Tech breakup after first date: thoughts on Fitbit Charge HR vs Garmin Vivosmart

Vivosmart: Where's my "2" goig? (barely can see the
degradation of the bottom of the 2 in September 12.

My beloved Vivosmart is getting long in the tooth.  It's starting to lose some visibility on the bottom right line of pixels, I've had it for a year, my tech jones was itching to try something new. There is internet chatter there will be a new Vivosmart updated hardware sometime this year (like with the Vivofit, updated after year one), but Garmin has been silent on the prospects.

Plus: I have a newfound love for heart rate monitoring.  It has made a big difference in my energy level to take a rest when my resting heart rate is much above average, and to keep most of my workouts below 140 beats per minute per the Maffetone Method.  I have not had a day lately where I feel run over by a truck, I am sleeping well, and I seem to have much more energy in the tank at the end of runs.  All good.

The lure of the Fitbit Charge (FBC) HR is 24/7 heart rate monitoring.  But the lure doesn't quite deliver on reality for several reasons, many which have been raised in DC Rainmaker's review.

FBC: fairly accurate HRM
while couch potatoing

1) Its implementation of heart rate monitoring is not very good during exercise.  It does well during rest -- and found my resting heart rate very well.  But even a slow walk on a treadmill had my HR on the watch well into the 100s (120!) even when a manual check had it from 90-96 at the exact time.  Who can deal with inaccurate data? Not me!

2) The device is too big for me.  The beauty of the Vivosmart is the thin band that is unobtrusive.  The FBC HR is pretty slim, but still much wider and less comfortable.  I'm also not wild about the FBC buckle which requires some wrestling with.

3) The FBC HR needs to come off for showers and drains battery faster, requiring more charging frequency, unlike the Vivosmart which is waterproofed and lasts over a week with notifications on.  Who needs another thing to charge and take off more regularly?

4) The Fitbit app and website is now behind Garmin (mobile app and Connect website).  Once upon a time, Fitbit kicked Garmin's ass.  Now, the Garmin app works better (faster to connect, stays connected) and has features that I'd miss (integration with my running GPS watch, social connections nicely displayed and sortable by steps/miles/etc., and better sleep statistics).

5) I missed the "move" bar on the Garmin.  FBC doesn't have it (although it has some nice stats like minutes of activity (auto) and floors that Garmin should implement.

I'd love to have resting HR implemented in a way that wasn't visible - that only gave you a 24 hour average/high/low reading, but didn't pretend to be accurate in real time.  However, that's something that all companies need to focus on.

I do love the Fitbit alarm setup (really, why can't Garmin implement multiple alarms on the Vivosmart?).  And some resting HRM is better than none.  But those advantages are outweighed by some big disadvantages.  I'm sticking with Garmin Vivosmart for now, hoping v2 of the hardware will build on the already strong device.

Link: DC Rainmaker Vivosmart First Look

Garmin 920XT - odds and ends feedback

1. Still loving the device.  A worthy upgrade from the 620.

2. The GPS locks on very fast, and I haven't lost a signal yet.

3. Connect ID is a good idea.  I hope they can get enough people writing apps and widgets for the platform.  Garmin should spend money subsidizing app writers to make sure the ecosystem doesn't die on the vine.

4. The Bluetooth implementation is great.  It connects on its own with my Nexus 5 without having to fiddle with on/off or pair.  Woo hoo!

5. The display is very readable while running on trails.

6. The battery life seems good.  It looks like approximately 13 hours with HRM and Bluetooth, Smart Recording on (not every second).  

-55% after about 5 hours of running time, with Bluetooth on the whole time, with widgets, and with a paired HRM.  
-43% after 7.25 hours of running time, with BT, widgets, paired HRM.
-36% after 9 hours...
-13% after 11.5 hours.  I threw in the towel and put it on the charger at that point. 

Update: I think it should be pretty solid for 14 hours with HRM and BT on. 

Garmin 920XT - another unnecessary yet satisfying running-related purchase

I just upgraded from the Garmin 620 to the 920XT.  This might not have been particularly well-timed, as there's a broad expectation of a 620 upgrade at some point around the two-year post release of the original.  But I felt like that by the time that model released and there are sufficient firmware updates issued to make it usable and eliminate annoying bugs, there will be snow on the ground around here.

There are five main reasons why I upgraded now:

1) Longer battery life.  The 620 is reliable for about 6 or 7 hours by this point.  I'm sure part of the reason is battery abuse on my part -- full discharges, infrequent charges -- both which wreck havoc on lithium battery capacity over the longer term.  But the 920XT seems to have at least double that, putting me in a comfort zone over longer ultra-length runs and races.

2) Better contrast and larger display.  My eyes are starting to go, and I found that the 620 display was not that easy for me to read in low-light situations.  The 920XT is much easier for me to see on the move.

3) Enhanced GPS features. While I haven't had major issues, I have had dropouts in wooded valleys and city streets.  Hopefully, the receiver on the 920XT will be more reliable. Says DC Rainmaker:

The FR920XT contains new GLONASS satellite capabilities, which are typically used in conjunction with existing satellite systems to improve GPS reception.  In my testing, the FR920XT consistently performs as the most accurate Garmin GPS device I’ve seen, and certainly on par and usually better than other brands with recent models.

4) Garmin ID.  I like the idea of being able to download additional doodads onto the watch from the Garmin app store.  The only one I found so far that I liked enough to do so was BigWeather, but I hope I'll find more.  Another potentially useful piece of data.

5) Enhanced features TBD.  I just discovered the back to start feature, which can get Mr. Magoo back to home base when he's running in unfamiliar places and gets lost. I'm sure there will be more to discover regarding the mapping features, but this will be way helpful to me.

So far so good. I'll never wear it during the workday, as it's mildly hideous looking, as are most Garmin running watches in my opinion. But it serves me well in its running functionality, which is all I really care about, and something I have found the Forerunner series to deliver since I first bought my first Forerunner 205 (speaking of hideous).   

Osprey Rev. 1.5

I bought this pack for hydration purposes on the trails, but have been relying more on handhelds for that use this summer.  I don't like the sound of water sloshing, and find I drink too much causing upset stomach with a giant bladder on my back.

But now that I'm temporarily in a one- car family, and not fond of being solely reliant on RideOn/WMATA, and the fact the weather is getting a little less unbearable for a hilly 6-9 mile one way run, I'm returning to run commutes for some of my travel back/forth to the office.  So: what to use?  Spi-belts only go so far...

I pulled the Rev 1.5 out of my running equipment box and used it on the run in today.  It was extremely comfortable - the chest straps don't rub or chafe, and it doesn't constrict my movement at all.  With the phone pocket, it provides easy one handed access to a phone so I can do work from my field office on the sidewalks of MD/DC.  

And there's enough room in the hydration pack area (I removed the bladder and tube) for a shirt, underwear, socks, wallet, and keys.

At $70, the price is right.  Here's an Amazon link.

You can see where my Nexus 5 fits in the blue pocket on the left side of the vest (for the wearer).

Not a ton of room in the main compartment, but enough for some clean clothes - even a long sleeve dress shirt + undies.

The tie system in the back is handy for cinching a jacket in the outside webbing.

Helping prevent running-related cancer

"Saving lives? She's one step above working at the Clinique counter."

"Dermatologists. Skin doesn't need a doctor."

"Of course not. Wash it, dry it, move on."

- George and Jerry, in "The Slicer"

I didn't put skin cancer on the same level as things like pancreatic or lung cancer.  Even Seinfeld made fun of it.

It took me a long time to come around to her regular use of sunscreen; it really didn't sink in until I sat in a waiting room for a dermatologist who specialized in treating skin cancer. It kills almost 10,000 people per year -- less than the 30,000 who die from prostate or the 40,000 from breast cancer, but much more easily avoidable through a couple of simple steps.

Why should we as runners care?  Marathon runners are far more vulnerable to skin cancer than control groups who don't run.  And there's gear for this, which is why I'm writing about it on this very sunny, very runnable day.

I used to use a visor when I was in direct sun, along with UV protective sun glasses (not religiously, but regularly).  But as I'm getting older, I can see where damage from sun exposure during outdoors activity is occurring - in spots not shaded by the glasses/hat.  

I've started to wear a uv half Buff bandana to keep my head and forehead covered, and using sunscreen to cover ears, face, neck and arms.  Balm to cover lips.  And  I wear tech shirts (not singlets) to keep my shoulders covered - a particularly vulnerable spot.    

I know it seems extreme, but take a look around at races at some "older" runners who don't take precautions.  This damage isn't reversible.  

And it's a matter of life and death, not just vanity.   

PS: While it happens to women runners, men are more vulnerable than women to skin cancer.  So take some care, dudes.

Saucony Breakthru top ten first impressions

I got these bad boys from Running Warehouse on my dime. I wanted to patronize my local Pacers on 14th St., but not only did they not carry these (or the Zealots), but the guy there didn't hear about the Breakthrus nor did he believe that they'd be carrying them.  

I'll probably have more to say, but these were my out of the box impressions from wearing them on a walk and on a 5K training run this am.  I plan on wearing them tomorrow for a 13.1 where I hope to be near my course record time but nowhere near a PR.

1. The Breakthru is in the general ballpark in terms of weight vs the Zealot in size 13. Listed at 8.6 oz vs 8.3 oz for the Zealot.

2. Not as flexible as the Zealot, but it isn't very rigid.  I felt enough give as I rolled from heel to toe.

3. More cushioning than the Mirage 3 but less than the Zealot or Triumph. I'd describe it as firm yet cushioned vs. the firm/hard feel of the old Mirage.  More rubbery than foamy.

4. Enough forefoot space for me.  Didn't seem like there was any areas of discomfort or constriction. Happy toes.

5. The tongue is nice.  

It looks similar to the puffy mesh material in the Brooks Launch. They laced up very easily and have very even pressure.

6. I like the feel of the upper - locked down but not too locked down for me.

7. They are a jack of all trades, like Runblogger said. I could see using them in a 5K race up to a marathon, and for training.

8. I barely noticed the 8mm drop of the Breakthru vs the 4mm drop of the Zealot.

9. My foot seems to have the most pressure below the ring toe on the ball of my foot under my toes.  That is a good place to be (better than on the inside of my foot -- under the second toe).

10. They didn't impact my form much - but it felt easier to run faster than with Zealot.  I definitely can run faster with firmer shoes (The tread seems identical  similar to Zealot, so don't think that is a factor but there is more rubberized tread on the Breakthru. (More of that thin, durable black rubber vs. only the small amount of red rubber near the toe and the outer edge of the heel.  Plus, the yellow rubber is denser than the red puffy rubber nubs under the toes down to the heel on the Zealot)

Edit: this seems to have been corrected on my second version of the Zealot, below: more durable black rubber where the first version had the puffier, less dense red rubber.

Very possibly I think in part, the a faster feel may be related to the lower ground clearance - 15 mm in the forefoot vs 21 mm in the Zealot.)

Update: Just finished a 13.1 race with them. They did a great job protecting my feet and also helped with maintaining a good stride and cadence. Enough shoe for a 13.1/26.2 but not too much to get in the way. A strong contender to be my go to shoe for fall halfs and Marine Corps Marathon. 

Review of Breakthru 2: http://www.midpackgear.com/2016/03/bless-you-saucony-breakthru-2-review.html

Saucony Breakthru

I couldn't keep my hands off of these on Running Warehouse. Look to be a little speedier than the Zealot but in the general vicinity in terms of shape, weight, with a little less cush. The price (and reviews) were right.

I ordered Tuesday with 2 day shipping leaving the Warehouse Wed., but UPS fucked it up, so I have to wait until Monday and can't run them at the Riley's Rumble.  But I had to let the cat out of the bag. Stay tuned.