Sprenzy Shopping Blog

In October, Garmin will be releasing a new fitness device, the Forerunner 50, which is not GPS-enabled. According to a Garmin press release, the Forerunner 50 is…

“an affordable, sleek and intelligent way to help runners and walkers track their workouts, automatically store their data and reach their personal fitness goals.”

“The central element of the Forerunner 50 system is an advanced fitness watch which interfaces wirelessly with other fitness devices such as a heart rate monitor or a foot pod that monitors speed and distance.  The system includes a wireless USB ANT™ Stick that plugs into the user’s PC and automatically downloads workout data stored on the watch to a personal computer. No cables are necessary as the Forerunner 50 synchronizes with the computer once it is in close proximity. Depending on the model purchased, the Forerunner 50 accurately monitors and records heart rate or speed and distance or all of the above. The workouts themselves are made easier with the Forerunner 50 as its heart rate monitor and foot pod activate automatically upon movement, removing the need to turn the lightweight accessories on and off.”

“When used with Garmin Connect™ — Garmin’s online training site — the Forerunner’s benefits continue long after the workout. By pairing the Forerunner 50 with Garmin Connect, users can automatically log their workouts, track their totals, share workouts with coaches, friends and family and participate in an online fitness community with similar interests.”

With no GPS, the Forerunner 50 is a big departure from the Forerunner series. It appears that Garmin is targeting the fitness/running/HRM watch audience, particularly users of the Polar S120 and Polar RS200sd. I’m a little perplexed on why Garmin has decided to produce a non GPS-enabled fitness device. My preference would have been a GPS-enabled Forerunner with the size of the Forerunner 50.

Currently, I own a Polar RS200sd running HRM with foot pod for speed and distance. I’m also a very happy owner of a Garmin Forerunner 305 and an Edge 305, which I use for running and cycling, respectively. Based on my experience with Garmin fitness products and many HRM watches, I’ve created a pros and cons list for the Forerunner 50.

Pros

• Size/form factor - an attractive and sleek HRM watch that can display speed and distance.

• Wireless data download - automatic wireless download of workout data is a cool feature.

• Battery life - 12 months of battery life using a coin cell battery (CR2032) versus regular battery charging with GPS devices.

• Garmin Connect website - uploading workout data can become addicting. Garmin’s online training site (currently MotionBased) is much better than Polar’s or the Nike+ site. Here’s an example activity on the future Garmin Connect site - Golden Gate Park Run (Forerunner 305 data). I don’t believe the Garmin Connect site is completed yet for Forerunner 50 support, which means the website features and interface will probably change come October. It is also my understanding that Garmin Connect will eventually replace MotionBased going forward.

• Indoor use - can be worn at the gym on a treadmill or in a spinning class as a normal HRM watch, i.e. no one will stare at your big GPS device.

• Speed/cadence sensor - track speed and distance of bike rides with this optional accessory. Since the sensor is installed on the rear chain stay, the Forerunner 50 can be used on an indoor trainer.

Cons

• No GPS - means less accurate speed and distance data. And no ability to import/export courses or running routes to share with others.

• Foot pod - an extra accessory that needs to be moved from shoe to shoe for speed and distance data. However, the design appears to be slimmer and better than Polar’s foot pod.

• HRM strap - the Garmin HRM strap is comfortable to wear but Polar Wearlink HRM strap is probably the best on the market in terms of comfort.

Who should get the Forerunner 50? I would recommend the $106 Forerunner 50, Heart Rate version to anyone who works out primarily at the gym and wants to monitor their heart rate. Next, I would recommend the $150 Forerunner 50, Foot Pod or the $200 Forerunner 50, Heart Rate & Foot Pod version for the runners or cyclists who want to track their speed and distance in a sleek sports watch, but isn’t concerned with a small inaccuracy in data.

With that said, I wouldn’t recommend the Forerunner 50 to people looking for the most accurate speed and distance information that a GPS device offers. Additionally, if you are want advanced features such as virtual partner training (train against a digital person), courses (compete against previous workouts) or an altimeter, then go with the Forerunner 305. 

A Forerunner 305 is only $165 after rebate and provides HRM, GPS and a barometric altimeter. Granted it’s on the larger side compared to the Forerunner 50, but it’s only 1.22 oz (34.5 g) heavier. With a $50 rebate, the Forerunner 305 is cheaper than the top of the line Forerunner 50 version, with more features and better accuracy. Unless you are hell bent on a sleek fitness watch, the Forerunner 305 is the better value.

Last week, I mentioned the Garmin Forerunner and the iPod Nano with the Nike+ Sport Kit as great fitness gadgets to motivate more exercise. The only problem is both fitness tools can be expensive at $150+ each. For under $50, an alternative solution is the Silva Accelerator Series Speed and Distance Pedometer Watch.

The Silva Tech40 Accelerator Series Watches come in hiker, runner and fitness designs, which are different aesthetically but offer the same functionality. The watches offer the basics of any sport watch (chronograph, countdown timer, alternative time zone and daily alarm mode) along with a pedometer that captures speed and distance.

From Silva USA, the pedometer features…

• Highly accurate step counter with adjustable sensitivity allows users to tune the sensors to their individual walking style. Doctors everywhere are now recommending 10,000 steps a day to maintain a healthier lifestyle.

• All sensors are contained in a simple wrist watch. That means no funny looking mechanical belt clips or funky shoe pods.

• Get off the beaten path! Free yourself from mileage markers at the track or trail! Pick a new route every day! The Accelerator can automatically distinguish between running and walking, and can calculate your average speed, distance, caloric expenditure, and total exercise time.

• The Accelerator has a delayed step counter feature that differentiates between ancillary movements and actual steps. This feature provides users with the most accurate results by delaying calculation until it has registered 10 steps in a row to eliminate overly sensitive step counting.

• The smart scheduling features allows users to set the pedometer to automatically start/stop counting steps at a predetermined time every day, so you’ll never forget to turn it on.

I really like the fact the pedometer is built into the watch and doesn’t require an external shoe pod. Additionally, the watch offers a personal profile where users can choose between metric or imperial units and enter their weight, running and walking stride lengths. Silva claims a 95+% accuracy for their pedometer, which is very good for a wrist mounted pedometer watch.

Based on the specs, my only complaint is the watch doesn’t display your pace (e.g. 7 minute mile pace). It does display your speed (e.g. 6 MPH), which you can covert to pace yourself. To learn more about the watch, check out the interactive user guide for the accelerator series.

The bottom line is the Silva Tech40 Accelerator Series Watches are a simple and affordable alternative to take your walking, hiking or running to the next level.

Heart rate monitors (HRMs) are a great training aid and fitness tool. For me, an HRM keeps me honest during my workout. There are some days I am mentally and physically ready to exercise. Other days, I’m mentally out of it and just don’t want to push myself. These are the days an HRM maximizes my training effort and ensures that I have a good workout.

Some people don’t need to use a heart rate monitor because they are in touch with their body signals and know how hard they are pushing themselves. I am not one of these people. Coming from a team sport background, I pushed myself based on my competitiveness. When I switched to endurance sports, I really needed an HRM to help me monitor my training level. Using an HRM has definitely helped me train more effectively.

Are you in the process of buying an HRM? Keep in mind, getting a heart rate monitor is so much more than the HRM watch itself, it’s just the start. For runners, I found a great intro to HRM article on Runner’s World, Follow Your Heart. In the article the max heart rate calculation of 220 minus age is debunked.

“For years, everyone (including us) has been telling you that the best way to find your maximum heart rate (MHR) is to subtract your age from 220. Sorry about that.
Turns out that’s not the most reliable method, at least not for healthy, fit individuals like the readers of Runner’s World. For most of you, two newer formulas will prove far more accurate:

(A) MHR = 208 - (0.7 x your age)
(B) MHR = 205 - (0.5 x your age)

A small group of Runner’s World staffers recently tested these two formulas, and reached the following conclusions. Both seem to work almost equally well for runners under 40. For runners over 40, formula (B) appears to be more accurate. We now believe that (B) is the single best formula for predicting maximum heart rate, and we’re adopting it as our Runner’s World standard.

Then there’s option C: Of course, no predictive formula can ever be as accurate as an honest-to-goodness, all-out field test. You can conduct such a test on a track or a moderately steep hill, which may work better if you’re not an experienced track runner. And by the way, since all the workouts in this article depend on an accurate MHR, it’s worth the effort to take this test. You’ll need to wear a heart-rate monitor for it.”

I prefer option C, the all-out field test, to figure out max heart rate but it’s a grueling, painful effort. Runner’s World also had an article for the best HRMs under $150, Don’t Skip a Beat. I’ve listed a few HRMs from the article that are under $80:

• Nike Triax C5
• Polar FS2
• Acumen Eon Basix Plus ES
• Timex Ironman HRM
• Sports Instruments Fit 3

I couldn’t tell the publication date of the Runner’s World article but I suspect it’s a few years old based on the lower prices found on Sprenzy.

Personally, I’ve owned a Timex Ironman HRM, Ciclosport CP29, Polar RS200, Ciclosport Hac 4 plus and a Garmin Edge 305 GPS HRM. The latter two are cycling computers/HRMs. I’ll do a follow-up post on the cycling computers/HRM in the near future. The Ciclosport CP29 heart rate reading fluctuated too wildly for me. I am extremely happy with the Polar RS200.

It’s not necessarily the Polar RS200 watch that I like. It works fine just like all other HRM watches that I’ve owned. I tend not to use all the great watch features after the first couple of weeks. What sets the Polar HRM apart is the chest strap.

Polar has the Wearlink coded transmitter and belt set. It’s the only soft fabric transmitter according to Polar. Most chest straps have hard rubberized transmitters, which can be uncomfortable to wear. The Polar Wearlink chest strap is very comfortable and conforms to your body much better than the harder plastic chest straps.

Polar states that the Wearlink strap is “compatible with all Polar heart rate monitors.” If you are looking to buy a Polar HRM, I would recommend looking for a model that comes with a Wearlink strap. I think this is the most important component to an HRM. If the belt strap isn’t comfortable or constantly slips, you won’t wear it and use your HRM.

For all of you gym rats, most exercise equipment such as treadmills, elliptical machines and Stairmasters have heart rate sensors. These sensors are generally compatible with analog transmission HRMs. The downside with analog transmission is the possibility of interference from other HRMs. On the flip side, digital transmission HRMs reduce the likelihood of interference but may not work with gym equipment. The Polar Wearlink “coded transmission eliminates interference from other HRMs” and still works on most gym equipment.

Good luck with your HRM decision. I really enjoy using my HRMs and any gear/gadget that promotes healthy living and exercise is a good thing!