"This close" to replacing my running watch

[littlebib]

I've had various Garmin Forerunner's throughout the years and have currently been running with the 610 (with the heart rate strap) along with my Band and I have found the Band to be really good. For example my most recent run:

Garmin: Distance - 18.12, Avg Pace - 8:27, Calories - 1996, Avg heart rate: 143
Band: Distance - 18.0, Avg Pace - 8:30, Calories - 2266, Avg heart rate: 144

I have found this to be very consistent with my other runs.

For the Band, I've had much better luck on the treadmill than I had with the Garmin foot pod. Neither is 100% accurate to be sure, but I just had miserable results with the foot pod to the point where I stopped using it. I've also found that the Band's GPS locks in faster than the Garmin (which really surprises me).

There's only a couple of things that are holding me back:
1) Auto-pause. I hate having to manually stop the Band when I come up to a busy street where I have to wait to cross. A couple of times, I've accidentally stopped my run because I accidentally hit "end run" on the touchscreen.
2) Historical data - I have about 8 years of running history saved from my Garmins and I just don't want to give that up. I like looking through the years to see how I've improved (or not I suppose)
3) I don't often run in the rain, but I know the Garmin doesn't have any issues (including the touch screen working). I worry that the Band either wouldn't survive, or would at a minimum have some serious touch screen issues with wet hands.

 

[gadgetrants]

Regarding (2), not sure if you're already using mapmyrun or runkeeper, but both will allow you to consolidate your workouts from the Garmin and Band in one place. A nice feature in mapmyrun is that if you run with GPS on the Band, it will not only automatically sync your map data, but also your elevation and pace. Unfortunately neither website seems to sync up the HR data though -- however, using an app like unBand, you can export the data from each run off the Band and if you upload it to runkeeper, it will get both GPS and HR data. Very clunky solution though.

Personally, I'm happy enough with the data I'm seeing now in the Band web Dashboard that I'm not that attached to mapmyrun. The only reason to continue letting my Band data sync there is for me to try and impress my friends with my little walks/runs! LOL

​-Matt

 

[Kronus24]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANcH-eLv9jw[/URL]For you concern for the rain, I highly doubt it will cause in problems even if you were to literally be completely submerge in water riding your bike. Hope this video would put you at ease of knowing that a water from raining would not stop the almighty Band !! But It would hamper the the touch screen with wet hands

Had a video on youtube to show its submerge for you but not loading, lol

Also which one do you thin kis more accurate from your test? Because you said the gps locks on quicker, but the difference in calories is pretty wide, 270 calories for .12 miles. Would like a larger test pool to see if the Garmin is more accurate or the Band. What do you think is causing this difference, would it be the Calories Formula or HR accuracy.

"Garmin: Distance - 18.12, Avg Pace - 8:27, Calories - 1996, Avg heart rate: 143
Band: Distance - 18.0, Avg Pace - 8:30, Calories - 2266, Avg heart rate: 144
"

 

[gadgetrants]

I stand corrected -- I logged into mapmyrun today and as I noted above, when you look at the workout, a map of the run is illustrated with a plot of elevation and pace (as a function of time) beneath the map.

Interestingly, there are two tabs at the bottom of the workout page: courses and heart rate. When you click on the heart rate tab you get a sales pitch for MVP membership. When you click on the course tab, however, if you've saved the specific run as a course it takes you to the page for that course (naturally!).

Lo and behold, in the view of the run on the Course page, it not only includes a map view but also a plot like before with elevation, pace, and NOW heart rate. Very cool.

Another cute feature is that if you hover over the plot of elevation, etc., it superimposes an icon on the map for the corresponding location during your run. That works the same way on the workout page too of course.

​-Matt

 

[gomezz]

Showstopper for me is that the band is not water / sweat proof so not fit for purpose as an activity / sports tracker. An office worker's trinket only. So far only the Garmin and Polar (and Suunto?) devices seem to fit the bill.

 

[littlebib]

Showstopper for me is that the band is not water / sweat proof so not fit for purpose as an activity / sports tracker. An office worker's trinket only. So far only the Garmin and Polar (and Suunto?) devices seem to fit the bill.

I can vouch for it being sweat proof and I haven't heard of anyone having problems with sweat. I've been running consistently both indoors and out since January when I got the Band and haven't had any issues. My concern was more if it's really raining hard.

 

[littlebib]

Also which one do you thin kis more accurate from your test? Because you said the gps locks on quicker, but the difference in calories is pretty wide, 270 calories for .12 miles. Would like a larger test pool to see if the Garmin is more accurate or the Band. What do you think is causing this difference, would it be the Calories Formula or HR accuracy.

I couldn't tell you which is more accurate. I've never really paid any attention to calories.


Watch Distance Avg Pace Calories Avg Heart Rate
Band 5.14 7:41 609 148
Garmin 5.15 7:41 533 147
Band 8.01 8:05 1070 157
Garmin 8.09 8:01 1108 153
Band 5 7:56 614 149
Garmin 5.04 7:55 555 152
Band 17 8:26 2187 146
Garmin 17.09 8:25 1837 144



Formatting didn't work, but that's a quick comparison.

 

[astondg]

Showstopper for me is that the band is not water / sweat proof so not fit for purpose as an activity / sports tracker. An office worker's trinket only. So far only the Garmin and Polar (and Suunto?) devices seem to fit the bill.

What? The Band is certainly sweat proof. I've had mine pretty drenched with sweat & I've cycled with it in the rain. There are users here who have gotten in the shower with their Band on or dunked it in the pool accidentally with no ill effects. The Band does have an official water resistance rating, I forget the IPX code but it's 1m for 30min I think.

 

[soggs]

One quick question about using ther Band as a running watch, do you need to have the phone with you for it to work, or does it work like a standalone Garmin and then syncs back to the phone when you get back from your run?

I'm looking to get one of these and would be tempted to replace my Garmin if it worked in the same way and stores the data on the band as I don't like running with my phone if possible.

 

[gadgetrants]

Syncs after -- no phone needed while running. I even wonder if you could skip the phone entirely and do the syncing by connecting to your PC and running the Microsoft Band Sync app?

-Matt

 

[soggs]

Thanks for the quick reply Matt, I hoped that would be the case.

Now I just need to decide if I need the Band, or just want one to satisfy my inner geek!

 

[littlebib]

Thanks for the quick reply Matt, I hoped that would be the case.

Now I just need to decide if I need the Band, or just want one to satisfy my inner geek!

Of course you need it!

And I can confirm that you definitely don't need your phone. I was on a business trip so I didn't have my normal hydration belt (the nice way of saying fanny pack) to carry my phone, so I just went out with the Band. I wasn't even really expecting to run outside so I didn't have my running watch either, but the weather was just too nice to resist and the Band worked great.

 

[soggs]

Of course you need it!

And I can confirm that you definitely don't need your phone. I was on a business trip so I didn't have my normal hydration belt (the nice way of saying fanny pack) to carry my phone, so I just went out with the Band. I wasn't even really expecting to run outside so I didn't have my running watch either, but the weather was just too nice to resist and the Band worked great.

Ha ha I know I do too, just trying to convince myself that I have a justification to part with the money :wink:

Do you know roughly how long the Band would last on a run? I'm not a huge distance runner but do the odd half marathon so would want it to last for a couple of hours at least.

 

[Kronus24]

Showstopper for me is that the band is not water / sweat proof so not fit for purpose as an activity / sports tracker. An office worker's trinket only. So far only the Garmin and Polar (and Suunto?) devices seem to fit the bill.

Yup, not sweat proof at all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANcH-eLv9jw

 

[Kronus24]

I couldn't tell you which is more accurate. I've never really paid any attention to calories.


Watch Distance Avg Pace Calories Avg Heart Rate
Band 5.14 7:41 609 148
Garmin 5.15 7:41 533 147
Band 8.01 8:05 1070 157
Garmin 8.09 8:01 1108 153
Band 5 7:56 614 149
Garmin 5.04 7:55 555 152
Band 17 8:26 2187 146
Garmin 17.09 8:25 1837 144



Formatting didn't work, but that's a quick comparison.

That's damn impressive results. Specially because you are using a Hr band with the Garmin. And for the Band to show a little higher HR 3 out of the 4 test. I wonder if it because it getting reading from the wrist vs the heart. But I wouldn't think you would get higher HR readings from a wrist. Unless Garmin is not doing as many reading as the BAND. Which does a reading every sec when you are in exercise mood. Which is were I think difference is coming from. What you think? Having to carry 1 device instead of 2 is nice but the Garmin has ANT+ support so its for more hard core fitness ppl. The Band overall is a big win for the average joe for sure.

 

[gadgetrants]

Ha ha I know I do too, just trying to convince myself that I have a justification to part with the money :wink:

Do you know roughly how long the Band would last on a run? I'm not a huge distance runner but do the odd half marathon so would want it to last for a couple of hours at least.

This got tossed back and forth a month or two ago. I don't remember the details but I'd estimate that with GPS on you're good for an hour or maybe a bit more, though I don't recall anyone making it to 2 hours. I'd say as a half-marathoner (unless you're running a 4:00 pace!) that it wouldn't probably last as long as you.

-Matt

 

[Kronus24]

This got tossed back and forth a month or two ago. I don't remember the details but I'd estimate that with GPS on you're good for an hour or maybe a bit more, though I don't recall anyone making it to 2 hours. I'd say as a half-marathoner (unless you're running a 4:00 pace!) that it wouldn't probably last as long as you.

-Matt

Let me try to find the post, but this guy said he ran a half marathon in 2 hours with the GPS on in Philly and left it on tell he got back to his hotel. I think its been said about 5 hours with gps. But he said once he was back at the hotel he had to charge it. But it didn't drop a signal running between buildings, which is impressive.

found it
http://forums.windowscentral.com/microsoft-band/345711-piggy-back-off-phone-gps.html
"I posted this awhile ago, so sorry for the repeat, but I did the Philly Marathon in November and used my Band then for the first time. With the display off but with GPS and HR on, it lasted for over 5 hours (5 for the marathon and post-marathon activities). It definitely needed charging by the time I got back to my hotel, but it was a champ during the run.

I also did the NYC Half yesterday and left the display on with GPS and HR going, too. No issues whatsoever (finished in 2 hours 16 minutes) - even held onto the GPS running through Times Square and with tall buildings all over the place. The band also paired nicely with Map My Run (my app of choice) and instantly uploaded my stats to it.

Needless to say (and I'm an iPhone/iPad/MacBook owner), I'm loving my Band and have no plans on ditching it...until version 2 comes out. :-D "

 

[littlebib]

Ha ha I know I do too, just trying to convince myself that I have a justification to part with the money :wink:

Do you know roughly how long the Band would last on a run? I'm not a huge distance runner but do the odd half marathon so would want it to last for a couple of hours at least.

My 18 mile run above was 2 hours, 33 minutes. So a "couple of hours" is definitely covered. As Kronus24 pointed out, a 5 hour marathon was run as well. You do need to turn off the display and such to get that much time, but it doesn't affect the run data.

 

[soggs]

Thanks to you all for the info about the battery life, looks like it will definitely do the job for me, I'd better get one pre-ordered

 

[gadgetrants]

http://forums.windowscentral.com/microsoft-band/345711-piggy-back-off-phone-gps.html
"I posted this awhile ago, so sorry for the repeat, but I did the Philly Marathon in November and used my Band then for the first time. With the display off but with GPS and HR on, it lasted for over 5 hours (5 for the marathon and post-marathon activities). It definitely needed charging by the time I got back to my hotel, but it was a champ during the run.

I also did the NYC Half yesterday and left the display on with GPS and HR going, too. No issues whatsoever (finished in 2 hours 16 minutes) - even held onto the GPS running through Times Square and with tall buildings all over the place. The band also paired nicely with Map My Run (my app of choice) and instantly uploaded my stats to it. "

Well hand me my hat cuz I need to eat it. That's seriously impressive. Thanks for finding the quote!

-Matt