Advice on distance & speed & HRM

Matt McNeil said:

Hi,

I have been running for over a year now out on track, but tend to have
no definite idea of how far I run or at what pace as I can't measure it
- I'd like to also start doing some speed work in the future, and to
this end I would like to buy a gadget that does all this for me,
including HRM 🙂 (unfortunately I will still be doing the running 😉 )

I can do your training runs *and* speed work for you. I can also enter races,
and run some reasonably good times for you. Then you can look up my results on
the web and repost them to this forum under your own name. I promise not to
tell anybody.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Matt McNeil said:

Hi,

I have been running for over a year now out on track, but tend to have
no definite idea of how far I run or at what pace as I can't measure it
- I'd like to also start doing some speed work in the future, and to
this end I would like to buy a gadget that does all this for me,
including HRM 🙂 (unfortunately I will still be doing the running 😉 )

Has anyone got any advice on the best gadget? I suppose HRM could be
separate (i.e. a separate Polar) - I am primarily looking for accurate
speed and distance.

You might google the group for past discussions.

If you run in reasonably open country (not dense tree canopy or wet
leaves or tall buildings), then the gps may work reasonably well. GPS
can be used biking, skiing, etc whereas an accelerometer-based speed /
distance monitor won't.

Accelerometer based gadgets seem to do surprisingly well for running and
hiking, although I haven't tested mine on big, steep hills yet - nor
have I calibrated it. They may work in areas or times when you can't get
good satellite reception, but they probably don't work skiing, biking, etc.

People have different successes with the things for pace information,
but I wouldn't trust them. Some just ignore the obviously incorrect
observations.

I run trails by time and effort, so hrm is my primary concern. I have
been happy with a Polar S625x (accelerometer based) for hr, total
distance, and elevation increase data. I use a regular gps (etrex vista)
for mapping trails as well as distance when skiing or running or
whatever. I saw one of our local mountain runners at the trail head
tonight with a Garmin 201, and he's been quite happy with it - including
using it for pace. He also skis. In a recent race, he logged 8 mi with
wrist-mount, and my etrex only logged 5.5 mi on an 8-mile route (haven't
downloaded it yet to see where it hiccupped). I'm considering getting a
wrist-mounted gps for use when exploring new (to me) twisty, turny trails.

Both have benefits, both have short-comings.

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

Dot,

Thanks very much for the great advice! I think I'm going for a garmin
and a polar now after your comments and looking on the group at past
messages. I'm probably going to be mortified at my real speed and
distance, but oh well ... 🙂

Thanks once again!

(and on a less joyous note...)

Donovan,

I'd probably be petty, bitter and twisted with a name like that too.

You're not big, and you're not clever. Whoever you are, grow up.

Matt