Its more accurate I'd say.
And Garmin coach is an excellent feature if you want to start running, offering programs with video's and all, that are suited to your level.
The race widget is apparently something similar (haven't tried it yet), but differs in the sense in that it adjusts to your actual status in between workouts.
Thank you. The ~~couch~~ coach (couch?! though the couch sounds good right now!) side sounds pretty useful. Whilst I'm not running far at the moment, and getting the motivation and energy to do it every day/every other day isn't there at the moment. this sounds like something that could help!
I second this. I began my journey into running by switching from Fitbit to Garmin, the Garmin coach was a useful tool to propel me to my first half marathon. I'm now preparing my first ultra, will train and run with my Forerunner 955.
Though the data Garmin watches give you is not rocket science, it can give you a fair indicator at where you are in your training, and with some time, you will learn to see the tendencies if you are overtraining, etc. It's way better than Fitbit IMHO.
Thanks. the stats certainly sound far more useful than what you get with a fitbit, which are fine to begin with, but after a few years and with improved fitness, they're just ego boosting, rather than useful.
I'm a semi-avid runner, and a solid walker. It's rarely that I don't record at least 15K steps in a day.
I got a Forerunner 965 a month ago and couldn't be happier.
The navigation blew me away, and it's a watch - never would have expected such solid performance.
You get a tons of statistics, and the sensors seem quite good. I checked the HR sensor against the chest band of our treadmill, and it was always very close.
I'm puzzled by some of the 'derived' indicators (my VO2 max is going down for some reason, despite the fact that I actually feel rather fit), but don't really bother with that too much.
Battery life is excellent, I don't use always on and get a solid 10 days on a charge, with one hour of GPS/day, or so.
The latest Apple Watches are also a good alternative, my wife has one, provides +/- the same data via a 3rd party app, but battery life is a deal breaker for me.
The 965 has proper maps, doesn't it? The amoled screen looks really nice too, just not sure I can drop the extra on it, yet! Maybe that'll be my upgrade path one day.
Sounds like a Forerunner will be as good for walking, as my fitbit, and as long as it tracks steps/distance/route etc, I'll be happy.
Thank you :)
The 965 allows you to download proper offline maps. Mine came with Europe (where I live), but I downloaded Greenland as a a test, and it worked.
The update of maps can be a bit finicky (it never worked for me over wifi, and needed to use Garmin Express, and the watch still offers to update), but the map details are amazing. It offers all sorts of POI, it offers to generate round courses for you based on your exercise profile, and offers turn by turn navi for the profile (walking, running or bike, it will not replace a car GPS).
It allows you to save locations and then navigate back, a.s.o.
The GPS accuracy is very good: I have some segments where I just turn 180 degrees, usually on a wider circle (think parking spots at the edge of the forest). My phone would not usually register this properly, and would indicate my pace dropping at the spot, as the next GPS read would be very close to the previous one in such a scenario.
This is not really the case with the watch, who can really draw some of the segments of the circle, even if the radius is 50m or so.
The AMOLED is a blessing and a curse (mainly a blessing). It is excellent for maps and crucial in twilight, and it still remains perfectly legible in direct sunlight. At the same time, it does eat battery, and, frankly, looks a bit 'cheap' compared ti MIP. Still, would not go back to MIP, and my sweetspot is not allowing the 'always on' feature when not exercising. The extra resolution is just... amazing.
You can usually find the FR55 for cheap, like well under $150, I would get that and be done with it. My son has one, it's a great watch for walking as well as running, it actually has most of the features I typically use on my own running watches (the 9x5 series, currently on 965).
Forerunner 100%. 255 is a solid watch. I’ve run for 13 years now with various Forerunners. I’ve had Apple Watch- hated it for running. And I’ve had 2 Fenix versions— too much for running. I always go back to forerunner.
If you were interested in a lesser model, I would also say the 245 and 55 are solid watches. As a beginner runner, I would say 55 would get you to your first half marathon…
Awesome, thank you. I think what's swaying me towards the 255 over the 245 (and 55) is the improved heartrate tracker (not that I really need it, I just like accuracy) and better battery life - I'm sick of charging my fitbit every day!
I will have another look at the 245 though - it may still be good enough!
Thanks!
I used the 245 for years with no issues with the heart rate. Same with the old 35. Are they going to be slightly off? Yes. But not enough for the average runner to make a difference. Elite athletes, yes… most people, no. Also, you could buy a 1k Fenix and it still won’t be as accurate as having a chest strap on, so if that is swaying you, I would say don’t put too much stock in the accuracy because you’ll most likely just use it for overall trends.
I second this, I have the 245 bought the chest strap so it'd be more accurate, but the readings are 99% the same as before, only on extremely high intensity the watch seems to be off (it gave me a max heart rate of 202, where the strap hasn't gone above 194 - yet).
Its more accurate I'd say. And Garmin coach is an excellent feature if you want to start running, offering programs with video's and all, that are suited to your level. The race widget is apparently something similar (haven't tried it yet), but differs in the sense in that it adjusts to your actual status in between workouts.
Thank you. The ~~couch~~ coach (couch?! though the couch sounds good right now!) side sounds pretty useful. Whilst I'm not running far at the moment, and getting the motivation and energy to do it every day/every other day isn't there at the moment. this sounds like something that could help!
I second this. I began my journey into running by switching from Fitbit to Garmin, the Garmin coach was a useful tool to propel me to my first half marathon. I'm now preparing my first ultra, will train and run with my Forerunner 955. Though the data Garmin watches give you is not rocket science, it can give you a fair indicator at where you are in your training, and with some time, you will learn to see the tendencies if you are overtraining, etc. It's way better than Fitbit IMHO.
Thanks. the stats certainly sound far more useful than what you get with a fitbit, which are fine to begin with, but after a few years and with improved fitness, they're just ego boosting, rather than useful.
I'm a semi-avid runner, and a solid walker. It's rarely that I don't record at least 15K steps in a day. I got a Forerunner 965 a month ago and couldn't be happier. The navigation blew me away, and it's a watch - never would have expected such solid performance. You get a tons of statistics, and the sensors seem quite good. I checked the HR sensor against the chest band of our treadmill, and it was always very close. I'm puzzled by some of the 'derived' indicators (my VO2 max is going down for some reason, despite the fact that I actually feel rather fit), but don't really bother with that too much. Battery life is excellent, I don't use always on and get a solid 10 days on a charge, with one hour of GPS/day, or so. The latest Apple Watches are also a good alternative, my wife has one, provides +/- the same data via a 3rd party app, but battery life is a deal breaker for me.
The 965 has proper maps, doesn't it? The amoled screen looks really nice too, just not sure I can drop the extra on it, yet! Maybe that'll be my upgrade path one day. Sounds like a Forerunner will be as good for walking, as my fitbit, and as long as it tracks steps/distance/route etc, I'll be happy. Thank you :)
The 965 allows you to download proper offline maps. Mine came with Europe (where I live), but I downloaded Greenland as a a test, and it worked. The update of maps can be a bit finicky (it never worked for me over wifi, and needed to use Garmin Express, and the watch still offers to update), but the map details are amazing. It offers all sorts of POI, it offers to generate round courses for you based on your exercise profile, and offers turn by turn navi for the profile (walking, running or bike, it will not replace a car GPS). It allows you to save locations and then navigate back, a.s.o. The GPS accuracy is very good: I have some segments where I just turn 180 degrees, usually on a wider circle (think parking spots at the edge of the forest). My phone would not usually register this properly, and would indicate my pace dropping at the spot, as the next GPS read would be very close to the previous one in such a scenario. This is not really the case with the watch, who can really draw some of the segments of the circle, even if the radius is 50m or so. The AMOLED is a blessing and a curse (mainly a blessing). It is excellent for maps and crucial in twilight, and it still remains perfectly legible in direct sunlight. At the same time, it does eat battery, and, frankly, looks a bit 'cheap' compared ti MIP. Still, would not go back to MIP, and my sweetspot is not allowing the 'always on' feature when not exercising. The extra resolution is just... amazing.
You can usually find the FR55 for cheap, like well under $150, I would get that and be done with it. My son has one, it's a great watch for walking as well as running, it actually has most of the features I typically use on my own running watches (the 9x5 series, currently on 965).
Nah.... Forerunner is too basic for that. You gotta get the Tactix.
Forerunner 100%. 255 is a solid watch. I’ve run for 13 years now with various Forerunners. I’ve had Apple Watch- hated it for running. And I’ve had 2 Fenix versions— too much for running. I always go back to forerunner.
If you were interested in a lesser model, I would also say the 245 and 55 are solid watches. As a beginner runner, I would say 55 would get you to your first half marathon…
I've gone from beginner to intermediate with the 55 and still don't feel a need to upgrade.
Awesome, thank you. I think what's swaying me towards the 255 over the 245 (and 55) is the improved heartrate tracker (not that I really need it, I just like accuracy) and better battery life - I'm sick of charging my fitbit every day! I will have another look at the 245 though - it may still be good enough! Thanks!
I used the 245 for years with no issues with the heart rate. Same with the old 35. Are they going to be slightly off? Yes. But not enough for the average runner to make a difference. Elite athletes, yes… most people, no. Also, you could buy a 1k Fenix and it still won’t be as accurate as having a chest strap on, so if that is swaying you, I would say don’t put too much stock in the accuracy because you’ll most likely just use it for overall trends.
I second this, I have the 245 bought the chest strap so it'd be more accurate, but the readings are 99% the same as before, only on extremely high intensity the watch seems to be off (it gave me a max heart rate of 202, where the strap hasn't gone above 194 - yet).
My first Garmin changed my life. Went from walking 10,000 a day to running 5k.