Running

[trueblue1234]

A watch won't make you run better, but knock yourself out

Cheers for the insight.

[Milltown Row2]

A watch won't make you run better, but knock yourself out

Cheers for the insight.

No probs, move one foot in front of the other and you'll get there.

[trueblue1234]

A watch won't make you run better, but knock yourself out

Cheers for the insight.

No probs, move one foot in front of the other and you'll get there.

Would 2 watches help?

[Milltown Row2]

A watch won't make you run better, but knock yourself out

Cheers for the insight.

No probs, move one foot in front of the other and you'll get there.

Would 2 watches help?

Would only weigh you down, you'd need to run and measure the time when you get back home. Saved you a few quid, or you can have my Garmin for free

[Franko]

A watch won't make you run better, but knock yourself out

Jesus wept.

[imtommygunn]

I have the 645 with the music store in it. What are you looking for? Just bog standard GPS or are you wanting more like heart rate etc? You could probably get cheaper just GPS or you could go to the nth degree with loads of running stats (cadence, vertical oscillation and all that stuff if you are in any way interested in that)

I have always went garmin but the likes of suunto are starting to make very viable alternatives.

[trueblue1234]

I have the 645 with the music store in it. What are you looking for? Just bog standard GPS or are you wanting more like heart rate etc? You could probably get cheaper just GPS or you could go to the nth degree with loads of running stats (cadence, vertical oscillation and all that stuff if you are in any way interested in that)

I have always went garmin but the likes of suunto are starting to make very viable alternatives.

Got the 235 at the minute and it has most of what I want (Although the music would definitely be an added bonus). Mainly heart rate and VO2. Can't really fault it too much. Takes an odd head stagger sometimes on the HR. But usually a rinse under the cold tap and turning it off and on again sorts it. But only happened 2 twice in 19 months so not a big issue. But then again I don't know how accurate it is as I'm not comparing the data to anything else. But at my level it does all I want. Was just interested to see what's new and on the go out there now. I like my gadgets.

[imtommygunn]

Yeah me too. I actually keep a close eye on the cadence so like having it. The 645 is decent - I like it. I am not sure over and above the music it has anything more than the 235 mind. It has the wrist based heart rate monitor - whether the 235 has that or not I am not sure. They say it's not as accurate but to me it's only a guideline anyway.

[trueblue1234]

Yeah me too. I actually keep a close eye on the cadence so like having it. The 645 is decent - I like it. I am not sure over and above the music it has anything more than the 235 mind. It has the wrist based heart rate monitor - whether the 235 has that or not I am not sure. They say it's not as accurate but to me it's only a guideline anyway.

Yeah the 235 has the wrist HM as well. It does cadence  and elevation etc but I don't really bother with those.  As you say I don't treat it as gospel but enough for all I need.

I got a wee USB music player thingy as well. But would have been good to have it in the watch.

Just out of interest, I need a new pair of runners. Have never bothered with the gait analysis before, is it much use? I was always a bit skeptical about it? Or is there anywhere in the west (I'm Omagh) that does it?

[laoislad]

The HRM is certainly more stable on the 245 than the 235 also the vo2 max and race prediction times are more realistic.
I dunno how it measures the stress estimates but during the the Champions League final it had me in the high stress range 

[imtommygunn]

I wondered about the stress - I suspect it's heart rate. I dunno what other information it is really gathering.

With regard to gait analysis if you can get a place that's good then I'd recommend it but I don't think your bog standard running shop is a good place. It would be more podiatrist or the like. If you're not having any bother I would stick with what you know. (There is a lot of flip flopping on shoe support etc. - I am not even sure where current theory is but if you follow running over the last 20 or so years I think the cycle has been it's all in core stability and hip action etc to it's in the shoes to it's all in core stability to blah blah blah to it's all in the shoes).

[Milltown Row2]

I wondered about the stress - I suspect it's heart rate. I dunno what other information it is really gathering.

With regard to gait analysis if you can get a place that's good then I'd recommend it but I don't think your bog standard running shop is a good place. It would be more podiatrist or the like. If you're not having any bother I would stick with what you know. (There is a lot of flip flopping on shoe support etc. - I am not even sure where current theory is but if you follow running over the last 20 or so years I think the cycle has been it's all in core stability and hip action etc to it's in the shoes to it's all in core stability to blah blah blah to it's all in the shoes).

Hell the new thing is running barefoot , hell of a lot cheaper too. the study showed that there was no improvement in running related injuries with trainers than there is running barefoot, obviously running over glass barefoot will have its problems.

Haile Gebrselassie, the world's fastest marathoner, once said of his early career, "When I wore shoes, it was difficult."

In saying that Ive moved from the Hokka to Nike Zoom Pegasus Turbo

[imtommygunn]

I had heard barefoot was now frowned upon. It first went barefoot and then it went hokas which are pretty much no support to about as much support as you could possibly get. Theory on barefoot is muscles aren't conditioned to it so you will breakdown over time. That's what I heard but I have given up reading on it.

[Milltown Row2]

I had heard barefoot was now frowned upon. It first went barefoot and then it went hokas which are pretty much no support to about as much support as you could possibly get. Theory on barefoot is muscles aren't conditioned to it so you will breakdown over time. That's what I heard but I have given up reading on it.

Its the landing of the feet when bare footed and wearing shoes that the study was taken, most of the African runners would have been running barefoot long before sticking trainers on..

Distance is important to no doubt, different shoes for distances.. I had the basically no support shoe before, wasnt convinced TBH

[imtommygunn]

I had heard barefoot was now frowned upon. It first went barefoot and then it went hokas which are pretty much no support to about as much support as you could possibly get. Theory on barefoot is muscles aren't conditioned to it so you will breakdown over time. That's what I heard but I have given up reading on it.

Its the landing of the feet when bare footed and wearing shoes that the study was taken, most of the African runners would have been running barefoot long before sticking trainers on..

Distance is important to no doubt, different shoes for distances.. I had the basically no support shoe before, wasnt convinced TBH

African runners legs are conditioned from early. You take away support you'll be using muscles you've never used before and are more susceptible to injuries as there'll be no strength there. I think that was a conclusion that was developed a while after the craze started.

I know quite a few very "seasoned" runners who swear by the hokas. These would be 45 minutes to an hour a day every day and a few hours a day at the weekend kind of people so maybe that has an impact on the view. I don't like them myself but each to their own.