Band vs GPS watch 4.5 mile comparison

[valadon]

Hey runners!

I did a 4.5 mile run this morning with the Band on one wrist and the TomTom GPS Running watch on the other (wore a chest strap heart rate monitor for the TomTom.) I ran my usual 1 mile loop (actually closer to .97 miles), which my TomTom has always read very accurately so I will use it as a baseline.

Comparison:
Distance:
Tom: 4.58 miles
Band: 4.48 miles

Pace:
Tom: 9:33
Band: 9:44

Heart Rate:
Tom(chest strap): 152 average
Band: 160 average

They are .1 mile off in distance, for a 4.5 mile run ins't too bad. The pace and heart rate are a bit off, but still probably acceptable.

For me I think the Band will work well as a replacement for my GPS running watch. For what I am doing it should be close enough, however if you are a hard core runner and are trying to win the Boston marathon then you probably want to stick with your more specialized tools.

One other thing I have to mention, my GPS watch uploads lots of data to runkeeper, the Band only syncs a small amount of info. It only sends distance, average HR, duration, Average pace, and calories burned. It does not export the map of my run, nor the graphs that you see in the app. Hopefully they will fix that in a future update. Right now the maps and graphs are stuck on the phone app.

Let me know if you guys have any questions about the running functionality of the watch.

 

[littlebib]

What about features such as auto-pausing (like when you're stopped by traffic)? What fields are available on the screen? I typically like to see duration, current pace, and lap pace (with 1 lap = 1 mile).

Also, how long does it take to lock in the GPS signal?

 

[valadon]

What about features such as auto-pausing (like when you're stopped by traffic)? What fields are available on the screen? I typically like to see duration, current pace, and lap pace (with 1 lap = 1 mile).

Also, how long does it take to lock in the GPS signal?

The display questions have been answered in this thread: http://forums.windowscentral.com/mi...see-your-running-pace-while-running-band.html

There is no auto-pause on the Band, as far as I can tell. GPS locks pretty quickly, about 15-20 seconds I would say. It look about 4 seconds longer to lock than my TomTom did.

 

[smoledman]

So the bottom line is the Band is lacking a lot of polish and detail that other GPS fitness bands have like auto-pausing.

 

[valadon]

Yes it certainly feels like a jack off all trades device, it does not track my runs as well as a dedicate running watch. However it did do a pretty good job, and it really depends on what features you need. I almost never use auto pause, or lap times but I know a lot of people do. What I like about it is that it is just one device, and I am already wearing it. I roll out of bed put on my running shoes and go, I don't have to put on another watch and strap on a heart rate monitor.

Also I forgot to mention if you hit the button on the device it will pause the run and then if you press the button again it will resume it. So while there is no auto-pause you can easily pause and resume with one button press.

 

[cardingtr]

Did the heart rate monitor lost connectivity? I sweat a lot and concerned how this affects the module. Also can you feel the haptic feedback every mile?

 

[valadon]

As far as I can tell it was able to read me HR for the entire run and I felt it buzz on my first every mile, which suprised me actually since I didn't know it was going to alert me every mile.

 

[zarin6716]

thanks good!!

 

[Daniel Rubino]

Hey runners!

I did a 4.5 mile run this morning with the Band on one wrist and the TomTom GPS Running watch on the other (wore a chest strap heart rate monitor for the TomTom.) I ran my usual 1 mile loop (actually closer to .97 miles), which my TomTom has always read very accurately so I will use it as a baseline. .

Thanks for the comparison, but one quick question: how do you know the TomTom GPS Running watch is accurate? I mean, what was that baselined against?

I only ask because for now, all we can see are the differences between the two (which is valuable/interesting) but it tells us nothing about actual accuracy and which one is 'closer'.

 

[valadon]

Thanks for the comparison, but one quick question: how do you know the TomTom GPS Running watch is accurate? I mean, what was that baselined against?

I only ask because for now, all we can see are the differences between the two (which is valuable/interesting) but it tells us nothing about actual accuracy and which one is 'closer'.

Sorry I should have clarified that I had previously mapped out the run by plotting the points on a map, using two separate running mapping websites. (runningmap, and runkeeper) I am making the assumption, perhaps incorrectly that these maps are accurate.

 

[Daniel Rubino]

Sorry I should have clarified that I had previously mapped out the run by plotting the points on a map, using two separate running mapping websites. (runningmap, and runkeeper) I am making the assumption, perhaps incorrectly that these maps are accurate.

Gotcha, no that's fine for the distance stuff. The HR though I would be more curious about, but I don't expect you to have a portable ECG kit on hand, lol.

In terms of steps, my Fitbit Force and Band are within 1 step of each other at this moment (wearing on same hand), though variation has gone as high as 40 steps. Still, my off the cuff comparison for at least the pedometer is it is analogous to how Fitbit measures foot activity. Whether people think that is accurate is another question.

 

[valadon]

True I don't really know that the TomTom chest strap is accurate, I guess I assumed it was relatively proven technology at this point but as you have mentioned in other threads it is not as accurate as a 12 point ECG. I guess at the end of the day we need to decide if it is "close enough" to be useful for basic training.

 

[Daniel Rubino]

I guess at the end of the day we need to decide if it is "close enough" to be useful for basic training.

For myself, I am more interested in consistency over time. Just like 'fat measurement' scales. They're not nearly as accurate as water displacement or calipers, but if the scale is consistent in its readings then it can serve as a valuable baseline.

So even though the Band not be as accurate as a chest strap (which is not as accurate as a full ECG), if it is consistent for your activities, I think there is still some strong value there for visualizing change over time. Heck, even 'calories burned' is a wacky science with a dozen variables.

OTOH, if you do the same run every day under the same conditions and your HR is all over the place with no pattern, that'd be very bad for the Band.

In an ideal world, we would get these devices 'tuned' to each of our bodies through an in-depth calibration technique. We're still far from that ideal though

 

[zack251]

Thanks for the comparison. One more question. I have asked this on the other thread, how much the battery left for your run? How long can the battery last if the GPS is on.
Thank you so much.

Hey runners!

I did a 4.5 mile run this morning with the Band on one wrist and the TomTom GPS Running watch on the other (wore a chest strap heart rate monitor for the TomTom.) I ran my usual 1 mile loop (actually closer to .97 miles), which my TomTom has always read very accurately so I will use it as a baseline.

Comparison:
Distance:
Tom: 4.58 miles
Band: 4.48 miles

Pace:
Tom: 9:33
Band: 9:44

Heart Rate:
Tom(chest strap): 152 average
Band: 160 average

They are .1 mile off in distance, for a 4.5 mile run ins't too bad. The pace and heart rate are a bit off, but still probably acceptable.

For me I think the Band will work well as a replacement for my GPS running watch. For what I am doing it should be close enough, however if you are a hard core runner and are trying to win the Boston marathon then you probably want to stick with your more specialized tools.

One other thing I have to mention, my GPS watch uploads lots of data to runkeeper, the Band only syncs a small amount of info. It only sends distance, average HR, duration, Average pace, and calories burned. It does not export the map of my run, nor the graphs that you see in the app. Hopefully they will fix that in a future update. Right now the maps and graphs are stuck on the phone app.

Let me know if you guys have any questions about the running functionality of the watch.

 

[klkokke]

I just ran 13.1 mikes today and forgot to charge the night before, so was on for 24 hours prior to the run. I have hr and god running and the battery lasted until just shy of 10 miles or 1hr 30 min. I feel with a full charge I could have gotten a full 3-4 hours

 

[valadon]

Thanks for the comparison. One more question. I have asked this on the other thread, how much the battery left for your run? How long can the battery last if the GPS is on.
Thank you so much.

I started with 80% battery wore the band for a full 24 hours, including sleep tracking. I had about 40% battery left, I then went on the 45 min run, and when I got back I plugged it into the charger it said I had 20% battery left. So with a full 24 hours and a 45min GPS run it went from ~80% to ~20%

 

[luxnws]

I started with 80% battery wore the band for a full 24 hours, including sleep tracking. I had about 40% battery left, I then went on the 45 min run, and when I got back I plugged it into the charger it said I had 20% battery left. So with a full 24 hours and a 45min GPS run it went from ~80% to ~20%

MS will have to up the battery life to accommodate 4:00+ marathon finishers who will certainly have their gps turned on the entire course.

 

[cardingtr]

If it can't last 4+ hr run. Its a no go for me. 3 years of development and they haven't figured it out?

 

[valadon]

MS will have to up the battery life to accommodate 4:00+ marathon finishers who will certainly have their gps turned on the entire course.

Yeah I do not think it will handle much more than a 2.5-3 hour run. I think I am going to use it to track my training runs during the week, but use my GPS running watch for my long runs on sat, and races.