Smart Watches

[Aikiwolf]

Anyone got a Garmin? I currently have a Fitbit versa 2, but the lack of GPS is driving me mad now I'm actually getting out and running or cycling.

Done some googling and Garmin seems to get the best reviews for proper fitness tracking. Looks a bit weird though.

I've got a Garmin Vivoactive 4 (identical to the Venu except the screen quality isn't as good).

I really like it but I get 2-2.5 days out of it with an activity logged most days. However I'd get 5 days if I turned off Pulse Ox.

Charging is pretty quick, about an hour from 15% to full, so I usually just charge whilst on a video call for work.

 

[Tredman]

I've got a Garmin Vivoactive 4 (identical to the Venu except the screen quality isn't as good).

I really like it but I get 2-2.5 days out of it with an activity logged most days. However I'd get 5 days if I turned off Pulse Ox.

Charging is pretty quick, about an hour from 15% to full, so I usually just charge whilst on a video call for work.

Good to know - I've seen a vivoactive 3 for sale at £60. Might get that to see if I like Garmin before getting the 4.

 

[Aikiwolf]

Good to know - I've seen a vivoactive 3 for sale at £60. Might get that to see if I like Garmin before getting the 4.

The VA3 is still a decent watch by all accounts. Especially for £60.

 

[Law's Bus]

I've had a Fossil Gen5 for a while now - can't fault it at all, but you are best to turn off all the features you don't need, like NFC and bluetooth overnight. I easily get 24 hours out of a charge.

 

[The Bear]

I've had a Fossil Gen5 for a while now - can't fault it at all, but you are best to turn off all the features you don't need, like NFC and bluetooth overnight. I easily get 24 hours out of a charge.

Yeah same here. The custom battery modes are a godsend.

 

[Johnny75]

Strava on your phone when you're cycling is the best I've found for GPS.

Nothing else I've tried came close. Some Garmin stuff was just rubbish.

 

[Tredman]

Strava on your phone when you're cycling is the best I've found for GPS.

Nothing else I've tried came close. Some Garmin stuff was just rubbish.

I've had no problems with using A/GPS on the phone via a Fitbit. Interested to see how the Garmin does.

 

[Langers]

A bit late to the thread but I got a Garmin Forerunner 735XT with build in heart rate monitor which is absolutely perfect for me.

GPS is excellent (I do do bikes, I use it for running) and a lot better than my old Tom Tom watch - it's also better than the Strava app on my phone which I've used occasionally. It's very accurate, and pretty much instantaneous to load which my old watch and phone never were. I find the Garmin app really useful - Strava have pissed me off by putting features that used to be free onto the Premium subscription, but there's more than enough data with the accompanying Garmin app to make up for it - some of which link to Strava (e.g. segments) if required. The amount of info you can load onto your watch is impressive - you can customise your screen depending on what metrics you want to see. Pace/heart rate/distance/time/live Strava segments/conditioning/recovery time etc etc - just sort it on the app on your desktop and load onto your watch.

Charging is about once a week and really quick. As I work from home, I just plug it into my laptop via USB and it takes about 30 minutes tops.

 

[Tredman]

Right got the Garmin Vivoactive 3 (second hand bargain for £60) and I really like it - even the low res screen which I didn't think I would do.

One question - how accurate do people find the heart rate? I did a ride on Thursday and a run yesterday and the heart rate was broadly similar to that I saw with the fitbit, but it's giving my resting heart rate as quite a bit lower - 46. That's a little worrying if correct.

 

[Aikiwolf]

Right got the Garmin Vivoactive 3 (second hand bargain for £60) and I really like it - even the low res screen which I didn't think I would do.

One question - how accurate do people find the heart rate? I did a ride on Thursday and a run yesterday and the heart rate was broadly similar to that I saw with the fitbit, but it's giving my resting heart rate as quite a bit lower - 46. That's a little worrying if correct.

My VA4 does the same but whenever I've checked my resting pulse manually I've been around the 60 mark.

I'd deem it accurate enough to judge HR effort whilst working out but not good enough to make me worry about my resting HR.

 

[Tredman]

My VA4 does the same but whenever I've checked my resting pulse manually I've been around the 60 mark.

I'd deem it accurate enough to judge HR effort whilst working out but not good enough to make me worry about my resting HR.

Just looked through my Fitbit data and it was 52-56, so not that different. Assuming I don't black out in the near future I won't worry too much.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Just looked through my Fitbit data and it was 52-56, so not that different. Assuming I don't black out in the near future I won't worry too much.

Having a lower heart rate is good, not bad!

 

[Tredman]

Having a lower heart rate is good, not bad!

Yeah, but Google says that lowish is good, but sub-50 is a bit unusual.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Yeah, but Google says that lowish is good, but sub-50 is a bit unusual.

I wouldn't worry about it, if you are an active person having a RHR in the 40s is a sign of a really efficient heart, if it gets much below 40 then yeah, unless you're a Tour De France cyclist/Mo Farah level athlete that'd be a bit more of a concern.