Choosing a watch for running

[bakerstreet]

Another vote for Garmin here. I have a 800 for the bike which I've had for about five years and its still working brilliantly. SOunds like a 235 of 735 would do the job. Try and think of what you want out of it long term. Saves you buying another one in 18 months time. However, they seem to fetch strong money used. I lost a pound on selling a Garmin Edge 25. Recon I wouldn't loose much on my Fenix 3 either.

I also bought a used Fenix 3 from Amazon. Brilliant bit of kit if a little chunky. I use it to log miles and sync to strava on my commute. I use a Brompton, so on bike computers aren't really that convenient and I was worried about leaving it on the bike when on the train.

Fenix has proved to very reliable and battery lasts at least three to five days of normal notifications and an hour and 15 minutes of riding five days a week. I like the interchangeable straps. I have a few different colours to match to outfits, but I tend to have a grey strap as its quite subtle.

However, mine is the low end version so no built in HR. This hasn't really bothered me but you can get an HR variant. I will buy a Fenix 5 when the 6 comes out as I wouldn't mind something that is a bit smaller on the wrist.


I had a FitBit Surge HR. Just flogged it on Facebook Market place. Utter rubbish. Looked quite nice, but was disappointed at how quickly the strap deteriorated and didn't really have all the functionality I wanted.

[sas62]

Another forerunner 35 owner. In general I'm pretty pleased with it. At one stage it stopped picking up GPS signal and I had to do a factory reset. Other than that its been perfect for me (for my 3 * 5 kms a week). If I was a more serious runner I'd maybe look at a Fenix.

[tenohfive]

The issue with the Fenix 3 for future users is that it uses an older and (increasingly) more restricted version of Connect IQ. So whilst it will do the basics, some of the more advanced metrics just won't work. I believe running power is one example.
The Fenix 5 and 935 (for anyone oblivious, the 935 is a Fenix 5 in a lighter body - everything else is the same) onwards use the latest version.

[anonymous-user]

My 3 year old TomTom is better than my recent Apple Watch 3 (Accurately measured 5K is right on TomTom, 2.7 miles on Apple...) Will try Garmin next with big display

[ian in lancs]

ian in lancs said:

pubrunner said:

Hi All,

I’m looking for a device to use for running (only) and what I would like, is a watch which offers (as minimum) the following features :

1 GPS – to measure how far I’ve run.

2 Wrist-based heart rate monitoring, with the ability to let me know when I’m training above/below a specific heart rate zone.

3 Although I wear contact lenses and my distance vision is fine, I wear glasses for close-up reading. I’ve found that digital watches I’ve worn previously, have displays that I struggle to read whilst running. Therefore, I’m looking for a watch which displays info with large easy-to-read characters.

I’ve identified a couple of watches that appear to meet my requirements, these being the Garmin Forerunner 35 and the TomTom Runner 3 Cardio.

Can anyone offer any guidance based on first-hand experience of either of these watches . . . or should I be considering something else ?

me too! Plus I want it to sync to Strava. For the last six months, I have been using Decathlon's OnMove 500 which does all for c£70 but I want to treat myself

Treat myself I did! Garmin 735XT - very pleased and a s a data geek fascinated!

[pubrunner]

FredClogs said:

I have a garmin 235, since July, it's good, there's a host of widgets and apps you can get for it. Personally I think it's the sweetspot between cost vs functionality

Thank you all, for the suggestions made !

It was my original intention, to get the Forerunner 35; however, I found that a colleague has the Forerunner 235 and when I saw it, and found what it can do, that I had found my ideal watch.

It does all that I need and importantly, I can read the display easily - it's the best bit of kit that I've purchased in ages.

As mentioned by FredClogs , it is a great balance of cost and functionality.

I have, however, another query . . . having seen the Forerunner 235, my better half would like a watch with similar functionality - but one which is slightly smaller for her dainty wrist . . . can anyone suggest a similar watch, but in a slightly smaller case ?. Would one of the Vivosports be suitable perhaps ? (My missus isn't a runner, but she's a keen cyclist).

Thank you !

[smn159]

If she's cyclist, you should look at the Elemnt Bolt rather than a watch IMO

[pubrunner]

smn159 said:

If she's cyclist, you should look at the Elemnt Bolt rather than a watch IMO

I've not seen the Elemnt Bolt before, but I think she wants something wrist-based - which offers the same king of functionality as the Garmin 235 - hrm measures sleep patterns, steps etc., etc.

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply !

[troc]

Wahoo should be releasing their first smart watch soon, called the rival, which might be worth looking at.

[tenohfive]

pubrunner said:

smn159 said:

If she's cyclist, you should look at the Elemnt Bolt rather than a watch IMO

I've not seen the Elemnt Bolt before, but I think she wants something wrist-based - which offers the same king of functionality as the Garmin 235 - hrm measures sleep patterns, steps etc., etc.

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply !

As a general fitness watch the Vivoactive 3 is a great shout for her.
But - speaking from experience here (I was cross training enough on a road bike to actually have the odd KOM on some local hills) don't expect anything from a fitness watch for cycling. Optical HRM and cycling don't go together - for some reason it's very difficult to get an accurate read. And it's lethal trying to look at your watch when cycling, or a faff to try and secure it to the handlebars.
For a spell I would record on both my (non Garmin) bike GPS and my watch, the chest HRM, speed and cadence sensors would connect to both - so that Garmin Connect would recognise the work I'd done. But then I stopped caring that much about whether Garmin/Firstbeats thought I was overtraining, or peaking, or whatever and just used the bike GPS.

If Wahoo are releasing a watch it's well worth a look. But a cheap bike GPS with long battery life, plus a fitness watch are definitely the better solution overall. This is a cracking little unit for £100 - 24 hour battery life avoids everyday charging, turn by turn mapping, Strava Live segments, barometric altitude measurement - a lot of features for £100.

If money is an issue, the Super Enhanced and a Garmin 35 is a pretty good combo that should cover all the bases. Just budget for a chest HRM if she's interested in HR when cycling.

[pubrunner]

tenohfive said:

As a general fitness watch the Vivoactive 3 is a great shout for her.

Thank you for this ^^^ suggestion . . . which I feel inclined to follow.


The Vivosport really did seem to 'tick all the boxes' . . . however, it appears that quite a few users have reported the strap breaking prematurely and replacements cannot be purchased - it has to go back to Garmin. I'm not going to buy any device, if I can't purchase a replacement strap for it.

But for now, the Vivoactive 3 looks ideal - I wonder, is it 'better' than my new 235 ?

[tenohfive]

pubrunner said:

But for now, the Vivoactive 3 looks ideal - I wonder, is it 'better' than my new 235 ?

Yes. I believe it's got the latest version of Connect IQ (the OS) which supports more advanced apps/widgets. It's got Garmin Pay and a few other bits. The touch screen is something you can take either way. For serious events, clambering along mountain ridges etc I'd prefer physical buttons. But most people don't do that. Day to day the touchscreen looks really good, given that it's most common use for the majority of people will be reading smartphone notifications.

If money were no object I'd have one for day-to-day training and life, and the 935 for races (ultras in my case where I need the battery life and nav.)

Strap wise, whatever you go for there are cheap quickfit straps available. Some seem to use different materials and will pop off when you try and fit it tightly - if it does, bin it. If it doesn't - it'll stay on once it's on.

[pubrunner]

tenohfive said:

If money were no object I'd have one for day-to-day training and life, and the 935 for races (ultras in my case where I need the battery life and nav.)

I'm not surprised that you would use the 935; I know it is a great watch with a very good battery life. I'm looking into doing some longer runs next year and for that purpose, I was veering towards the Foretrex 601 - they've an excellent battery life and when they do run out, it's simply a matter of slipping in a set of AAA's.

Have you any experience of the Garmin Foretrex range ?

[tenohfive]

pubrunner said:

I'm not surprised that you would use the 935; I know it is a great watch with a very good battery life. I'm looking into doing some longer runs next year and for that purpose, I was veering towards the Foretrex 601 - they've an excellent battery life and when they do run out, it's simply a matter of slipping in a set of AAA's.

Have you any experience of the Garmin Foretrex range ?

I'd never heard of them. I don't think they're aimed much at the fitness market. Looks more hunting and military orientated, rather than geared up for people moving fast etc. It also doesn't look like the battery life with the bells and whistles turned on is much more than the F5/935.

I've yet to go beyond the battery life on my current watch but carry a credit card sized 500mah battery pack and cable for the 935 when on longer ultras, so I can just chuck it in or strap it on my vest for 30 mins to recharge - HR data will be coming from a chest strap and it continues recording when you connect a charging pack. I've yet to use it but I know plenty of Garmin users do.

Overall, as I can only afford one watch it's 935 all the way - I bought one shortly after release (knowing it was a lighter F5) and if I dropped it down a well I'd be straight out to buy another. I've just not seen anything that can rival it for my intended use. If I had chunkier wrists and preferred the look of the F5 I'd consider that - but that's a personal preference thing.

I will say this though, whilst Garmin have got the top end of the market totally cornered, Suunto have been releasing some very good mid and upper-mid range watches that look like excellent VFM. It seems like they've sorted their GPS accuracy issues that affected some of their watches released 1 year-18 months ago with their more recent models, so they're well worth looking at. They're just slightly light on features compared to Garmin, but charge a fair bit less too.