Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

TOPIC: Garmin Forerunner 305

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
June 27, 2011 11:07 AM
i am currently running with my iphone and the nike+ app and wearing my Polar FT7 HRM. I am wanting to get Garmin Forerunner 305 for my birthday in July but was wondering how the HRM on it compares to the Polar. Has anyone out there used both and is the Garmin as accurate as the Polar?
  305292
June 27, 2011 11:15 AM
The Garmin 305 does not use HR to determine calories burnt so in that respect, the Polar is probably more accurate. But the rest of the unit is very good. I've been using one for over a year an a half and love it.
June 27, 2011 11:17 AM
QUOTE:

The Garmin 305 does not use HR to determine calories burnt so in that respect, the Polar is probably more accurate. But the rest of the unit is very good. I've been using one for over a year an a half and love it.


is there one that is as accurate as the polar then?
  305292
June 27, 2011 11:20 AM
My understanding of the garmin is it calculates based upon distance not heart rate, so if you are indoors and not moving, the garmin for calorie burn isn't as accurate. I use mine indoors, then use an external site to calculate the calorie based on average heart rate. I love my garmin for running, and use the HRM indoors for calorie burn, but IMO Garmin isn't the best for calories.
June 27, 2011 11:33 AM
The Garmin 310XT uses HR based calorie burn, but it's alot more expensive for not much more features.
June 27, 2011 11:36 AM
DONT get the Garmin 405cx. I had one for a year, and it worked great - until I ran the software upgrade. The battery wouldn't charge correctly, it would say it was at 100%, I'd go for a run, and it would die.After 10-15 minutes, it would reboot. Nothing but problems. Garmin was no help and said it wasn't the software even though I had found a forum with many users having the same issue in the same timeframe. I returned it to REI, got my money back, and bought a Suunto T3d instead.
  3055377
June 28, 2011 6:30 PM
The Garmin 305 is the bang for the buck champ IMHO. I love mine. Love it! I would prefer the 310XT, but it's almost $400 and the 305 is about $128 with HRM on Amazon. If you are an ultra runner, then you will appreciate the 20 hour battery life. I have to carry a spare battery charger thingy to charge on the run if I approach 8 hours on the 305. If you are a Tri-athlete the 310XT is better because it's waterproof. You can get the 305 wet, but don't swim in it! Also, the 310XT has a vibrate alarm feature and not just audio tones. That's great if you are listening to music and can't hear the alerts. Having said all that, if you don't have an overwhelming need for the extra features of the 310, get the 305 and save the $$. Good luck.
  6651872
June 28, 2011 6:44 PM
QUOTE:

My understanding of the garmin is it calculates based upon distance not heart rate, so if you are indoors and not moving, the garmin for calorie burn isn't as accurate. I use mine indoors, then use an external site to calculate the calorie based on average heart rate. I love my garmin for running, and use the HRM indoors for calorie burn, but IMO Garmin isn't the best for calories.


Not sure why you would want to track calories for when you are indoors and not exerciseing, but I use the Garmin Forerunner 110 which "provides heart rate-based calorie computations" per the Garmin website. I use mine both inside and outdoors and find the calories calculated to be reasonable (have not compared withPOLAR, though). The GPS distance/pace feature can be turned on or off and is independent of the HRM or calorie calculations.
June 28, 2011 6:53 PM
I have a forerunner 305 for about 8 months now and I can say that is a good GPS based device that has some cool features. If you're serious about calorie count and fitness though this isn't for you. If you're a amateur or enthusiast jogger, this is more then enough, even though its not 100% accurate I find that the calorie loss is pretty close to what it should be when comparing with the online calculator I use.

Here's the calculator I normally use:

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

In order for you to have a accurate count of calories you not only need the Heart Rate but you need a lot of other parameters, the most important of which are VO2Max, HR rest & HR Max, only if your HRM is able to calculate calorie loss based on these values will the amount be accurate. At the moment only the top of the range HRM's from Both Polar & Garmin are able to process calorie loss using those values, and these HRM's are quite expensive.

Hope it helps.
  4605719
August 8, 2011 4:25 AM
bump
August 8, 2011 4:59 AM
QUOTE:
Not sure why you would want to track calories for when you are indoors and not exerciseing


I would imagine that was in reference to running indoors, on a treadmill.
  6595443
August 8, 2011 8:28 AM
QUOTE:

I have a forerunner 305 for about 8 months now and I can say that is a good GPS based device that has some cool features. If you're serious about calorie count and fitness though this isn't for you. If you're a amateur or enthusiast jogger, this is more then enough, even though its not 100% accurate I find that the calorie loss is pretty close to what it should be when comparing with the online calculator I use.

Here's the calculator I normally use:

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

In order for you to have a accurate count of calories you not only need the Heart Rate but you need a lot of other parameters, the most important of which are VO2Max, HR rest & HR Max, only if your HRM is able to calculate calorie loss based on these values will the amount be accurate. At the moment only the top of the range HRM's from Both Polar & Garmin are able to process calorie loss using those values, and these HRM's are quite expensive.

Hope it helps.


Great points. Another advantage to the 310XT. It utilizes HR data and is alot more accurate than the 305 for that purpose.
  6651872

Reply

Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.