Garmin GPS

Who implied that wearing a GPS "necessary" besides you? Do you really want someone to quantify the exact improvement in their performances that could be gleaned from making use of a GPS? Somewhere on the order of wearing cut off jeans vs. running shorts, cotton shirts vs. technical singlets, converse all stars vs. running shoes...

Do you run on a track or on measured courses? Do you wear a digital watch to check your progress or results? Or are you a Zen runner? What is the difference and why would anyone have to justify the equipment they use?

I like wearing one sometimes. I like the freedom of stepping out the front door and going in any direction I want without regard to any measurement. I like coming back home after an hour or whatever and checking the data. I like running a tempo right on pace without having to go to a track.

The OP asked if it was worth the money. I think the 201 is worth 80 bucks. Can't vouch for the other models.

I've spoken to a few people who were off by a mile or more over the course of a marathon, which would be in the neighborhood of 4 - 5% error, which is rather significant even in the 5k(200 - 250m) - 10K(400 - 500m) range.

Charlie Horse wrote:

I just question the necessity. What difference has it really made where it counts?

You did. When you wrote this: "No, what the hell is the point of having an odometer?"

It has made a huge difference for me.

-I can do goal marathon pace runs anywhere and know if I am pushing too hard or going to easily.

-I can know how far I've run without having to drive the route or use a mapping tool

-If a fe days go by in which I haven't logged my runs, I don't have to search my memory trying to remember where I went, what time of day and how fast. It's all there for me.

-This spring I was running a marathon in which one of the mile markers was off. I wasn't sure if I had run the mile too fast or not but the Garmin let me know that I had not so I didn't overreact. I've actually had this experience more than once in a long race

I ran and raced for 23 years before I ever bought a GPS. I know exactly what difference it makes. A huge one.

Monkeys uncle wrote:

I've spoken to a few people who were off by a mile or more over the course of a marathon, which would be in the neighborhood of 4 - 5% error, which is rather significant even in the 5k(200 - 250m) - 10K(400 - 500m) range.

Agreed. The 201 had some seriously innacurate days compared to the 205. The 205 has a much, much better chipset. For this reason, the 201 was something I felt only to be somewhat useful. The 205 seems almost indispensible by comparison.

I've run 3 marathons with the 205 and never been off by more than 5 hundredths of one mile. I've run a 20 miler and a half marathon in which I was off by 2 and 3 hundredths of a mile respectively.

You have inspired me to seek a good deal on the 205.

Average_Joe wrote:

I've run 3 marathons with the 205 and never been off by more than 5 hundredths of one mile. I've run a 20 miler and a half marathon in which I was off by 2 and 3 hundredths of a mile respectively.

I have downloaded quite a few tracks from my bike-mounted 60csx, and the side to side drift in the path I see would easily result in more error than you talk about (0.2%).

dukerdog wrote:

I have downloaded quite a few tracks from my bike-mounted 60csx, and the side to side drift in the path I see would easily result in more error than you talk about (0.2%).

Not sure what response is needed here. The fact remains, I ran certified courses (Boston, Chicago, Pocon), and ended up with measurements no more than 5 hundredths of a mile from the certified distance.

How long have you been a distance runner to not know this without the electronic shackle? So what difference has this led to where it counts?

What relevance does knowing how far you've run have, in terms of really making a difference where it counts?

Do a few days go by in which you don't visit this site? If not, why are you prioritizing this board over logging your runs? That would indicate that you really don't care that much about it.

Again, this leaves the impression that you have little experience in distance running.

Funny, I actually did not see this part until I got to this point in my reply. I honestly meant no personal disrespect in anything I've said, it truly seemed like you were a relative newcomer to the sport based on your comments. I've run for much less than that yet know that a GPS or HRM would do nothing to effect improved training and racing. It shouldn't if you know how to train effectively. Were you maybe a sprinter for 20 of those 23 years? Of course, some people feel that having a coach or a training group makes a big difference, not everyone is equipped to do their best on their own. I seem to forget that too often. Were you going to put up verifiable before and after data to corroborate your findings?

About 27 years. It has led to me having MP and LT runs that didn't blow me away by being too hard or leave me feeling stale by being to slow. Because it gives me mile splits anywhere I want them. I don't have to guess at the pace.

One difference it has led to is 3 marathon PRs in my last 4 attempts. Now of course I wouldn't attribute that all to a GPS but I certainly know that getting those MP runs in at the right pace and the confidence I got from them made a difference.

I'm curious as to why you view it as an electronic "shackle". That's like saying my running shorts are a shackle. Or my regular watch is a shackle.

It's a tool, plain and simple.

Oh come now. Do you actually keep a running log?

I pretty much consider the utility of being able to know how far you've run as being self-evident. All the GPS does is vastly open up the number of courses on which you can do this. That's useful. Eliminates the need to guess. I have years and years of logs with guesses in them. It's not like I can't do it without them. But sometimes guesses can be way off. Given a choice between knowing how far I ran and not knowing, I'd choose to know. Wouldn't you?

Yes, quite a few days go by in which I don't visit this site. So I guess it would indicate nothing of the sort.

That's the problem with first impressions. They're so often wrong

Who was talking about HRMs? Not me. And if you have never tried a GPS or HRM, how exactly would you "know". Because unlike you I actually HAVE trained with both and without

Part of training effectively is knowing how far and how fast you ran. A tool that tells you that should not need an explanation.

I started off as an 800 meter runner in high school but also ran longer distances. By the time college hit I was long distance

Shall I point you to the peer-reviewed, Pub-Med study which has followed my running for 27 years and documented the improvement that a GPS has given it?

Look, I'm telling you I had 23 years of long distance running and racing in me before I ever tried a GPS. I ran for the University of Notre Dame, a division 1 school so I think I had access to some of the best runners and some high level coaching. (No I was not very good at all compared to the runners on that team)

I've run on my own since then. But the GPS I bought on a whim has allowed me to be a lot more certain about the nature of my MP and tempo runs because I now actually KNOW that I'm hitting the desired pace. I don't have to do them on measured courses or even on a track. I can just go anywhere and see each mile split. Is it that difficult to see the advantage of it?

Perhaps you are a metronome and always hit the pace you want. I do not. Neither do just about any of the runners I know (and I know plenty, including a few Olympic Trials qualifiers). If I am feeling good, 5:30 pace can feel like 6:00. If I am feeling bad, it can be the other way around. A GPS, working properly removes the guess work.

No matter how many marathons I run, I can never believe that my first mile - which always feels like it's going to be 8 minutes, ends up being closer to 6.

I don't understand the objection to such a tool. It's like objecting to people using Coolmax or gatorade. It makes life easier so why not?

You must've been really erratic, then. Seems hard to believe that you could regularly do an activity for so long yet not have a better feel for it.

Good on ya, I mean that. Times, dates, venues? Was the GPS-fed data the ONLY variable you altered in your training in that time?

Sure you are.

No, it isn't like that at all. Which is how I can tell you aren't genuinely curious.

One that is redundant for those who know how to train effectively, plain and simple.

I do. What's your point?

Well, I wouldn't consider the notion of knowing how far you've run as being especially relevant to experienced runners who train effectively. You can train stupidly at 150 mpw just as easily as you can at 50 mpw. You mean you don't know whether or not you're applying appropriate levels of training stress without the numbers to look at? Do you think about your training very much?

Because knowing that it's 7.8 miles instead of 8 really makes a difference?

What do you mean by way off? You thought that a 10 mile course was actually 12 miles?

No, because what I do know is that it makes no real difference whether I know or not.

Fine, but don't claim that there aren't other things you choose to do instead of spending maybe five minutes making a log entry. You're not Bill Gates, so I know you're not spending those five minutes saving the world instead.

Which is fine. I also had the impression that you might have learned something significant in those 27 years.

Did I say that you were?

Where exactly did you see me indicate that I never "tried" either? You could have saved yourself some keystrokes there and maybe enough time to get that log entry made.

All the time? I dispute this claim.

No, drama queen, if you can't figure out what pertinent data would fit the bill then it might follow that you are indeed obtuse enough to need an odometer as you wouldn't know the difference between 1 mile and 40 miles. I'm not saying you are, so I'll give you another shot at that one.

Yes, you have been quite fortunate.

For the marathon, it is indeed good to dial-in to the MP, but why so anal about tempo as well?

As a luxury, yes. As a necessity, no.

No, but on the same token I do not desire to be an automaton, either. For about 90-95% of my training, it is irrelevant to hit a certain pace.

I'm going to do you a favor here and read that as you speak only for yourself.

Outside of a few workouts, what would it matter?

Great, you have a neat >accurate< log to show for it.

If you do enough MP in training (and are properly in-tune with that training) then it should not be that much of a mystery.

Who said "objection", Joey? Beside you, I mean.

Says you. I prefer to be more in-tune with how a pace feels than what registers on the Trekkie tool so that come race day I'll be able to stick to it easily.

Well now that I think about it, it is actually the only training alteration that is consistent across all 3 marathons. And I did have a bad one in which I had to drop out. Still I do not attribute all improvements to it because too many factors go into training. Regardless, after all these years, I know an aid to training when I find one.

I generally do speed workouts by pace. I'm overloading the word "tempo" here to mean LT which I generally aim to approximate by pace. It's really the first mile or two of the hard section I for which the GPS is most useful. To get me in the right range. Once at a pace I can generally hold it to within a few seconds per mile. But depending on the day and how I feel, finding that pace initially can often be quite a chore.

There you go with that Orwell imagery again. "Shackle". "Automaton". Are you shackled by the tools you use?

I agree completely that there is no need to hit a certain pace for 90-95% of runs. For about 90 to 95% of my runs, I hardly even bother looking at the Garmin until after the run is over. Then I write down the time and distance in my log. Logging made easier for me.

Of course, I did the same for the decades when I just wore a watch for running. When you do those 90-95% of runs, do you not wear a watch either? If not, what exactly do you write in your log?

Personally I would prefer that as well. Sadly life does not always work out the way we plan, no matter how much training we do. How nice it is to have something to help us keep the plan on track.

I can't understand why a GPS seems like Star Trek to you. To me it's mostly just something that tells me how far I ran with some accuracy. When it need it to, it also tells me pace with some accuracy. As an added bonus it makes logging easier.

Says me and... well.. the tens of thousands who have bought these things I guess.

It's a tool. The running is up to you. As with a HRM, one purpose of a Garmin is to force yourself to slow down on easy days. Sometimes easier said than done, I realize.

Since my first half-mile tends to be on the slow side, I simply hit the Lap button when I am at my real pace and have it set up to see the lap pace. My pace from that point tends to be fairly even with a slight speeding up and using the lap time works for me.

Average_Joe wrote:

Not sure what response is needed here. The fact remains, I ran certified courses (Boston, Chicago, Pocon), and ended up with measurements no more than 5 hundredths of a mile from the certified distance.

You inspired me Joe. I've been meaning to test out the Garmin on my bike to see how accurate it is, but just haven't gotten around to it.

Well tonight I decided to give it a try. I did a couple rides on the calibration course in front of my house to get my Jones counter calibrated, and then went for a short ride.

When I got back home I stopped the bike just as the Garmin turned over 6.10km, and recorded the Jones counts. I went inside, crunched the numbers, and came up with 6.122km from the Jones, for an error of 0.35%. Not 0.2%, but still pretty darn accurate.

Keep in mind that I always had a very strong signal, and the ride I went on was mostly straight, but I'm still impressed and a little surprised. I plan to do many more rides like this with varying turns, sky cover, etc., to see how robust the thing is, but right now things look pretty good for the GPS.

I'll admit that where I am (Boston) I am fortunate enough to almost always have a strong signal. And in the marathons I ran with it was absurdly strong. I set up one of the fields to show accuracy and for the Pocono marathon in particular it was under 15 feet most of the way.

Apparently the next generation of these things is going to augmented with the WAAS system which improves the accuracy by use of land-based transmitting stations. Some of Garmin's higher-end GPSes apparently already have it.

So long as it meets your criteria for proof then that is fine for you. When you advocate for it to others, though, it doesn't work (except on the gullible).

Seems a simplistic understanding of training. Is LT really supposed to be a concrete translation of pace? Does LT never vary, as a physiological function? Does having a harder time hitting this alleged "LT pace" not indicate that perhaps due to fluctuating physiological variables that your LT might be altered and thus might be achieved at a slower pace?

No, dear. Orwell imagery? Did you mean "Orwellian"? You brought up metronome, that is what prompted the use of "automaton".

So you're indicating that the ease comes in knowing the pace and distance for runs where it is unnecessary to know the pace. Seems like the "logging made easier" would extend to just tossing the pace where it is irrelevant.

The same what? Writing down time and distance? I don't write down distance, as I have yet to be shown how it logically has any true relevance.

The royal us? It's not as much of a mystery as you want to make it out to be. You have certainly helped me to understand better that not everyone is equally adept at listening to their bodies and correctly interpreting what it is indicating. Not all of us understand things at the same level, which is an obvious thing to observe. On that same token, I'm certainly not a UND-level intellectual like you clearly are.

Because it looks like one of those sci-fi wrist communicators when I see people running around with them on. Was that not from Star Trek? Sorry, I might be confused on this as I'm not really a sci-fi fan.

Now I understand the necessity to you.

So, says you.

Nobody asked, but in case anyone's wondering (most likely only the future me, browsing historical threads a year or two hence, unsure of which noms de l-run I employed way back when), I am not the same person posting as "Charlie Horse".

I do endorse nearly everything he's said here. I'd already decided I get enough mileage out of browbeating Garmin users on another forum and would mostly leave that to others here (1); glad to see that position's been filled by someone who can reason and write a little. Nice work, CH!

(1) though you better believe I reserve the right to interject the occasional cheap shot if opportunity knocks and I can't resist answering

I have a garmin 205 or 201 or something. I have never used it, and I have no interest in using it. If anyone wants to paypal me the shipping costs, I will gladly send it to you.

Mayeroff (at) yahoo (dot) com

There are many things I would advocate for others because I have personally found them to be useful. Many have actually taken my recommendation on the Garmin. To a person they agree with me.

Of course LT varies with many variables. And so I make allowances for weather conditions and the like. But if you simply don't like the idea of using a specific pace to work on your lactate threshold, then I suggest you take that argument to someone attempting to advocate it, such as Jack Daniels.

The good news is that we both agree that hitting a specific marathon pace IS of use so for sake of discussion, we may limit ourselves to that.

Seems like logging made easier would be tossing the time too.

So you write down time? But why? Why are shackled by your watch? Why not just write down the name of the loop you did and be done with it? Why be a slave to that measurement? You mean you don't know whether or not you're applying appropriate levels of training stress without the numbers to look at? Do you think about your training very much?

Never claimed it was a "mystery" in the first place. That was just you and your hyperpole. You're certainly on pace to the record for straw men introduced in one thread though. Keep it up.

And you in turn have certainly helped me to understand that some people simply fear knowledge. To these people, knowledge is a "shackle" that holds them back. They lack the ability to possess this knowledge without being controlled by it and they cannot understand how anyone else could as well. Technological advances which make this knowledge easier to obtain are feared and shunned by these people. We call them "luddites." Perhaps you could change your username?

MAYEROFF wrote: I have a garmin 205 or 201 or something. I have never used it, and I have no interest in using it.

What happened? Did you buy it thinking it was some kind of sex toy?