Running without a gps watch

Ososlo

Who does it? Why do you do it? I'm particularly interested to hear from people who used to wear a watch and stopped and what benefits are you finding?
How do you do a session and know you're hitting the paces you should be hitting without it? I guess they did it in olden times:D
I suppose if you're on a track and using a stop watch you can figure it out but is it possible to do sessions successfully off a track without a gps watch and just with a stopwatch?
Does it just take years of learning what different efforts feel like to do this successfully?
I'd feel confident enough about running to recovery, easy and maybe marathon pace by feel but after that I'm a bit lost. I think I go a bit easier on myself as I'm not running against the watch. Am I getting the benefit of the session if I'm running too slowly or too quickly but it 'feels' right?
Any thoughts appreciated.

conavitzky

Ososlo wrote: »

Who does it? Why do you do it? I'm particularly interested to hear from people who used to wear a watch and stopped and what benefits are you finding?
How do you do a session and know you're hitting the paces you should be hitting without it? I guess they did it in olden times:D
I suppose if you're on a track and using a stop watch you can figure it out but is it possible to do sessions successfully off a track without a gps watch and just with a stopwatch?
Does it just take years of learning what different efforts feel like to do this successfully?
I'd feel confident enough about running to recovery, easy and maybe marathon pace by feel but after that I'm a bit lost. I think I go a bit easier on myself as I'm not running against the watch. Am I getting the benefit of the session if I'm running too slowly or too quickly but it 'feels' right?
Any thoughts appreciated.

Have ran two pb's at 5 and 10k late last year when I ran without a watch/did not look at it. I found i became a slave to the watch and it nearly took away some of the enjoyment from running. Still has its place for monitoring training but leaving it at home an odd time can set you free! You would be surprised at how more relaxed you are in a race when you dont have a watch to constantly monitor. Thats what I found anyway.

Ososlo

conavitzky wrote: »

Have ran two pb's at 5 and 10k late last year when I ran without a watch/did not look at it. I found i became a slave to the watch and it nearly took away some of the enjoyment from running. Still has its place for monitoring training but leaving it at home an odd time can set you free! You would be surprised at how more relaxed you are in a race when you dont have a watch to constantly monitor. Thats what I found anyway.

I had the opposite experience when I did my first race without the watch last December. I was all over the gaff. Went out way too fast getting caught up with the frenzy at the start. I feel the watch would have kept me more honest.

I should have stated that I'm specifically talking about training without the watch here, not racing. And more specifically, doing sessions without the watch (intervals, progression runs for example)

tunguska

I rarely use the Garmin, I'd only run with it in races. Although I've started to phase out using it in races aswell. Im not anti Garmin or technology its just that I find I dont need it so much. Plus it can get in the way, like for easy runs people slavishly running at a certain pace instead of just running comfortably. Thats a bit ridiculous. For sessions I'd hit the track and just use a stop watch. I've heard of people using a garmin on the track which is nonsensical if you're doing anything over 400m reps.

menoscemo

I'm not sure where I stand on this.
I wear the watch every run but I hardly ever look at it until afterwards.
If it's an easy/steady run I'll just run at what feels easy or steady.
If it's a session I'll generally just run it by feel or by HR. I find looking at the watch constantly just stresses me out. It's nice to get a nice surpirse after a run and see you were going faster than you thought..

Sometimes when doing track sessions I'd have the watch set up to 'lap time' to make sure I am going through the splits (200m, 400m etc) on target and to measure the recoveries. I'd generally do these in a group at the club so would only need the watch when it is my turn to 'lead' out our group. I almost always find that I would pace the reps consistenlty even without the watch, so there is probably no real need for it.

I think it is all about knowing what each pace/effort should feel like and probably for the the OP not wearing a watch for a while is a great way to accelerate gaining that feel for pace.

menoscemo

tunguska wrote: »

I've heard of people using a garmin on the track which is nonsensical if you're doing anything over 400m reps.

I agree with your sentiment but the garmin can also be used as a stopwatch....

adrian522

Always wear it for every run, training or race, along with the HR monitor, I love analysing the stats afterwards and looking at trends. I also love getting the instant feedback during a race.

To be honest I don't see a downside, I'm not checking it every few seconds, but I feel if the technology is there why not use it?

buck65

I was fairly religious about wearing a watch and recording my stats etc. in my previous life as a runner. Was injured for a while and stopped for 3 years until recently. Have given up the watch and the stats, looking to go on the trails and fields more now and did my first mountain race last weekend.

I'm in my 40's this year and I know I will never hit the levels that I hit in my 20s and 30s as a runner. Now for me running is there to be enjoyed, to keep fit and to enjoy the process rather than constantly looking at my wrist to make sure my tempo run is on target etc.

If I feel good I up the pace, if I'm tired I run easy and if I have to do a long run I have a fair idea what the distance is from experience and I will drive the roads if I'm not sure.

Returning from injury does really make one appreciate being fit and getting out for a run. Wearing a watch makes me obbsess about time and pace too much.

ger664

I have a polar HR and a cheap GPS. I use the GPS when pacing or racing only. I will use the HR generally training but only monitor it on the go in Recovery Runs as I tend to do these too hard or on track sessions as I tend to not run these hard enough.

For Tempo/MP/Steady state Runs I have recently started to wear the HR and just cover the watch and take splits. In my last Marathon Training I did a 12 MP and 14 Mile MP runs like so with interesting results. I found both these runs went much better then if I was trying to hold a specific pace by constantly monitoring a watch. I would love to race this way but currently having had the courage

skeleton_boy

Wear it on every run. Probably only really need it for sessions though. I'd be lost without it there. Normally would go out too hard and leave myself tanked.

In saying that I'm still a rookie when it comes to running faster so I've not got much of a feel for it yet.

Murph_D

I wear a watch for most runs. I have to say I like the virtual pacer feature for anything that's not an easy or recovery run. I don't feel I've been running long enough to pace myself, but having said that I think I will try to use it less this year. I do find it stressful monitoring the watch during long races so I'm looking forward to running more with the pacers this year (if possible).

Ososlo

skeleton_boy wrote: »

Wear it on every run. Probably only really need it for sessions though. I'd be lost without it there. Normally would go out too hard and leave myself tanked.

In saying that I'm still a rookie when it comes to running faster so I've not got much of a feel for it yet.

This is what I'm really asking.. does anyone successfully do sessions (not on a track) without a gps watch?

28064212

Ososlo wrote: »

This is what I'm really asking.. does anyone successfully do sessions (not on a track) without a gps watch?

Yes... sort of. I don't do a lot of sessions, but when I do, it's sets of 800m all-out, and I'm comfortable to do that without any timer. On the other hand, in my three years of running, I've never checked my time during a training run, just my overall time

SamforMayo

Ososlo wrote: »

This is what I'm really asking.. does anyone successfully do sessions (not on a track) without a gps watch?

Define successfully? Why have you decided to not use the watch for sessions? What is the objective? I can understand the logic of not using it for every run. I didn't get a garmin til Christmas, I managed my marathon training without it, ran by feel, having said that I didn't do much structured speed work.

menoscemo

Ososlo wrote: »

This is what I'm really asking.. does anyone successfully do sessions (not on a track) without a gps watch?

Of Course.
Tempo pace = run comfortably hard. 10k pace = run hard. 5k pace = Run Harder.....do you check your pace for strides or Hill sprints or do you just concentrate on form and running fast?

Ben Horne

Only got a cheap Garmin Forerunner 205 recently (running about 4 years) but I only really use it to track miles because I run on trail a good portion of the time now.

Ososlo

SamforMayo wrote: »

Define successfully? Why have you decided to not use the watch for sessions? What is the objective? I can understand the logic of not using it for every run. I didn't get a garmin til Christmas, I managed my marathon training without it, ran by feel, having said that I didn't do much structured speed work.

'Successfully' as in people who did sessions watchless and they translated into good racing times.
I've been encouraged to teach my body to learn to run faster 'by feel' as the watch may place limits on me.
Just something new I'm trying.

Ososlo

menoscemo wrote: »

Of Course.
Tempo pace = run comfortably hard. 10k pace = run hard. 5k pace = Run Harder.....do you check your pace for strides or Hill sprints or do you just concentrate on form and running fast?

No, I'd never check pace for strides but I would have done for hill sprints in the past (1 minute sprints).

It's the difference between 'hard' and 'harder' and 'harder again' that I need to learn. I'm currently not very good at gauging this.

SamforMayo

Ososlo wrote: »

'Successfully' as in people who did sessions watchless and they translated into good racing times.
I've been encouraged to teach my body to learn to run faster 'by feel' as the watch may place limits on me.
Just something new I'm trying.

In what way would it place a limit on you? I agree with the idea of learning to run by feel but Im not sure how the watch could slow you down in sessions ? Im not questioning the advice given just noisy to know more.

menoscemo

Ososlo wrote: »

No, I'd never check pace for strides but I would have done for hill sprints in the past (1 minute sprints).

It's the difference between 'hard' and 'harder' and 'harder again' that I need to learn. I'm currently not very good at gauging this.

I've said it before on your log but this is where some 5k race practise would come in handy. Not a race to accomplish a goal time but maybe a park run to tune in with what you might be capable of.

Another option on sessions is to run to a set HR.

Ososlo

SamforMayo wrote: »

In what way would it place a limit on you? I agree with the idea of learning to run by feel but Im not sure how the watch could slow you down in sessions ? Im not questioning the advice given just noisy to know more.

Not sure myself either Sam tbh! I guess what's been said is that you might be capable of running faster than your expected/predicted paces and if you're wearing the watch you're not giving yourself the opportunity to discover that.

Ososlo

menoscemo wrote: »

I've said it before on your log but this is where some 5k race practise would come in handy. Not a race to accomplish a goal time but maybe a park run to tune in with what you might be capable of.

Another option on sessions is to run to a set HR.

And I will be.. just not in 2 weeks time;)

rainbow kirby

I actually use mine more often when I'm cycling these days, running is mostly just done by feel. I'm not at a racing or sessions stage though at the moment so it's not hugely relevant tbh.

Don't wear a watch at all, let alone a Garmin. Borrowed one recently for a 20 mile off road run and thought it was an entertaining gadget, when they get to a tenner I might even buy one.

Drop sizes don't bother me.

No interest in heart rate monitors.

Guess the analysis matters to some, it doesn't to me. I can understand why those near the front of the field wear them to squeeze the last few seconds out of the performance. Tired of the "going on my first 10km fun run, which HRM/Garmin/drop size" types.

Stazza

Here's something to get you started.

TFBubendorfer

I ran exactly one race without a GPS watch and that was a complete disaster, one minute slower than expected in a 5k :eek:

That said, I've had to learn a few lessons along the way, looking at the watch in a 10k on an uphill section was the biggest racing mistake I've ever made. These days I never even look at the watch in short races (less than 10 miles), but just the fact that I could look if I wanted to makes a difference.

For slow, easy training runs I never even glance at it. I always run by feel, but I do like to have the numbers available afterwards.

As for saying you should leave the watch home in order to enjoy the runs more - I'm sorry, it might work for others but personally I think this is complete bullsh*t.

Duanington

I use mine for most runs...but I pay less and less attention to the watch these days, I would check the pace on LSRs over the first few miles to things nice and slow and I would use it for any 400\1k rep type session.

I was guilty at one stage of being a little obsessed by the pace being displayed on the screen during all of my runs which was counter-productive, some nights I was tired and pushing to hit certain paces that on paper I should train at....which made me more tired the next day and so on.

I made a conscious effort to leave it at home for the odd easy run and started to rely less and less on the number being displayed on the screen.
These days , I use it but I don't pay much attention to it until after the run....easy runs are easy, Long Slow Runs are Long and Slow....Tempo runs have various paces for me....depending on how the body feels ...not how the digits on the watch look.
The only run I pay any real attention to the watch on these days would be one of the 400\1k repeat-type sessions....and even then I have started to rely on feel for the pace more than the watch - the real purpose of the watch for me on these sessions is to give me a closer idea of the distance of each rep....I could in theory mark these out with landmarks and run without the watch no problem though.

The watch definitely became a distraction for me and even a source of unwanted stress during a run ( when I wasn't hitting a pace I thought I was supposed to hit), now its an aid to training, a source of (sometimes) interesting stats and nothing more.

Cleanman

For me, the biggest positive of wearing a watch is the feedback when you are going too fast, not too slow. I think we're all guilty of heading out the door for an easy run and find that 3 or 4 miles down the road, we feel great and the pace increases. A quick glance at the watch at this point and seeing a faster pace than my usual easy pace is enough of a reminder to slow down.

For interval sessions, I'd only ever wear a stopwatch. Getting the paces right is all about practice and I find that your body can become remarkably consistent at hitting the same time for each rep once you get it right. Doing the reps with a group can also help to get to the right kind of pace.

Calvin Johnson

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

That said, I've had to learn a few lessons along the way, looking at the watch in a 10k on an uphill section was the biggest racing mistake I've ever made.

Why was this such a mistake?

Krusty_Clown

The issue isn't the GPS watch, the issue lies in how you use it. It's the same thing when you go to a restaurant and you see a table of four people all hunched over their mobile phones. Sure, a mobile phone is a great thing, but there's a time and a place to use it. A GPS watch can be an active tool, or a passive tool, and you have to decide when you need it to act in each capacity. It varies from person to person, so there isn't a one size fits all approach (after all, some weirdos have no use for them at all ). For me:

Active:
Running a tempo or race pace session across varied terrain, where I want to hit an average pace, for a specific distance, irrespective of terrain/wind etc.
Progression runs, where I actually want to hold back a little earlier in the run, so that I can run faster later in the run
Lap splits: I use it as a stop-watch on the track and it records my splits so I can review them later
Advanced workouts: such as hill sprints, Endurance Hill circuits etc., where I use the watch to beep on specific pre-programmed time periods, to indicate the start and end of phases, without having to look at the watch

Passive:
All other running. I don't look at the watch. It doesn't display pace. It doesn't provide any indication of speed. It simply records mileage.

Others will run in highly structured club programs, where a GPS watch isn't really necessary, as you may do all of your training on the track, have someone else determining the pace, or calling out the splits. Other runners will run in a completely unstructured fashion with no plan and as such have no need for a watch. Others still prefer the purist approach and don't want to encumber themselves with technology. There's no right or wrong; just what works best for the individual.

TFBubendorfer

Calvin Johnson wrote: »

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

That said, I've had to learn a few lessons along the way, looking at the watch in a 10k on an uphill section was the biggest racing mistake I've ever made.

Why was this such a mistake?

It was an uphill section about 5 miles into a 10k, I was chasing one other runner and making progress. Just then I looked at the watch. The HR was sky high (uphill!) but the pace was slow (uphill!!!) and immediately my pain threshold reset, and not in a good way, I completely tensed up and my breathing went haywire. By the time I finally struggled to the top of the hill the guy in front was way ahead and there was no way I was ever gonna catch him after.

Looking at the watch cost me a fair amount of time and quite possibly one place in the race (I came 6th or 7th).

Stazza

Ososlo wrote: »

No, I'd never check pace for strides but I would have done for hill sprints in the past (1 minute sprints).

It's the difference between 'hard' and 'harder' and 'harder again' that I need to learn. I'm currently not very good at gauging this.

So then, (you)'ve seen/felt the freedom/benefits of doing your easy/rec runs without the GPS.

You've seen that you don't need the GPS for your session of strides - any recording of details wouldn't amount to much anyway. The idea of these sessions are purely to prepare the body for future work. These are all about feel and form and rhythm.

Another element of your training is the cheeky little progression run. Well this is what Mr Kellogg has to say about progression runs:

Finally, on days when you plan to run at the high end of your aerobic threshold, do so by setting out extremely slowly and maintaining the slow pace for longer than you feel you should. To find your pace, learn to rely on perceived effort, not minutes-per-mile or other external factors. As professional running coach John Kellogg, MAT, writes in Chapter 9 of Run Strong, “A good high-end run should feel like one of those outings that begins as a planned easy day but then spontaneously progresses into a memorably awesome, fast run because you begin to get a floating, weightless feeling.” The pace establishes itself, taking you along for the ride. The amount of time you accumulate before struggling contributes more to your aerobic development than the time spent fighting on after the struggle begins.

Ososlo

Stazza wrote: »

So then, (you)'ve seen/felt the freedom/benefits of doing your easy/rec runs without the GPS.

You've seen that you don't need the GPS for your session of strides - any recording of details wouldn't amount to much anyway. The idea of these sessions are purely to prepare the body for future work. These are all about feel and form and rhythm.

Another element of your training is the cheeky little progression run. Well this is what Mr Kellogg has to say about progression runs:

Finally, on days when you plan to run at the high end of your aerobic threshold, do so by setting out extremely slowly and maintaining the slow pace for longer than you feel you should. To find your pace, learn to rely on perceived effort, not minutes-per-mile or other external factors. As professional running coach John Kellogg, MAT, writes in Chapter 9 of Run Strong, “A good high-end run should feel like one of those outings that begins as a planned easy day but then spontaneously progresses into a memorably awesome, fast run because you begin to get a floating, weightless feeling.” The pace establishes itself, taking you along for the ride. The amount of time you accumulate before struggling contributes more to your aerobic development than the time spent fighting on after the struggle begins.

Yep I totally 'get' the value of running easy and recovery by feel now but it's the faster stuff I need practice with 'feeling' and not clock-watching.
I did about a month of hill sprints and other intervals (up to 2 mins at very fast effort and 10 mins at 10k effort) by feel and not by the watch and what I see is that my splits are all over the place whereas I read other people's logs here and see these amazingly perfect splits within half a second pace of each other! So wondered who was getting more benefit. The folks who do the perfect splits, or me who has very uneven paces but was running to effort or is it all the same at the end of the day. I do worry I slacken off when not measuring myself against anything except feel and go out too hard and end up too slow.
Thanks for that and the link to the other article and the imput from everyone else.
I'm definitely on board to persist with this effort running as I do feel there are gains to be made but wanted to hear others' experiences. At the end of the day I need more practice with running faster to 'feel' and the progression run is probably a good one to get into a good rhythm for a longer period and to really 'find' my paces.

Stazza

Listen to your body. Feel the rhythm:


"I've always felt that there was a great deal of magic socked away in each runner's body - 'places,' if you will, that we can sneak up on, access, within a given run, if we're willing to ease back at crucial moments, warm up slowly, listen deeply and honestly to our bodies. HR monitors can help us isolate them; understanding the underlying physiological principles can give us the patience to segue effortlessly into them rather than demanding that they appear. But the magic still finally lives in the deep, sympathetic listening that we need to engage in: listening to the subtle rising and falling energies of our bodies at work. No amount of technology can ever replace that listening."

Ososlo

Stazza wrote: »

Listen to your body. Feel the rhythm:


"I've always felt that there was a great deal of magic socked away in each runner's body - 'places,' if you will, that we can sneak up on, access, within a given run, if we're willing to ease back at crucial moments, warm up slowly, listen deeply and honestly to our bodies. HR monitors can help us isolate them; understanding the underlying physiological principles can give us the patience to segue effortlessly into them rather than demanding that they appear. But the magic still finally lives in the deep, sympathetic listening that we need to engage in: listening to the subtle rising and falling energies of our bodies at work. No amount of technology can ever replace that listening."

You a hippy by any chance Stazza:D

buck65

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I ran exactly one race without a GPS watch and that was a complete disaster, one minute slower than expected in a 5k :eek:

That said, I've had to learn a few lessons along the way, looking at the watch in a 10k on an uphill section was the biggest racing mistake I've ever made. These days I never even look at the watch in short races (less than 10 miles), but just the fact that I could look if I wanted to makes a difference.

For slow, easy training runs I never even glance at it. I always run by feel, but I do like to have the numbers available afterwards.

As for saying you should leave the watch home in order to enjoy the runs more - I'm sorry, it might work for others but personally I think this is complete bullsh*t.

No way is this bull****, I know this from experience. I wore a watch once or twice this year and spent all the time either reminding myself to ignore it or glancing at it to see what I've ran and how fast.
It doesn't work for me, even last night I went for a run in the woods, came back soaked but elated - no idea what I ran or how fast but the glow of the act of running off road in the (relative) wild is what I remember not the stats.

I stopped because it was getting dark not because I ran 5 miles or whatever.

28064212

Stazza wrote: »

Feel the rhythm

feel the rhyme, get on up, it's bobsled running time

Cleanman

Ososlo wrote: »

Yep I totally 'get' the value of running easy and recovery by feel now but it's the faster stuff I need practice with 'feeling' and not clock-watching.
I did about a month of hill sprints and other intervals (up to 2 mins at very fast effort and 10 mins at 10k effort) by feel and not by the watch and what I see is that my splits are all over the place whereas I read other people's logs here and see these amazingly perfect splits within half a second pace of each other! So wondered who was getting more benefit. The folks who do the perfect splits, or me who has very uneven paces but was running to effort or is it all the same at the end of the day. I do worry I slacken off when not measuring myself against anything except feel and go out too hard and end up too slow.
Thanks for that and the link to the other article and the imput from everyone else.
I'm definitely on board to persist with this effort running as I do feel there are gains to be made but wanted to hear others' experiences. At the end of the day I need more practice with running faster to 'feel' and the progression run is probably a good one to get into a good rhythm for a longer period and to really 'find' my paces.

Well it's good to see that you at least know where you are:D:D:D

Ososlo

Cleanman wrote: »

Well it's good to see that you at least know where you are:D:D:D

menoscemo

The problem with measuring short strides and sprints by GPS is that the GPS will be totally inaccurate in calculating 'pace'.
There is generally a lag from where you start your 'fast' bits and if you are clock watching the watch sometimes seems to take ages to hone in on your actual pace and since the rep is so short your correct pace never adjusts itself. This is especially true when doing spints or strides in an area with tree coverage. Sometimes sprints or strides are calculated way too fast, sometimes way too slow.

The only way to accurately record short reps or hill sprints is to do them over a set distance (the same start and end point) and measure the duration of each rep (i.e. using your watch as little more than a stopwatch). You'll find that even though the duration and distance of each rep (and hence real pace) is very similar that the GPS watch will often record all kinds of paces.

In conclusion if doing strides or hill sprints and the pace feels about right then it probably is (despite what the watch says).

adrian522

buck65 wrote: »

No way is this bull****, I know this from experience. I wore a watch once or twice this year and spent all the time either reminding myself to ignore it or glancing at it to see what I've ran and how fast.
It doesn't work for me, even last night I went for a run in the woods, came back soaked but elated - no idea what I ran or how fast but the glow of the act of running off road in the (relative) wild is what I remember not the stats.

I stopped because it was getting dark not because I ran 5 miles or whatever.

I think it is , if people don't have the self control to not check the watch every few seconds it says more about them than about the technology.

In your example why would you not have come back elated if there was a watch on your wrist while you were doing this run?

Why can't people enjoy their run and also know how far they've run and what their times were?

I honestly fail to see the problem with wearing a GPS watch.

It's the equivalent of saying why would you bother wear a watch when you can get a pretty good idea of the time of day from the sun.

Seems like nonsense to me.

Ososlo

I think what TFB was saying was that for him, it's bull****. Correct me if I'm wrong.
some people couldn't care less about pace/distance so what's wrong with that? Whatever floats each person's boat.

Stazza

Ososlo wrote: »

You a hippy by any chance Stazza:D

Nah, I iz a bad boy - that isn't me speak, me bite it from nudder site, like man. Dat's why me put in slan-tee writing, isn't it. Word.

TFBubendorfer

Ososlo wrote: »

I think what TFB was saying was that for him, it's bull****. Correct me if I'm wrong.
some people couldn't care less about pace/distance so what's wrong with that? Whatever floats each person's boat.

Sure, that's why I said it might work for others.
I'm not going to force anyone to run with a GPS and tell them that they HAVE TO ENJOY IT OR ELSE

TFBubendorfer

Stazza wrote: »

Listen to your body. Feel the rhythm:


"I've always felt that there was a great deal of magic socked away in each runner's body - 'places,' if you will, that we can sneak up on, access, within a given run, if we're willing to ease back at crucial moments, warm up slowly, listen deeply and honestly to our bodies. HR monitors can help us isolate them; understanding the underlying physiological principles can give us the patience to segue effortlessly into them rather than demanding that they appear. But the magic still finally lives in the deep, sympathetic listening that we need to engage in: listening to the subtle rising and falling energies of our bodies at work. No amount of technology can ever replace that listening."

Oh good grief Stazza, that's a lot of fluffiness :rolleyes:

Stazza

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Oh good grief Stazza, that's a lot of fluffiness :rolleyes:

Fair point.:o

pconn062

I have a Garmin but I haven't turned it on since the start of January and do all my runs now with my old Casio stopwatch. This is not really so I can "connect with my body" or anything, I just don't need to a Garmin to tell me how quick I'm running. I know all the distances of my routes off by heart so if I need to run for 8 miles I know what route is roughly that length. Also I'm trying to run in minutes these days rather than miles so all I need is the stopwatch.

I do all my sessions on the track so again a stopwatch is perfect for this and I just check the splits every 200m or so. Also because I mostly race on the track now I want to be able to judge my pace a bit better without a watch as obviously I won't be wearing a Garmin in a mile race! My last 5-6 races have all been either with no watch or just a stopwatch and, for me anyway, it's a much better way to race. People who say they race slower without a Garmin need to get back in with touch with their inner pace clocks. What if your Garmin breaks just before a race?? Do you pull out of the race or just except you're going to have a bad race?

Stazza

Ososlo wrote: »

This is what I'm really asking.. does anyone successfully do sessions (not on a track) without a gps watch?

When I was a kid, I used to think wouldn’t it be great if somebody invented a watch that could tell you how fast you’re running. The reason I thought this would be great was because I wanted to know if I was running 6 min miles for my steady/rec/maintenance runs – I used to divide the amount of time I was out running for by 6 to work out the mileage. Then I’d get a lace and measure the run on an O.S. map.

Things have changed – for the better. GPS watches are great. I’ve got a 110 and it’s brilliant. Brilliant for measuring runs and giving me a rough idea of pace. That said, I can’t remember the last time I wore my Garmin.

If I were training for a marathon, I’d use it to lock in on certain paces for certain types of runs. If I wanted to measure a route I’d use it once. If I did a session like 4x1 mile on the road or a canal path etc, I’d use the Garmin. Old fashioned Timex for the track. For hills – time the first rep and use that marker for the rest of the reps. That said, I know within a couple of seconds how fast I’m running. But for certain sessions you need to know exactly how fast you are running.

In October I was doing lactate shuffle session like 6x(5min @ 10k pace, 1 min jog, 1 min @ 5k-3k pace) 3 min jog. I used the watch so I knew how long I was running, but I didn’t use the Garmin so that I could see the pace. The idea was to tune into the various paces by feel and produce the right amounts of lactate without flooding the system etc.

I think for the OP it would be wise to leave the Garmin – learn to run. Learn to tune into and listen to your body. Running’s a simple sport: appropriate stress/stimulus, recovery, adaptation. Run slow on your recovery runs and don’t get fixated on pace. The sessions you are doing at the moment aren’t sessions, so you don’t need the Garmin. Strides – time the first rep to get your marker and then focus in entirely on running form and rhythm etc. Progression runs start very slowly and gradually and naturally let your body dictate the effort, bearing in mind how long you’re going to be running for; LT reps in MLR – simple: comfortable –hard.

When you get to the track workouts, you’ll begin to loathe the watch. You’ll be in bed the night before workouts thinking, oh no, I’ve got to hit such and such a time tomorrow. Then, when you go to do your recovery runs, you’ll be happy to forget the watch.

Krusty_Clown

pconn062 wrote: »

I do all my sessions on the track so again a stopwatch is perfect for this and I just check the splits every 200m or so. Also because I mostly race on the track now I want to be able to judge my pace a bit better without a watch as obviously I won't be wearing a Garmin in a mile race! My last 5-6 races have all been either with no watch or just a stopwatch and, for me anyway, it's a much better way to race. People who say they race slower without a Garmin need to get back in with touch with their inner pace clocks. What if your Garmin breaks just before a race?? Do you pull out of the race or just except you're going to have a bad race?

That's all fine, but why not use your Garmin as a stop-watch? Then all of your splits are recorded along with your training. Everything in one place.

pconn062

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

That's all fine, but why not use your Garmin as a stop-watch? Then all of your splits are recorded along with your training. Everything in one place.

Mainly because my stop watch doesn't need to be charged every two days! my sessions are never so long that I can't remember my splits in my memory bank!

tunguska

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

That's all fine, but why not use your Garmin as a stop-watch? Then all of your splits are recorded along with your training. Everything in one place.

I think the reason to just use a stop watch and not the stopwatch function on the garmin is because theres a lag between when you hit the stop button and when it actually stops. For longer reps like miles or even 2 miles maybe that lag isnt important but if you're doing 200s or 400s then it could add a second onto your time. I know its not just my garmin, others have experienced the same problem.