Discussion: HRM and GPS for training metrics?

I was wondering if anyone is using wrist top computers for training metrics? I was thinking of getting one but could use some recommendations. I was considering either the Suunto T6c or the Polar RS800CX MULTI. Any thoughts?

I have been using the Suunto T3c for a couple of months. Previously I had a Polar, can't recall the model. I picked the Suunto over the Polar because Suunto has a user-replaceable battery. I have the foot pod (not the GPS one), the bike speed pod and the cadence pod. All pods are working great so far. I really like the HR belt, which is more comfortable than the polar one I had before. I think the T6c just has a couple of more features, but I decided I didn't need them. I got a pretty good deal on mine off amazon.

I have heard the polar ones suffer from interference if there are others around you using the same model. I use a timex ironman with heart rate and gps haven't had any problems yet.

I didn't have much luck with the Timex HRM. It kept railing at 240 bpm, apparently a typical problem. It'd really mess up the info. At first it only happened for a few seconds in the cold, but then it started happening for 5 minute blocks during a workout. All data was virtually useless. As for cross talk, my partner and I could both wear ours seemingly without interference, but if I was wearing mine and she just had her watch, she could read my HR, so maybe there was some interference. (Since we were both doing the same thing it might be hard to notice!)

Fortunately MEC took the thing back. I'm currently saving for one of the Garmin jobs, I've heard nothing but good things.

it seems like the polar/suunto GPS watches don't allow you to download your track to the computer, is that true? Do any besides the Garmins support that? (I have a 305 which I feel naked without;)

I'm happy with my Timex Bodylink. I use the SportTracks software and junked the Timex Trainer software.

They're pretty cheap now.

Thanks so much for all the input everyone!

I've been hearing much of the same from other sites - although I haven't specifically looked into the Timex. The garmins seem to be a popular choice - the 305 and 310xt in particular. It doesn't hurt that these are much less expensive than the polar and sunnto gizmos.

I've also heard great things about the SportTracks software and look forward to giving it a whirl.

I have a Garmin 405 which is great but it does have a flaw. If you wear it when it is raining/wet and have a coat on, the sleeve can play havoc with the touch besel. I don't know if Garmin have resolved this problem.

Apart from this it's fantastic for running, biking and kayaking. I have worn it when kayaking and both the chestbelt and watch are waterproof. However the communication between the 2 is lost if the chestbelt is below the water!

I haven't been keeping up with my gear junky-ness for about 2 years ago, so I may be somewhat out of date, but.... if heart rate if your primary key data to track, Polar is the best. If GPS (distance and mapping) is your primary goal, Garmin is the best. Sunto, not too sure where they fit into the whole game...

With that being said, I've never had any problems with the HR functions on my Garmin (305). Its a big, nerdy looking watch, but I do like having the distance data. But for in the gym, spin class, I like the lower profile of simple polar.

it seems like the polar/suunto GPS watches don't allow you to download your track to the computer, is that true?

Polar 800cx does. Some orienteers use it here to record races, gps pod has sirf3 chip and it performs well. Wrist unit has also barometric altimeter, so you'll get sensible climb data out of it too compared to useless garmin altitude data. And there is r-r HR functions some seem to be so fond of. I guess it may be the best unit available at the moment, but it's a bit expensive too.

Suunto X10 can be used to record tracks, but I think it does not have better than 10 sec recording interval and there is no HR functions at all.

I just picked up the Forerunner 305... had a problem last night though! I suspect it has to do with my not setting it up right.

I did a 4 km run with the dog, 28 min, 158 Avg HR, 476 cal burned. Then I did a session on the trainer, 30 min, 154 Avg HR... only 53 cal! WTF!

I didn't disable the GPS though, is it possible that it measures calorie burn based on GPS features as well as HR or as opposed to HR?

The garmin does the calculation based on your weight and how far/fast you move it.

Work = force x distance...

That could be possible based on some major assumptions. I know HR calculated calorie burn makes some assumptions too though.

That calculation would be the best way to determine calorie burn, but the force and distance have to be in the same plane in order to use it. Your mass would be used with respect to the vertical distance traveled. It's also used in the resistive force against you via friction for horizontal calculations, but that one would be difficult to approximate... especially if you were on a bike.

I refined my google search words and found some useful information as opposed to point of sale links.

Colm, you're right, the Garmin does do it's calculation based on force x distance, or some variation on the sort. I can only assume that it's no worse than the assumptions made on HR based calculations. I'm just disappointed that it won't work for me on the trainer.

It was a lot of fun reading peoples theories on the subject! Some interesting self made calculations too.