Does anyone use both or have any views as to why one is better/more accurate than the other?
Nike+ vs Garmin Forerunner
(12 posts)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I don't currently have a Forerunner, but am seriously thinking about getting a Forerunner 310XT. While I enjoy the simplicity and relative convenience of the Nike+ system, I know that the distances and so paces are not very accurate with the Nike+ (and most foot pod based systems). I also really want a proper heart rate monitoring system - both from a training perspective and also for the health of my heart.
I have read very good things about the 310XT. It is GPS based and meant to be very accurate. It doesn't suffer from pace/stride length/hills/terrain. It also has integrated heart rate monitoring with alarms to tell you when you're in or out of target zones.
Here's a review: Garmin Forerunner 310XT In Depth Review
Here's an example of that data you get: sample (puts Nike+ to shame).
And you can still upload your data to Nike+ so it can be displayed on Slowgeek: Garmin Forerunner tcx file to Nike+ Converter & Uploader
Posted 1 year ago # -
Just applied the converter and uploader. It made its way to Nike+ but not showing in slowgeek yet. is there a delay of some sort data wise? Other than that, fantastic!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Have just checked Slowgeek again and the Garmin imports have shown up. All good. Great app!
Posted 1 year ago # -
I just picked up a Garmin 305 because I got tired of recalibrating the sensor for temperature etc every few months (a significant factor in Edmonton when you run in the morning) and I must say that I'm very impressed. The accuracy is scary - to the point of seeing which side of the street you are running on! If you are just starting, the Nike system is fine, but if you want to get more serious or are into more than just running, the Garmin system is really the one to get.
I had my first Garmin run today and used http://awsmithson.com/tcx2nikeplus/ to covert it to Nike/Slowgeek so this way, I don't have to compromise the community that I have in Nike for the additional analytics that Garmin gives.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'll have a Garmin Forerunner 310XT as soon as my dealer gets stock. I hope it will be soon as I'm now sick of the Nike+ system after I was forced to upgrade to iOS 4.02. It is now next to useless. I'm lucky if I get spoken feedback and when I do, it usually cuts out part way through. Additionally, the battery life on my iPod is now so short it has made the whole device unusable online.
With the 310XT, I'll also be getting a foot pod for running on a track/treadmill (GPS is not all that accurate on a track and not at all on a treadmill) and a bike cadence/speed sensor for the bike. The latter should help me to change to a higher gear sooner as I have a tendency to stay in a low gear which gives me knee and lower hamstring problems.
As I'm recovering from a hamstring injury, it will be nice to be able to get reliable pace data while running.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I got my 310CT yesterday and what a great device. While it doesn't have spoken feedback, it has so much more than the Nike+ system. I can display four data fields on the watch at one time and it is still large enough to see. For my run today I set it up to show me:
* time (into the run)
* heart rate
* current pace
* average pace
The last 2 were very handy for me keeping up my pace towards the end of the run (while still being careful with my hamstring).I ran with both the my iPod and the Garmin and interestingly they both ended up with the same distance and average pace. I uploaded the data from both to Nike+ and you can see them in Slowgeek: iPod and Garmin.
I see I'm going to get much more value from the Garmin.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I have had a Garmin 305 for years. I don't use it much for running, more for biking. I find it too bulky and I am actually not impressed with the accuracy. While, as someone said, it can tell which side of the street you are on, it often loses track of where you are and then just draws a straight line from the last spot it saw you. What ends up happening is that if you have a route with a lot of turns the Garmin tends to cut the corners which means it underreports the total distance you have run.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The accuracy of the Nike+ system is pretty poor, too, unless you run at the same pace at which you calibrated. I have had up to 5% extra distance added to a run because I was running slower. Interestingly, the Garmin foot pod appears (at least from my testing) to be a lot more accurate than Nike's and isn't as subject to pace variation as Nike's. So, if you're unhappy with the GPS accuracy you can just turn it off and use the foot pad.
Accuracy is not really the reason you use the Garmins, anyway, at least that's not why I have switched. It is all the extra features like:
* heart rate monitoring - both during a run and analysis after a run
* workouts - the ability to program a workout like an interval session and have the watch tell you when it is time to change pace, HR, etc.
* courses and Virtual Partner
* cadence information (when using the foot pod)
* it's waterproof - no worrying about getting the iPod wet
* starting and stopping a workout is so much easier
* seeing current data while running is so much easier and there is more of itThe only times I will be taking my iPod now is to listen to music which isn't very often
Posted 1 year ago # -
I always run with music, so the pain is minimal. Also, the workflow is trivial since you don't have to do anything specific for the Nike+ part. Plug in your ipod to charge it and your runs upload on their own.
I find the Garmin workflow annoying. It is an extra bulky device to bring, the browser plugin required for the uploads doesn't work in Chrome, so I have to run Firefox or Safari and then it isn't good at telling the difference between a run and a bike ride so I have to tell it stuff before the incorrect type gets pulled by the various services out there that pull the data.
As far as the virtual partner, courses and such go. I find that feature completely useless since there is no audio and that tiny low-contrast screen is not readable. I can't focus on such a tiny screen when I am running. And given the lack of audio, I don't find that it is easier to get the current data since I have to try to read the screen vs. hitting a button on my Nano and getting an audio-status.
And I absolutely hate having that heart rate strap around my chest. I tend to run braless. Plus my 305 didn't come with a foot pod, so I would have to shell out another $80 on top of the $200+ I originally paid vs. the $27 for the Nike+.
Posted 1 year ago # -
To each his own, I guess. My experience is almost the exact opposite for all the points you raise.
* I mostly run on the road and so listening to music is too dangerous
* Workflow with the 310XT couldn't be simpler. I just walk into my study and it automatically transfers my run to Garmin Training Center and Garmin Connect. I don't even have to plug anything in.
* I use Firefox and so have no problems at all with plugins
* I find the screen more than large enough for me to have 4 data fields on the screen and find all 4 useful. In fact, each data field is larger than the single data field on my Timex Ironman Triathlon. Additionally, mine auto laps at specific points along my courses, so I don't have to fiddle with buttons like I have to with the iPod (which often screws up)
* I have no problems at all with the heart rate strap - but mine came with a soft strap so maybe that's the difference
* While the foot pod is more expensive, it is significantly more accurate (not as susceptible to variation in pace) and has a user replaceable battery so I won't have to buy a whole new one when the battery goes.But as I said at the start, to each his own.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Just got my Garmin Forerunner 405. Cant wait to do a few test runs with the Garmin, Nike+ GPS app on iPhone & my Nike+ kit on my Nano. Will post my thoughts & impressions after the weekend
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.