I've got an issue. I've always wanted a sports watch to monitor my HR and GPS. I always carry my phone, which I prefer to do, but I just wanted it on my wrist for ease.
After months of deliberating (then waiting), on Friday I finally got my Fitbit Blaze. Loved it, amazing. Then on Saturday, oh no, the GPS is wayyy out when compared to my friends Fitbit Surge and my phones Map My Run. Onto Fitbit's helpdesk and vwalar, it needs my strides inputting. Calculated and in. Boom! Walking my dogs and it is accurate. Problem solved.
Nope!
It is accurate for walking, not running. Re-calculated stride, re-input and tested last night, first half matched my friend and then someone must have stolen the watch off my wrist, ran an extra km and put it back?
I've now lost all faith in my Blaze
I've decided to take it back and swap it, but I just don't like the look of the Surge and I'm swaying to the Tom Tom Spark Cardio but at this point I'd welcome any advice.
I really want an accurate GPS on it, thats my biggest point, so I can avoid messing around with my phone. I'd opted for a HR monitor so I can get used to it as my training progresses and develops and ideally I'd like it to work on my cross trainer/epilipical as I use that every day.
Help please! (and under £170)
Thanks & Take Care xx
Written by
slowmover
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
I have a Fitbit HR that I use along with the mapping function of Fitbit through my phone.
It works well for what it is but I find the heart rate monitor can be way out when I use my rowing machine compared to chest HR monitor I wear to row.
Recently I have been looking at gps running watches but can't decide whether to go for a separate chest monitor or stick with the wrist monitor in the watch (and I have no spare cash currently 😀)
The Garmin forerunner 225 appears to get the best reviews at the moment.
Hiya, the problem with the FitBit Blaze is that it isn't a running watch. Whilst is looks good, counts steps and has the optical HR sensor, it does not have GPS. So it's always going to be estimating your speed and distance, rather than measuring it.
I've had (and use) a variety of running gadgets, and the best one, by a very long way - is my Garmin Forerunner 235. It's a bit pricier than you indicated.
The Garmin Forerunner 225 is the earlier model, and is a little thicker than the 235, since it uses a different optical heart-rate sensor. Several people here have the 225, and I'm sure that not only will you find it suitable for your needs, but you may get some good technical support from us, too.
Thanks for the replies and advice. I mistakenly believed that as the Blaze uses connected GPS through the phone it would be as accurate as map my run. I think a lot of people are using the blaze successfully and I suspect that as I am still finding my feet with running, my stride probably changes a lot during the run, thus throwing off the reading. I will definitely have a look at the Forerunner, it's a device I hear mentioned a lot at the club so it's obviously very popular with runners x
I completely agree with MarkyD - what you've bought is more a lifestyle tracker, when in fact it sounds like you want (need?) a dedicated running watch.
I've said this to a few of our C25K beginners group - if you want to see what your pace and heart rate are DURING your run, then a running watch is the best thing to go for.
I have the TomTom Cardio Runner - no updated to the various Spark models and the Runner 2. So it has the in-built HRM, which I love.
At the time, I chose it over the Garmin 225 on cost and yeah it's been superceded by the 235 - both very popular models.
The HRM on the TomTom *can* be a bit flaky - spiking at strange times, but for the most part, I'm happy with it.
As for GPS accuracy - very interesting! I'm convinced my TomTom under-measures my distance by at least 1% and sometimes as much as 2.5%. None of these watches are 100% accurate - they are only "consumer" devices. If you read about about GPS and how it works, you'll get the picture.
The Blaze lacks built-in GPS, unlike Fitbit’s pricier Surge watch. In its place is "Connected GPS," meaning the Blaze will use your smartphone’s location data to map out your running routes. This should work well enough, but it means you’ll always need your phone with you if you want the most accurate results.
I also have a Garmin and find it very good albeit a forerunner 210
I finally got the 220 with chest strap HRM and am happy with it. At my age after 70 years of the Australian sun, you may be able to imagine what my forearms look like!!! - so I thought that there was a strong possibility that the wrist based HRM would not work so well for me and if not, it would be money lost.
I don't really know if it would or wouldn't - but there was no way for me to find out!! And "tanned" is not an adequate word to describe my forearms Leather-like may be
I'm still undecided which one to choose. My Blaze is going back today so I'll have a look at what they physically look like today in the shop. My friend wants me to stick with fitbit and get a surge. It feels like such a big decision!! Lol, first world problems eh. X
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
And "tanned" is not an adequate word to describe my forearms 
Garmin vs strava recording 
Sans gps run
Garmin allergy 😱
Living without Laura
Lets talk Pee!
