OK, so there have been quite a few threads regarding which performance monitor to buy…a Polar with the footpod, or a Garmin using GPS. There is a lot of anecdotal information out there, so I decided that, since I owned both, I would put both on and go for a run, then download the results and compare. Now, some of you might be asking why on earth I have both…good question. I already had the Garmin for about a year, and needed a new watch. I also didn’t really like my older Timex as a stand alone HRM, so I figured I would get a Polar HRM and use it for double duty as a watch and a HRM, plus I wanted something decent while racing (which you can’t really use the Garmin for, since you can’t swim with it easily). I noted that I could get a fairly good deal on an RS400D, so I went whole hog and got one for as a watch and as a racing tool. So, herewith are the results:
It was raining, so I stood by a window and turned my Garmin on…it locked on in around a minute inside. I strapped the Garmin to my right wrist, and the RS400D on my left, and S1 footpod on left shoe. The S1 footpod was battened down very tightly on a pair of Asics Gel Landreths, and had NOT been calibrated…this is “as is” right out of the box.
During the run: Course was in my neighborhood. There were several mild hills and several cul-de-sacs to turn around in. There was also rain throughout, with some of it torrential. For the first 1.70ish miles, the Garmin and the Polar were exactly the same distance-wise. The Polar started to lag the Garmin when turning around in a tight cul-de-sac, but not by much. Pace on the Polar seemed pretty close to perceived exertion, and would change slowly. The Garmin seemed to be very optimistic on the pace, often being 20-30 seconds per mile faster than the Polar, plus it would make large jumps in pace. Hills didn’t effect distance between the two.
Downloading: The Polar was definitely the bit fussier of the two…it took 4 minutes to launch the software, plug in the USB port IR device, get a connection, and download. I had to fiddle with holding the watch near the IR USB thingie to get a decent connection. If you wait for a month to download, this can be a real pain in the ass as you try to hold your watch steady. The Garmin took 50 seconds to snap into the cradle, plug into the USB port, then the software autolaunched, and auto downloaded. I probably could have downloaded to Motion Based as well in the remaining 3 minutes that it took the Polar.
Data: This is where it gets a little weird, so stay with me. The Polar training software rounds the distance, so to get an accurate view of what the Polar actually recorded, I went back to the watch itself and pulled up the file. The other strange thing is that the Polar training software seemed to be including all previous run data when showing an average pace on some of the graphs and data in windows, even thought it doesn’t tell you its doing so…it said I ran 3.1 miles in 25:12 (no comments on my slow pace, please!) yet it was saying my average pace was around 13:13!! It was very hard to figure out. Polar data from the training software is in parantheses (where required):
Distance: Polar 3.06 miles (3.1) Garmin: 3.08
Average Pace: Polar 8:14 (8:07) Garmin: 8:09
Average/Max HR: Polar 155/173 Garmin 155/173
Calories: Polar 367 Garmin 449
I set both monitors to autolap at 1 mile, and here is the data from that:
Mile 1: Polar: 8:26.6 Garmin 8:27
Mile 2: Polar: 8:24.8 Garmin 8:14
Mile 3: Polar: 7:54.9 Garmin 7:52
Overall: I was pretty impressed with the Polar in terms of its accuracy with both pace and distance. 2/100 of a mile after three miles is pretty negligible. The Garmin crushed the Polar (IMHO) in terms of downloading ease, plus I am still confused with the data the Polar software was giving me. I will admit that I may just not have set up the software correctly, and its giving me what I asked for, but the Garmin stuff is still a lot easier to use. So, with that in mind, I would say that as a training tool, the Garmin is probably the better choice. For racing, get the Polar.
Spot