmin 305 but then a friend gave me a Polar footpod. I know they cost a few quid so I decided to look into getting a polar HRM to go with it. I was looking at the RS300x (as its in my price range) but as far as I can tell none of the cycling accessories (cadence/speed etc) are compatible. I don't fancy having 2 computers on the bike when 1 can do the job. Also from what I've been reading the footpod is not great for accuracy, so would it only be a matter of time before I would need to upgrade to a GPS sensor?

Ah my heads wrecked with options

The bike sensors might be an issue but it's worth pointing out that a properly calibrated footpod is more accurate than gps for speed.

Krusty_Clown

tunney wrote: »

The bike sensors might be an issue but it's worth pointing out that a properly calibrated footpod is more accurate than gps for speed.

Assuming the same stride length (and thus a flat profile) right? Or do the foot pods do something fancier? Never used one, but would be interested in how well it works. Garmin or Polar?

antomagoo

I'm a bit green when it comes to this stuff, but doesnt your stride have to always be the same as when you calibrate it? So not sure how that works, esp if going up and down hills your stride can sometimes lengthen/shorten

Gringo78

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Assuming the same stride length (and thus a flat profile) right? Or do the foot pods do something fancier? Never used one, but would be interested in how well it works. Garmin or Polar?

antomagoo wrote: »

I'm a bit green when it comes to this stuff, but doesnt your stride have to always be the same as when you calibrate it? So not sure how that works, esp if going up and down hills your stride can sometimes lengthen/shorten

I think ye are mixing up more advanced footpods with the simpler pedometer technology. I do believe footpods if calibrated properly will calculate the varying stride length to a high degree of accuracy, as Tunney said, pretty close to GPS.

Krusty_Clown

Gringo78 wrote: »

as Tunney said, pretty close to GPS.

He actually said more accurate than GPS for speed. Presumably a GPS is still more accurate for distance, but for changes in speed, I can certainly see why a foot-pod could produce better results than a GPS based watch, which is pretty poor (based on sampling rates) of measuring changes in speed over short periods of time.

I can't see how an advanced foot-pod can establish whether you have a shorter or longer stride because you are running up-hill or downhill versus shorter stride because you are tiring, unless the foot-pod can now establish height above sea level based on atmospheric pressure.

sconhome

antomagoo wrote: »

I was looking at the RS300x (as its in my price range) but as far as I can tell none of the cycling accessories (cadence/speed etc) are compatible.

The RS300x is a run specific watch and does not have any compatibility with the cadence sensors. In Polar the RS800CX is the only watch which crosses the running & cycling lines working with cadence & speed on the bike, footpod & GPS

antomagoo wrote: »

Also from what I've been reading the footpod is not great for accuracy, so would it only be a matter of time before I would need to upgrade to a GPS sensor?

The Polar footpod is accurate, but, the S1 (with RS300xSD) only does speed, distance & pace. Again for the bigger functions of cadence & stride length you need to move up to the RS800 series with the S3 footpod.

Hopefully the new Polar multi sport will allow all of the sensors to be used with one wrist unit.

@KC - I'd be interested in checking out the Garmin footpod. The only benefits would possibly be the heightened accuracy but also the stride length and cadence.

steoc

Hi,
I have a garmin 405cx im not using.
one year old and little use.
If your intrested ill let it go cheap.
cheers steoc

sconhome

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I can't see how an advanced foot-pod can establish whether you have a shorter or longer stride because you are running up-hill or downhill versus shorter stride because you are tiring, unless the foot-pod can now establish height above sea level based on atmospheric pressure.

No idea how it works but I checked back on a run file and the average stride length per km is plotted along with the cadence which is recorded at each data point and an average overall in the summary. This is with the Polar S3 sensor.

You would need to cross index with the GPS to determine the lie of the land in relation to the stride length. Need Garmin player merged with the Polar data.

Krusty_Clown

amphkingwest wrote: »

@KC - I'd be interested in checking out the Garmin footpod. The only benefits would possibly be the heightened accuracy but also the stride length and cadence.

I have no experience of it either, but others who have bought a FR50 or FR60 tend to switch to a GPS-based watch relatively quickly. Maybe it's just the added benefit of having route information?

Doesn't the Garmin foot-pod calibrate itself against the GPS when using a watch that has GPS and a connected foot-pod? Certainly a watch that features both (foot-pod and GPS) should be the best combination (though I must confess to never having given much thought to my running cadence).

sconhome

Must ask my friendly Garmin dealer for a footpod to try with my 305

Gringo78

KC - if its accurate for speed, its accurate for distance - you can't have one without the other so long as it measures time correctly

As regards uphill & downhill - the key difference here between a pedometer & a footpod is that the footpod will pick up the shortened stride going uphill & the lengthened stride going downhill - a traditional pedometer would have hit into inaccuracy here as it would have just applied the standard stride length on the uphill & downhill. But I would imagine the footpod would not lose a whole lot of accuracy at all.

As regards difference between uphill & tiring - well both are a cause of speed loss so again, should maintain the accuracy?

I would imagine a footpod would really come into its own a track where GPS's are down to <95% accuracy I would say.

Krusty_Clown

Gringo78 wrote: »

KC - if its accurate for speed, its accurate for distance

To be more exact it could be accurate for changes in speed (relative speed) while still not necessarily being accurate for distance (or speed). This is where a foot-pod comes into it's own over a GPS device. Plus the track. Plus indoor treadmills.

Ask Sosa. He used a footpod on an FR60 for a while.

tunney

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

To be more exact it could be accurate for changes in speed (relative speed) while still not necessarily being accurate for distance (or speed). This is where a foot-pod comes into it's own over a GPS device. Plus the track. Plus indoor treadmills.

Ask Sosa. He used a footpod on an FR60 for a while.

I've used a Polar S1 footpod and a Polar G1 GPS unit.

I'ved used a Garmin 310xt with GPS and with a footpod.

Footpods are complicated devices that use accelometers to determine how fast and in what direction your foot is moving and for how long.

GPS's (either integrated like Garmin or separate like Polar) can send pace (not accurate), distance (accurate) and speed (not accurate).

Tying in with my thread on Garmin's muck smart data - if all you want to do is find out how far you ran AFTER a run. Then GPS is great. If you are concerned more with pacing your efforts DURING a run then footpods are better.

GPS also is more accurate when not worn on the wrist but on the shoulder or torso.

I'd love a new Polar but the new Garmins should be out soon and they may address alot of the issues. Or more likely they won't.

Krusty_Clown

tunney wrote: »

GPS also is more accurate when not worn on the wrist but on the shoulder or torso.

Interesting, but also logical. Where does the Polar GPS unit attach? I presume that also means that they are more accurate when attached to a bike?

dna_leri

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Interesting, but also logical. Where does the Polar GPS unit attach? I presume that also means that they are more accurate when attached to a bike?

Why?

Surely you don't mean because of the arm movement +/- 0.3m at any point in time is insignificant, given the accuracy of the measuring system?

Krusty_Clown

dna_leri wrote: »

Why?

Surely you don't mean because of the arm movement +/- 0.3m at any point in time is insignificant, given the accuracy of the measuring system?

Your question is ambiguous. Which part of my quote are you asking 'Why' to?

I was actually referring to having an uninterrupted view of the sky and a stable platform from which to capture satellite packet data. I really don't think the location of one's arm is going to be a significant factor, when a data point is only recorded every 3 or 4 seconds, but you're entitled to our own opinion.

robinph

I'd say that the foot pods are more accurate to tell you that you are going faster or slower than you were a moment ago when compared with using a GPS. But the actual speed unit that they give you is only as accurate if you are always running the same speed and stride length as you were when you calibrated it.

The GPS will be accurate at giving you the speed/ distance between to distant points. It won't be accurate if your running round in tight circles or for noticing the sudden change of pace. The foot pod will be accurate for what relative speed you are going now compared with what you were doing 10 seconds previously, the further you run though the less accurate the distance measured becomes, especially if there are changes in terrain or pace.

dna_leri

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Your question is ambiguous. Which part of my quote are you asking 'Why' to?

Your statement below not your questions.

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Interesting, but also logical.

Which referred to this quote.

tunney wrote: »

GPS also is more accurate when not worn on the wrist but on the shoulder or torso.

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I was actually referring to having an uninterrupted view of the sky and a stable platform from which to capture satellite packet data.

So why is it logical that wearing a GPS on the shoulder or torso will give an uninterrupted view of the sky and a stable platform to capture satellite data and therefore be more accurate? Does a GPS on the arm not get a clear view of the sky and is a GPS on the arm so much more stable that it gives a more accurate reading?

You would not be trying to obfuscate becasue you have realised that is not so logical, would you? I just have visions of runners all over Ireland trying to attach their Garmin to the shoulder or torso to get a more accurate reading.

Krusty_Clown

dna_leri wrote: »

So why is it logical that wearing a GPS on the shoulder or torso will give an uninterrupted view of the sky and a stable platform to capture satellite data and therefore be more accurate? Does a GPS on the arm not get a clear view of the sky and is a GPS on the arm so much more stable that it gives a more accurate reading?

You would not be trying to obfuscate becasue you have realised that is not so logical, would you? I just have visions of runners all over Ireland trying to attach their Garmin to the shoulder or torso to get a more accurate reading.

Obfuscating? Absolutely.

But... Have you tried to get a satellite lock while running? It takes significantly longer than while stationary. So by that logic, maintaining a wrist-based GPS device on a mounted platform (like handlebars) where it stays relatively flat to the horizontal plane should help ensure it can track more satellite signals, or at least have less interrupted satellite reception.

<krusty backtracks slowly and removes his GPS watch from its mount on top of his head>

sconhome

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Where does the Polar GPS unit attach?

Polar attaches to the upper arm.

I'd guess that it depends on the frequency of the data recording as to what accuracy you are getting from any GPS system.

Cartman78

Ordered a Garmin 305 from Amazon yesterday.

Have had a Polar RS200 for 4 years and it has served me well...the problem was with the WearLink...changed the battery about 18mths ago & it was working ok but clapped out again around Xmas and the strap itself has gone all out of shape.

Had intended to buy a near WearLink but couldn't believe the price (€50)...so decided to invest in a new gadget altogether.

The Garmin looks to be a decent buy - it will deffo make running interesting again. Was totally bored using mapmyrun last year so have been guestimating most of my runs since then

sconhome

http://www.polar.fi/en/about_polar/news/new_cutting-edge_RCX5_training_computer

I wonder how well this will perform v the Garmin 310XT. Polar have aimed this new watch squarely at the multisport market of the 310XT.

The updates to the personaltrainer and map viewing will need to be fairly substantial to affect the hold Garmin have.

One to watch.

antomagoo

amphkingwest wrote: »

http://www.polar.fi/en/about_polar/news/new_cutting-edge_RCX5_training_computer

I wonder how well this will perform v the Garmin 310XT. Polar have aimed this new watch squarely at the multisport market of the 310XT.

The updates to the personaltrainer and map viewing will need to be fairly substantial to affect the hold Garmin have.

One to watch.

Any news on a release date for this?

sconhome

Funnily enough it is being launched in early May! Looks like a power play between the Polar & Garmin

tHE vAGGABOND

Have a garmin 405, and really like it, being able to get the range of data it offers.

If anything Im guilty of not using some of its more advanced features, and I will start playing with them as I get into DCM training.

With regard to the heart rate monitor being flakey - At the start of a run you will see it is indeed off the charts high. The trick is to wet the back of the strap [or your chest] before you start - as its crap on a "dry" chest for reasons I have never bothered to look into [but Im sure someone here has!].

Cartman78

Had my first run with new 305 yesterday.

Very very impressed I have to say - found the pacing information extremely useful indeed.

Even took the highly unusual step last night of actually reading the manual - will deffo be using the interval training and Virtual Partner features going forward.

The data upload was fab too (major improvement from the Polar sonic morse code thingy) - and the stats and data presentation are quite brilliant imo.

Can't think of any cons at all - i was slightly concerned about the size/clunkiness beforehand of the watch but this isn't really an issue.

sconhome

Cartman78 wrote: »

Even took the highly unusual step last night of actually reading the manual - will deffo be using the interval training and Virtual Partner features going forward.

A model citizen

Krusty_Clown

Cartman78 wrote: »

Had my first run with new 305 yesterday.

Very very impressed I have to say - found the pacing information extremely useful indeed.

Even took the highly unusual step last night of actually reading the manual - will deffo be using the interval training and Virtual Partner features going forward.

The data upload was fab too (major improvement from the Polar sonic morse code thingy) - and the stats and data presentation are quite brilliant imo.

Can't think of any cons at all - i was slightly concerned about the size/clunkiness beforehand of the watch but this isn't really an issue.

If you have any questions about setting up advanced workouts etc., then fire them into the Garmin thread stickied up above, but reading the manual puts you ahead of 85% of the posters already.