Speed and distance monitors

ejg said:

I am considering buying a heart rate/ speed and distance monitor. Are these things worth the price?
Do they offer good workout feedback? Does the speed and distance monitor work when just running
around a track? It's a fair investment but I would like to better calculate my speed and distance.
Is heart rate an important thing to know?

TIA

If you have two fingers you can take your HR. Yes it's important to know, but unless you are a long
time runner with defenite goals, it really isn't worth the expense. The Bill Rodgers

turkey said:

ejg said:

I am considering buying a heart rate/ speed and distance monitor. Are these things worth the
price? Do they offer good workout feedback? Does the speed and distance monitor work when just
running around a track? It's a fair investment but I would like to better calculate my speed and
distance. Is heart rate an important thing to know?

Why would you need a speed and distance monitor to compute how far and fast you've gone when running
around a track?

Color me a little boggled.

Quoted message said:

If you have two fingers you can take your HR. Yes it's important to know, but unless you are a
long time runner with defenite goals, it really isn't worth the expense. The Bill Rodgers

They're fun and useful, but don't become a slave to it.

-Dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
angio.netangio.netOpen ↗ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

ejg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I am considering buying a heart rate/ speed and distance monitor. Are these things worth the
price? Do they offer good workout feedback? Does the speed and distance monitor work when just
running around a track? It's a fair investment but I would like to better calculate my speed and
distance. Is heart rate an important thing to know?

Sounds like you are new to running.

I was in the market for the Speed and Distance gadget some months ago. This is what I found out.
1. The GPS technologies used in these devices do not give enough accuracy to be useful in
monitoring speed.
2. The distance feature is useful in mapping out your routes. However, you need to make several
passes because of measurement errors.
3. A heart rate monitor is fairly useful if you can't or don't want to pace your running
without one.

Because of 1. and 2. above I bought a handheld GPS instead. I use it to map out my new running
routes. I don't run with one. This is because on most days the GPS signals get lost enough for the
readings to be pretty much useless. I always run with a heart rate monitor since I find it useful in
pacing myself.

Quoted message said:

TIA

Dave Andersen said:

turkey said:

ejg said:

I am considering buying a heart rate/ speed and distance monitor. Are these things worth the
price? Do they offer good workout feedback? Does the speed and distance monitor work when just
running around a track? It's a fair investment but I would like to better calculate my speed and
distance. Is heart rate an important thing to know?

Why would you need a speed and distance monitor to compute how far and fast you've gone when
running around a track?

Would you use a pedometer? Are they accurate? The track I use isn't standard. They say it is 367
meters around the inside lane. What's the best way to comfirm that? What about for a longer run not
on a track? Is time run more important than distance travelled?

Seems like a stop watch /heart rate monitor might be a good choice.

Yes, I am new to running.

ejg said:

I am considering buying a heart rate/ speed and distance monitor. Are these things worth the
price? Do they offer good workout feedback? Does the speed and distance monitor work when just
running around a track? It's a fair investment but I would like to better calculate my speed and
distance. Is heart rate an important thing to know?

Welcome! I saw the other responses and your replies. You didn't indicate what your interests are -
just *doing* it, running for fun and relaxation, fast races (track, road, trail), running over
trails through woods and up hills for kicks, fitness, etc - or not sure. Any of these are perfectly
fine goals for running. This may affect what gadgets you would want to spend your money on - if
anything at all. Running short times does not *require* anything except maybe a good pair of shoes,
and some will argue that barefoot running is better.

Most people will probably do better using time, rather than distance, for their training when they
are first starting out. For one thing, time is much easier to determine - look at watch, which most
people have. Most things that you are training are dependent on duration - time on legs to
strengthen muscles / ligaments / tendons but also a number of physiological processes. Even many
experienced runners base their training on time. Time is the usual method on trails since we don't
often know the distance anyway, and effort level is far more important.

I'm prejudiced, but a hrm - when *properly* used - is probably more important than speed and
distance monitors - esp. if using across multiple activities like running and mt biking. You can use
them to learn to judge effort for easy (conversational pace) vs hard (hard to breathe) runs, etc.
Eventually, you'll recognize your body signs and not need the hrm except for a double check on the
run and to download the data and log your run. Some people may recognize effort off the bat and a
hrm would be a waste.

My trails are not mapped, so I did use a GPS (a real one, not one of these running gizmos) to map
them and sometimes use it for distance and elevation change. But I lose the signal so often in
summer in black holes, that I rarely use it. Better results in winter, though. Garmin is coming out
with a new running gizmo next month, I think, that looks better than what's on the market now but
when I first saw the description, there were some things I wasn't keen about, but can't remember
what. It still uses the patch antenna, which isn't as good as the quad helix - or so I've read. And
doesn't have all the goodies of a real GPS.

You might search the group using google for past discussions of hrm and their use in training as
well as speed / distance monitors.

You might also take a look at faq's if you haven't already. faqs.orgrunning faqOpen ↗

Enjoy your running.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

(ElfHunter) said:

1. The GPS technologies used in these devices do not give enough accuracy to be useful in
monitoring speed.

True if you mean instantaneous speed. That's a near-worthless gadget. For average speed, over a few
10s of seconds or more (lap of track, km,
mile), it's more than adequately accurate.

Quoted message said:

2. The distance feature is useful in mapping out your routes. However, you need to make several
passes because of measurement errors.

Don't understand what you mean on this one? The errors I've noted, if reception isn't lost too
frequently, are of the order of 1% (10m in a kilometer).

Quoted message said:

3. A heart rate monitor is fairly useful if you can't or don't want to pace your running
without one.

More importantly it stops you running harder than you think you are, even if you're experienced as
hell. That said, mine's battery died 2 months ago and hasn't been replaced yet...

steve common said:

Don't understand what you mean on this one? The errors I've noted, if reception isn't lost too
frequently, are of the order of 1% (10m in a kilometer).

Steve, it really depends a lot on where you are. I haven't even used my regular GPS for several
months since reception was so bad this summer. I got back from one run and had maybe 5 points
present (note that's present, not missing). I put it on top my camelbak for best sky view. Other
times I can relocate small patches of vegetation pretty precisely. Many of the consumer-grade GPS's
and the speed/distance gizmos use the patch antenna, which isn't the best from what I've read and
experienced. I made some comments in another thread earlier, but not too long ago (recently tried
Timex body link...). Yes, in different parts of the world, like where you live, the reception is
much better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3. A heart rate monitor is fairly useful if you can't or don't want to pace your running
without one.

More importantly it stops you running harder than you think you are, even if you're experienced as
hell. That said, mine's battery died 2 months ago and hasn't been replaced yet...

I'll probably upgrade mine when the battery dies 😉 Need more capacity and more reliable
downloading.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

steve common <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(ElfHunter) said:

1. The GPS technologies used in these devices do not give enough accuracy to be useful in
monitoring speed.

True if you mean instantaneous speed. That's a near-worthless gadget. For average speed, over a
few 10s of seconds or more (lap of track, km,
mile), it's more than adequately accurate.

I think it depends on where you live in this world. I live in a region where frequently the sky is
overcast. Reception can vary greatly from day to day. Not to mention that when I jog through wooded
areas, the measurements are iffy at best.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. The distance feature is useful in mapping out your routes. However, you need to make several
passes because of measurement errors.

Don't understand what you mean on this one? The errors I've noted, if reception isn't lost too
frequently, are of the order of 1% (10m in a kilometer).

Note the "if reception isn't lost too frequently" part of your response. Also, I suppose it depends
on your unit. I have the Geko
201.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3. A heart rate monitor is fairly useful if you can't or don't want to pace your running without
one.

More importantly it stops you running harder than you think you are, even if you're experienced as
hell. That said, mine's battery died 2 months ago and hasn't been replaced yet...

I find it especially useful during the first 1 or 2 miles where running too fast can lead to a
torturous workout. I own a Timex unit, the cheapest batteries I found were on drugstore.com. At
Target it costed me 3 bucks I think.

ejg said:

Dave Andersen said:

turkey said:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:24:00 -0500, ejg <[email hidden]> wrote:

>I am considering buying a heart rate/ speed and distance monitor. Are these things worth the
>price? Do they offer good workout feedback? Does the speed and distance monitor work when just
>running around a track? It's a fair investment but I would like to better calculate my speed and
>distance. Is heart rate an important thing to know?

Why would you need a speed and distance monitor to compute how far and fast you've gone when
running around a track?

Would you use a pedometer? Are they accurate? The track I use isn't standard. They say it is 367
meters around the inside lane. What's the best way to comfirm that? What about for a longer run
not on a track? Is time run more important than distance travelled?

I'd measure it with my bike odometer, but then again, that's probably
b/c I have a bike odometer. You could use a tape measure if you're really patient.

Do you have reason to distrust it? The problem is that y ou have to calibrate any of the pedometers,
and the usual way to do that is to go to a track of known distance... that's kind of the point of a
track. You can pace yourself nearly perfectly.

My main point is that it seems silly to buy a funky gadget merely because you want to measure a
track. For longer runs, certainly, but for _most_ of your long runs, you probably don't care about
precise distances, you care about relative effort and time. For certain runs, like trying to work on
your pacing, MP runs, threshhold runs, etc., you might care, but for the rest, it doesn't matter.

For road courses, just drive them. You'll be off by a few %, but who's counting?

On the other hand, if you've got the money to burn, it could be a fun toy. And fun toys are good to
have from time to time. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Seems like a stop watch /heart rate monitor might be a good choice.

Eternally useful. A stopwatch is nearly invaluable, unless you enjoy trying to write split times
down or memorize them. The HRM is a useful tool. google for thousands of discussions on the HRM
topic, we don't need to go there again. 🙂

-dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
angio.netangio.netOpen ↗ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

ejg said:

Dave Andersen said:

turkey said:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:24:00 -0500, ejg <[email hidden]> wrote:

>I am considering buying a heart rate/ speed and distance monitor. Are these things worth the
>price? Do they offer good workout feedback? Does the speed and distance monitor work when just
>running around a track? It's a fair investment but I would like to better calculate my speed and
>distance. Is heart rate an important thing to know?

Why would you need a speed and distance monitor to compute how far and fast you've gone when
running around a track?

Quoted message said:

Would you use a pedometer? Are they accurate? The track I use isn't standard. They say it is 367
meters around the inside lane. What's the best way to comfirm that? What about for a longer run
not on a track? Is time run more important than distance travelled?

Quoted message said:

Seems like a stop watch /heart rate monitor might be a good choice.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I am new to running.

---If you're new to running, I would stay off the track so much. Running is a lot more fun for most
people on roads and trails. Also, running only on a track can lead to overuse injuries (repetitive
curves). Andy Hass

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Why would you need a speed and distance monitor to compute how far and fast you've gone when
running around a track?

Would you use a pedometer? Are they accurate? The track I use isn't standard. They say it is 367
meters around the inside lane. What's the best way to comfirm that?

There's no need to confirm it. When you do start speed work (and you really don't need to at this
stage), you won't need to know either. It's more important to be able to monitor trends in your
fitness than it is to know exactly how long the track is.

Quoted message said:

What about for a longer run not on a track? Is time run more important than distance travelled?

I think logging time is in some ways a better idea than logging distance, because that way you're
not tempted to increase milage by running faster.

Quoted message said:

Seems like a stop watch /heart rate monitor might be a good choice.

Yes. A heart rate monitor is much more useful than a distance measuring gizmo.

One suggestion with the stopwatch: avoid trying to set course PRs when you go out on your training
runs. A training run is not an appropriate venue for racing. Instead, run them at an easy pace.
After you're comfortable running a reasonable distance, enter a local race.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

ejg said:

Dave Andersen said:

turkey said:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:24:00 -0500, ejg <[email hidden]> wrote:

>I am considering buying a heart rate/ speed and distance monitor. Are these things worth the
>price? Do they offer good workout feedback? Does the speed and distance monitor work when just
>running around a track? It's a fair investment but I would like to better calculate my speed and
>distance. Is heart rate an important thing to know?

Why would you need a speed and distance monitor to compute how far and fast you've gone when
running around a track?

Would you use a pedometer? Are they accurate? The track I use isn't standard. They say it is 367
meters around the inside lane. What's the best way to comfirm that? What about for a longer run not
on a track? Is time run more important than distance travelled?

Seems like a stop watch /heart rate monitor might be a good choice.

Yes, I am new to running.

I've used both a pedometer and HR monitor etc. Most of the runs I do are time/effort runs
now so distance is not relevant. However it is occasioanlly nice to know. I used my
pedometer on several trail runs in the area, particularly loops so I have a decent idea
before hand were the half way point is etc. Out and backs really don't matter as you turn
aroudn at "X" time. IMO HR/stopwatch are a far better tool than distance monitors. For the
most part you pick up a fairly reliable one for fairly cheap 50-100 bucks. Probably cheaper
than a comparable distance monitor.

~Matt

Dot dot.h@#att.net said:

I'll probably upgrade mine when the battery dies 😉 Need more capacity and more reliable
downloading.

Now you know why I've not done anything yet. I just can't face the idea of not having the data to
play with on the computer (mine's an M21 or whatever, no memories, no uplink) and that's going to
cost me some serious euro-dollars, to the order of at least a Polar 610i (but the

BTW I like your idea of the regular GPS on the top of the pack top. A decent Garmin unit + the 610i
= hours of blissfully Excelling ;-)

ElfHunter said:

I think it depends on where you live in this world. I live in a region where frequently the sky is
overcast.

At least as important as the lack of clear sky is the satellite configuration at the time you're
trying to obtain a reading. This really is dependent on "where you live" geographically, without
regards to weather. That source of error is called satellite geometry / shading. "This refers to the
relative position of the satellites at any given time. Ideal satellite geometry exists when the
satellites are located at wide angles relative to each other. Poor geometry results when the
satellites are located in a line or in a tight grouping." garmin.comaboutGPSOpen ↗

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

(ElfHunter) said:

I think it depends on where you live in this world.

I agree. I've been trying to find a signal coverage map but so far have only come up with some nice
US coast guard ones (the maps are nice, I don't know about the coast guards ;-) showing Differential
GPS coverage. navcen.uscg.govAlaska.htmOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I live in a region where frequently the sky is overcast. Reception can vary greatly from
day to day.

Funny thing about the weather, and I was certain that atmospheric water would give big problems to
any microwave signals, especially low-power, orbital stuff like GPS. But Garmin don't even mention
it as an issue in accuracy, curious...

garmin.comaboutGPSOpen ↗

They only give
* Ionosphere and troposphere delays
* Signal multipath
* Receiver clock errors
* Orbital errors
* Number of satellites visible
* Satellite geometry/shading
* Intentional degradation of the satellite signal

Compare that with the list down at the bottom of this mail.

Quoted message said:

Not to mention that when I jog through wooded areas, the measurements are iffy at best.

Check. That is the only situation where I've had regular problems. Some interesting stuff on GPS for
locating in forests has been done by the US Forestry people
fs.fed.usgpsusfs.htmOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Note the "if reception isn't lost too frequently" part of your response.

OK gotcha. Mine is the Garmin/Timex SDM. Worn on the outside of my upper left arm.

All the rest notwithstanding, even if you don't move a finger, the GPS receiver will have you as
being on the move almost permanently, due to the diverse small errors. See this static plot, giving
the position reading from a GPS unit which wasn't moving!

edu-observatory.orggps accuracy.htmlOpen ↗

My conclusion for the moment: GPS for runners is fine for:
- differential, averaged (order of 10 secs or more) measurements
- in locations having a frequent "good" satellite configuration
- in relatively clear terrain (not too heavy flora, not too many high buildings or canyon-style
terrain, not too many underpasses

A detailed Adobe Acrobat document about how GPS works: there are probably better (read, easier to
understand :-) ones but this has all the signaling structure, message formats etc
zyfer.comgps basics 5 03.pdfOpen ↗

Elements Involved in GPS Acquisition External Factors •Jamming •Available signal strength
(buildings, trees, etc.) •C/A-Code availability •SA level (Presently Off) •Number of satellites in
view •Position of satellites (DOP) •Motion (position change frequency) of GPS platform •Velocity
(Doppler) of GPS platform •Vibration and G-forces Internal Factors (to receiver) •Age of the
Almanac/Stored Data •Acquisition sequence with C/A and P-Codes •Signal Processing Architecture and
SW savvy •Averaging Time of PVT Solutions •Receiver noise level •Receiver oscillator spec

==============
Re HRL batteries. I have a Polar HRM and they give a lifetime (?) guarantee to repair technical
anomalies almost free of charge, as long as you send the unit into their local repair center for
battery changes.

I've found it worth the small extra expense (fixed fee) of sending in the strap and watch every 18
months or so.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Yes. A heart rate monitor is much more useful than a distance measuring gizmo.

I think that depends on the individual to some degree. If you're not really interested in your heart
rate... heart rate bores you... and end up not using the thing as a result, then it's not terribly
useful 🙂 On the other hand, if speed and distance is your thing, you're more apt to use and enjoy a
SD monitor. But I know what you mean.

In any case, if you can afford it, Timex and Nike now both have combo SD/HR monitors. They measure
speed, distance AND heart rate... so you don't have to choose between an SD monitor or a HR
monitor 🙂
--
David Nova Scotia, Canada

steve common said:

Dot dot.h@#att.net said:

I'll probably upgrade mine when the battery dies 😉 Need more capacity and more reliable
downloading.

Now you know why I've not done anything yet.

🙂 🙂

I just can't face the idea

Quoted message said:

of not having the data to play with on the computer (mine's an M21 or whatever, no memories, no
uplink) and that's going to cost me some serious euro-dollars, to the order of at least a Polar
610i (but the

I've got an S410, but back when they used sonic link and PCCoach lite software for downloading,
which was a dead end, which is part of my problem. I just noticed that the newer S410's come with
the same software the other units come with, but it's still limited by number of sessions and
storage capacity. When I bought it, I was just starting structured running, and just wanted to do a
*little* more than my run about 25 min after work. I didn't have a clue what an interval was or
lactate threshold or .... Needless to say that the 4-min intervals it uses after 2 hr, just doesn't
pack it when I'm doing circuits with 1-min work, 30 sec recovery (actually, run to next station) at
the end of a little-over 2-hr cross-training session. But yea, I'm looking at at least a 610 -
memory plus ir rather than sonic link connection. I'm thinking I'd like an altimeter, but I think
I'm more likely to trust barometric altimeter on GPS than on wrist hrm monitor, but jury's still
out. See what r.r does to people 😉

Quoted message said:

BTW I like your idea of the regular GPS on the top of the pack top. A decent Garmin unit + the
610i = hours of blissfully Excelling ;-)

Sweet computer dreams! I've always been a map geek since hs, planning hikes, so the need to map
trails for planning was sort of essential.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Dot dot.h@#att.net said:

ElfHunter said:

I think it depends on where you live in this world. I live in a region where frequently the sky
is overcast.

At least as important as the lack of clear sky is the satellite configuration

Clear sky isn't an issue. The GPS works perfectly well in cloudy conditions.

--
Paul My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at: justgiving.comlondon2004Open ↗

Dot dot.h@#att.net said:

garmin.comaboutGPSOpen ↗

Have you found out why they don't talk about meteorology as an error factor?