posted by Curt, on April 13, 2008 10:33 am

My knee has started feeling better and I've gotten back into running over the last month. I feel as though I've started to reclaim my "life outside the law" over this last year. What really sparked the return to running though was a combination of good weather and my law firm's entry into the Wasatch Back Relay. I'm more excited about that race than I have been about any other for a long time. I just hope we can get enough guys from the firm to follow through on it. But, I digress . . . my post for today is going to be my relatively uniformed thoughts on two running watches: the Garmin 405 (if it's ever actually released), and the Polar RS800SD. Here are some pictures:

Basically, I've committed to getting one or the other but can't decide between them. Let me dispose of one thing right up front: the Garmin 305 is out. It's too big and bulky. It's not that I'm a "high fashion" guy (ask any of my friends :)), but I am a guy who has trouble wearing a wedding ring or a watch generally because I don't like to have things wrapped around my limbs or appendages. I have enough experience with myself to know that if I got the 305 I wouldn't use it much. I used a Polar HRM for a while (and the watch was small to normal-sized) and I was OK with that. So, I feel like I can do the 405 or the RS800SD but not anything bigger. The second thing I should make clear is that heart rate measurements are just not very important to me. I don't use them to train with; I think I can measure exertion fairly well without it, and I consider myself a semi-serious runner (5K @ 15:45 and marathon @ 2:50). So, the fact that Polar may do HRMs better than Garmin isn't relevant to my decision either. Finally, I never run inside and so the fact that the Polar works on the treadmill doesn't matter a bit.

The obvious difference between the two watches is that the Garmin 405 is a GPS/HRM watch and the Polar is an accelerometer/HRM (using a foot pod to measure speed/distance). Now, I know that the Polar has come out with a GPS footpod, but the price of the thing to get that plus the S3 pod is just out of sight. If I get the Polar it will be with the S3 pod only. Now, with those preliminary things out of the way, here's what I like about the Polar:

• Barometric Altimeter--from what I hear, this is more accurate than GPS elevation calculation. Elevation is actually pretty important to me. I run primarily on the canyon trails here in Utah, and elevation is important to my training. One of the main things I would use a running watch for is to get a better idea of elevation and how I respond to it.
• Stride/Cadence Sensor--the Polar footpod gives you data on your stride length and stride cadence while running. I'm not a professional trainer or trainee, but my experience tells me that stride length and turnover ratio is important. I've never had information like this before, but I think that, if it's accurate, it could be something very helpful.
• Good Software?--I've seen somewhat mixed reviews on this, but it seems to me that there are quite a few people out there who really like the training software that comes with the RS800SD.
• Long Lasting Battery--the Polar battery isn't a rechargeable one, and probably has to be sent into service centers to be changed, but a rechargeable battery that only lasts eight hours at a time (when new!) concerns me a little bit.

Next, some of my concerns:

• Elevation Accuracy--Since this is one of the main reasons I'm considering the Polar, it has me a bit worried. I've heard from some that, in addition to variations in barometric pressure, the Polar's altimeter is affected by sweat (and I sweat a lot). If this is true than it would eliminate one of the big advantages that Polar may have over the Garmin.
• Accuracy of the Accelerometer--I run mainly on trails where there is quite a bit of elevation change. Stride length, cadence, and footstrike change a lot in those situations and I wonder how accurate the accelerometer is going to be under those circumstances. If the Polar has trouble with distance/length/cadence measurements in those situations, then it wouldn't be a tremendous help to me.

Now, what about the Garmin 405? First, some things I like:

• Design & Bezel Navigation--the tech geek in me likes this, but it doesn't weigh much in my decision.
• GPS Plotting--it's cool to be able to plot your runs on maps and share them with friends. I don't know how much of an advantage this is, because I usually find some favorite running routes that I stick with, but it is something neat.
• GPS Accuracy--especially over variable terrain (see my concern with the Polar above)

And my concerns?

• Elevation Accuracy--This is the big one. Pretty much everyone agrees that the elevation calculations are way off. However, this concern might be substantially eliminated because it appears that some of the software programs you can use to monitor your training do automatic elevation correction based on topo maps (i.e. they plot your route using the GPS coordinates and then smooth based on the topo elevation rather than the GPS readings). While this don't solve to the problem of getting accurate elevation readings while you're running, I don't care about that. I want to be able to run a route and then see my climb/descent afterward and use that information on future runs. If this actually would make the Garmin more accurate for elevation than the Polar (which can't do the smoothing because it doesn't track GPS without the expensive add-on), it's a big plus.
• Battery Life--I like the general idea of a rechargeable battery. But the 8 hours of maximum life concerns me a little bit. I never plan to run that long (I'm not an ultra guy), but I would like to take it one some hikes. It looks like it wouldn't last even one day. If it can still hold the 8 hour charge after a few month of use, then there is probably really not a big problem. But, if it's like my laptop battery (which once lasted 3.5 hours and now last < 30 minutes fully charged), it's a substantial concern.
• Newness--Finally, this is a new product. How many bugs are there that need to be worked out (this worry is amplified given the continually delayed release date).

Well, there's my analysis. I'm a little bit torn. I'd appreciate any advice/comments that people have. I've got to raise $$ for this purchase, so I won't be buying right away. Let me know of your experiences--I'd appreciate it.

Meanwhile, you can see both products in my Amazon store.

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 6, 2007 04:34 pm

Well, I just returned from my third run this week! That's quite a milestone for me, given that, prior to this week, I hadn't really run for almost 3 months. And--most importantly--my knees feel fine. I've been running with a brace, but I'm not even sure that is necessary. I'll just keep doing squats to strengthen my other leg muscles and keep walking to keep my legs used to exercise. While I don't want to overstate my accomplishment (I probably only totaled about 9 1/2 miles all week), it's definitely a step in the right direction. I'll try to build up slowly--maybe 5 miles at a distance by the end of next week.

posted by curt, on October 2, 2007 08:14 pm

Well, I went back out running again for the first time in almost 3 months. My knees have been hurting me quite a bit since the middle of this summer. Toward the end of the summer it got so bad that my knees hurt me even when I walked up and down stairs at the law school. When that happened, I started looking around for solutions. The last thing I wanted was to have 80 year old knees for the next 50 years.

Once I started to investigate possible causes for my knee problems, I started to see some stuff about imbalance between quad and hamstring muscles. Knowing that my hamstrings and much stronger than my quads, I wondered if that had anything to do with it. So, I started doing two things: (1) stretching before I exercised (yes, I know I should have been doing it all along), and (2) biking and doing squats to try and strengthen my quads. While I'm not completely sure if it worked, I was able to run almost 3 miles again last night and come home without any knee pain. I didn't run again today, because I want to take things slow.

Anyway, I'll update on how things go. I'll be really happy if I'm able to keep running. For awhile, I was convinced that I would just have to give it up forever (or start going under the knife for knee surgeries, which I've never wanted to do).