Is a Garmin 245 (or similar watch) really necessary??

You can get yourself baffled with statistics. Running is a simple sport at heart.

Rhodium Nights wrote:

Right now I have the Garmin 35 which is the cheapest, simplest version of the GPS watch that they make...still, it has everything you need: pace, mileage, splits, altitude, heart rate, etc.

My only complaint about the watch is its poor battery life. After a full marathon it is depleted to about 50% battery, but this issue is not really a huge concern.

That being said, I know the more advanced watches have interesting features like training insight, stride analysis, cadence analysis, etc.. Have you ever used any of these features or do you just concentrate on the main data that you can get from any watch? Is the $300 watch really worth it vs the $100 one?

I have friends who have watches with those functions and sometimes they are baffling. For instance on a recent trail run, we were running around 11min/mile and one of the watches was telling the runner that the run is "unproductive". You would think the watch would take into account the elevation change on the run.

cookie bear wrote:

You can get yourself baffled with statistics. Running is a simple sport at heart.

Very true!! That's pretty much my thinking at the moment, hence the title of the thread. Which watch do you use?

can you customize workouts on the 35?

if not then I'd pay the extra just for that, the rest of those metrics mean very little to me.

thoughts and prayers wrote:

can you customize workouts on the 35?

if not then I'd pay the extra just for that, the rest of those metrics mean very little to me.

What do you mean by that? All I do is hit the start button and I'm on my way.

I can use the split button to keep track of my times on the track, no matter how long or short the intervals are.

I have a 935 and it was absolutely worth it to me. The customizability has been nice, I don't like touchscreens so the vivoactive models were immediately ruled out, and it has held up going on three years now. I use it for running and several different biking disciplines (plus the random day on the slopes going for speed PR's). I have GPS on about 10-12 hours a week, and wear it 24/7 and charge it once every 7-10 days. It pairs with my smart trainer when I do zwift rides and I generally just like the reliability of it. My buddies vivoactive model will record random elevations at times (fluctuating by 1k feet sometimes) but the 935 is always very consistent when doing long mountain bike rides on the same trails week in week out. Programming workouts helps too especially when the intervals get in the double digit range. The watch just tells me what's next and I do it.

The productivity/fitness thing mentioned upstream (I think the is what you were referencing) is based on training load for a rolling seven days. It looks at minutes logged and minutes logged at high intensity to project if you should take it easier or not or keep it the same. There is also a fitness indicator that chimes about 6-10 minutes into every run comparing pace and HR to tell you if your condition today is good or bad. The best way to explain it is that I normally am always at +4 "good". Last week my buddies and I drank together over FaceTime, a lot of shots were taken. The next morning during my run (after sleeping like hell) my HR was high, pace slow, and about a mile in I got a -6 "poor". Seemed pretty accurate to me!

With that said all these metrics could be complete BS developed by garmin but after three years they have proved to be an effective measuring stick for me. I like consistency and the numbers give me something to compare over time and I like it. Plus the reliability compared to other friends watches (including some lower model garmins) was worth the extra money to me.

I appreciate the detailed explanation of those advanced features. Thanks! Glad your watch has been working well for you for many years!

the only feature I'd pay more to have is longer battery life and maybe heart-rate monitor. otherwise, pace/distance/time is all i've ever needed and used and it hasn't kept me from meeting my running goals.

cheapskate wrote:

the only feature I'd pay more to have is longer battery life and maybe heart-rate monitor. otherwise, pace/distance/time is all i've ever needed and used and it hasn't kept me from meeting my running goals.

The 35 has the heart rate monitor, although I'm not sure how accurate it is.

The crappy battery life is definitely annoying, and it will probably lead to me upgrading eventually

I use a casio f-91w. $10. It tells the time, and it has a stopwatch that can stop/start/reset. If I want to figure out distance I use gmap-pedometer dot com. If I want to figure out pace, I do some math afterwards. Listen to your body, not your watch. Running is only as complicated as you want it to be.

For road running you don't need much. Cadence is slightly useful. Other metrics are pretty useless.

For trail ultras I upgraded to a 945

- better battery life >24 hours

- Maps

- Courses

- Climb pro (it's really useful to know how much of that mountain is left to climb)

Training metrics are useful to keep track of your fitness via VO2 max and try balance your types of runs.

I have a Garmin 245 however I realized all the bells and whistles haven’t made me a better runner and just make me constantly stare at my watch. I turned off most of the features- just use the elapsed time and run based on effort. I do use the HR monitor to alert me to slow down on my easy days but otherwise in retrospect I think most of the stuff it provides is unnecessary.

Going from FR10 to 245 Music yes it was worth it. Wireless music to my airpod alone. Also calls out splits or heart rate or average pace whatever I choose. Also being able to choose your lap distance for workouts is great so I can choose 400m alerts or 1600m and the lap screen is way more useful. FR10 lap screen is only useful on a track where you know distance. If I wanted to run 5x1K on roads I had to run 1K wait 3 mins for recovery and then run save that rep and start a new rep/activity and glue them together on .fit file tools. 245 it has a distance field on the lap screen which resets once you hit the K rep. Also Bluetooth uploads to strava is so convenient. But yeah lap counter with lap time lap pace and lap distance is great for workouts on roads. Also if you didn't use strava the weekly totals and history and daily mileage on the watch face is great.

Saying this it didn't make me a better runner the fr10 was fine. If I had spent the money on shoes and gear and food that would of made me a better runner lol

I have the 245 music and everyday my watch tells me I suck yet other metrics would show that isn’t true. Watches are like cars the technology hasn’t really advanced so they have to sell you a gimmick to get you to keep buying.

I have both watches. The FR35 is a great watch and does everything I need. I just set it to run and go from there. If I do a workout I usually do the workout time based. 1 minute on, 1 minute off pretty simple I just hit the lap button. Same goes for any other type of workouts. Other workouts I do on the track with distance and the lap button. I like the watch simple to the point and has all the main data to get a true sense of where my fitness level is.

I just got the 245M for my Bday a couple weeks ago. I have not run much since with the time change, lack of gym use, COVID 19, and many other excuses. The 245M so far is a great watch also. Tracks more things and plays music. I wanted it for the music more than anything with warm weather approaching. Also wanted to use it for Zwift and treadmill running. (Not necessary) There are more features on the 245 but besides the music the benefits are almost negligible if you don't want to geek out on data. Running set workouts would be a huge plus on the 245 if you are into that. Personally, I'm more of a helter skelter type when it comes to workouts. If I'm doing 800s and get sick of them I might move up to 1200-1600s or down to 400s or 200s depending how I feel. So the lap button works just fine for me.

Accuracy on both seem about the same for GPS. HR accuracy on the 245M seems a little better. Battery life on the FR35 is very consistent. Battery life on the 245M can be very poor depending on how many things you turn on.

If I had to choose one or the other I'd defiantly choose the 245M. It is not necessary. Both are great watches and get the job done. The difference is really if you will benefit from the extra features.

Nope, no watch is necessary at all. You can just run, even train and race, without any watch.

I've had a 200 series Garmin for the last 8 years, recently upgrading to the 245 a month ago (210 and 225 before that). The biggest advantage so far is that it isn't the abandoned model that the 225 was. The 235 was released about 6 months after the 225 and Garmin basically stopped supporting it. Couldn't even set an activity as biking like I could on the 210. I like being able to create workouts on the watch so that I can do them off track. It will beep at the start and finish of your intervals and you can even set it to keep you in a certain pace or heart rate range, although I avoid using that.

The only new features over the 225 I find useful are the other activity types. The strength one is interesting in tracking your sets, reps and weight when lifting. When you upload it to Garmin it is actually pretty accurate at figuring out what lift you were doing for each set. The stuff like training load and VO2 max estimate are nice in theory, but don't work well for me because it relies on the HRM. It frequently reads higher than it should, mostly due to the cold (Reynaud's probably exacerbates the issue, chest strap several years ago was probably worse though). This causes it to think I'm overtraining and underestimate my fitness (VO2 max estimate). I'll never get that score up to my actual VO2 max judging by the race predictor times it is currently showing, as I've never been that fast.

I do like the idea of running set workouts so I wouldn't have to go to a track, because most of the tracks in my area are not open to the public. And I never run with music but I would actually enjoy having some music if I'm going to be running longer than 12-14 miles, so the 245 sounds great just for those two additional features AND better battery life than the FR 35.

But you're right, the 35 is still a great watch