Garmin Bros Explain This

[deadshot138]

Phone and Garmin recorded the same hike with vastly different results. How is this possible? AllTrails and mile markers confirmed the hike was 10+miles.

 

[Fahcough]

They have your stride measured different. Was one on wrist, shoulder band, in shorts pocket?

Nike app used to be so far off on the mile I deleted it.

 

[deadshot138]

They have your stride measured different. Was one on wrist, shoulder band, in shorts pocket?

Nike app used to be so far off on the mile I deleted it.

I think Amazon got ahold of some Garmin that fell off the assembly line and sold them at a discount. My heart will be redlining and it'll say like 130bpm when I know for a fact I'm near max.

 

[maximus__]

I think Amazon got ahold of some Garmin that fell off the assembly line and sold them at a discount. My heart will be redlining and it'll say like 130bpm when I know for a fact I'm near max.

Maybe. Mine is awesome dude.

It can play up a little with the wrist HR when I am doing full intensity conditioning, but it's near flawless for run intervals or longer runs.

I remember recommending it to you. Only thing I can say is maybe grab a chest strap or check the latest update has been done.
WHich model did you grab again?

I have the Solar Instinct 2 after replacing my instinct bought on release. My instinct was on it's way out at the end there admittedly.

 

[deadshot138]

Maybe. Mine is awesome dude.

It can play up a little with the wrist HR when I am doing full intensity conditioning, but it's near flawless for run intervals or longer runs.

I remember recommending it to you. Only thing I can say is maybe grab a chest strap or check the latest update has been done.
WHich model did you grab again?

I have the Solar Instinct 2 after replacing my instinct bought on release. My instinct was on it's way out at the end there admittedly.

I've got an instinct

 

[maximus__]

I've got an instinct

1 or 2? My 2 is great. My 1 was great for years.

 

[deadshot138]

1 or 2? My 2 is great. My 1 was great for years.

2. Suspiciously marked down $100

 

[NoSmilez]

You can google maps the path and compare the distance. Usually phone isn’t as accurate. Maybe the newer iPhones are


If you just bought it. You can ask for a new one.

 

[maximus__]

2. Suspiciously marked down $100

Mine is great I don't get why you have issues. You are putting it into the activities again aren't you?

 

[deadshot138]

Mine is great I don't get why you have issues. You are putting it into the activities again aren't you?

No but you'd think if it can't track simple walking without being told, how can you trust it with anything more complicated?

 

[deadshot138]

You can google maps the path and compare the distance. Usually phone isn’t as accurate. Maybe the newer iPhones are


If you just bought it. You can ask for a new one.

I stopped at mile marker 5 and walked the path back. It was 10 miles and change.

 

[maximus__]

No but you'd think if it can't track simple walking without being told, how can you trust it with anything more complicated?

Because the activities set the algorithm so it knows what to look for. For example a track run will make the watch focus on working out the distance of each lap, adjust it during the session and result in a more accurate distance and HR per lap. It will be able to tell when you are recovering from interval work etc when you upload it.

Walking vs running is similar. Different activity profiles will send out the GPS ping at different points, read your HR at different points, adjust for arm swings. You want technology that doesn't exist yet in any watch with the accuracy you want.

 

[deadshot138]

Because the activities set the algorithm so it knows what to look for. For example a track run will make the watch focus on working out the distance of each lap, adjust it during the session and result in a more accurate distance and HR per lap. It will be able to tell when you are recovering from interval work etc when you upload it.

Walking vs running is similar. Different activity profiles will send out the GPS ping at different points, read your HR at different points, adjust for arm swings. You want technology that doesn't exist yet in any watch with the accuracy you want.

A basic meter is not technology that doesn't exist yet. But I'll give it another chance. Is hiking a specific activity the garmin programs? I thought hiking and walking would be the same thing. Ergo, if it can't just track steps, it's useless

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

I had 2 Garmin watches so far (some of the cheaper models without smart functions and what not). In both cases it took the watch forever to catch the signal and the charging cable was horrible and it ended up not working. Not buying Garmin again.

 

[ChickenBrother]

Polar guy here but honestly @deadshot138, I think you're nitpicking bro. Unless you're an elite athlete, the whole point of a fitness tracker/app is to motivate you to do more exercise by helping you track your progress, making that exercise more enjoyable. And it sounds like your Garmin is doing that just fine.

On training runs, my phone app logs about 1.2 miles for every mile logged by GPS on my Polar V800 (which is old as shit but still works for my needs). But whatever you use to record your workout, if you hike/walk/run the same route in less time next week or next month, you know you've improved. If you have HR data to back that up, even better.

And step counts are fake and gay. That's for folks who don't have HR and GPS distance data, which is what athletes care about. Step counters are for folks who don't exercise other than walking around doing errands and shit. I mean it's worth tracking if you really care about it but step count is pretty far down on the list of useful metrics. And I feel the same way about calorie counters. Who cares how many calories your watch says you burned? What really matters is can you do the same route next time in less time and/or with a lower HR.

 

[deadshot138]

Polar guy here but honestly @deadshot138, I think you're nitpicking bro. Unless you're an elite athlete, the whole point of a fitness tracker/app is to motivate you to do more exercise by helping you track your progress, making that exercise more enjoyable. And it sounds like your Garmin is doing that just fine.

On training runs, my phone app logs about 1.2 miles for every mile logged by GPS on my Polar V800 (which is old as shit but still works for my needs). But whatever you use to record your workout, if you hike/walk/run the same route in less time next week or next month, you know you've improved. If you have HR data to back that up, even better.

And step counts are fake and gay. That's for folks who don't have HR and GPS distance data, which is what people who actually work out care about. Step counters are for folks who don't exercise other than walking around doing errands and shit. I mean it's worth tracking if you really care about it but step count is pretty far down on the list of useful metrics. And I feel the same way about calorie counters. Who cares how many calories your watch says you burned? What really matters is can you do the same route next time in less time and/or with a lower HR.

I'm hearing a whole lot of coping going on. I don't care about step count or any of that, the data doesn't matter. The trails I walk are pre determined and the length is known before I start. I'm not relying on the watch or phone to tell me when I've done enough. I'm just curious how the two devices could be so different. The factual distance is 10.3 miles.

 

[ChickenBrother]

I'm hearing a whole lot of coping going on. I don't care about step count or any of that, the data doesn't matter. The trails I walk are pre determined and the length is known before I start. I'm not relying on the watch or phone to tell me when I've done enough. I'm just curious how the two devices could be so different. The factual distance is 10.3 miles.

It looks like you're using the basic iPhone fitness app, and that thing is a piece o' crap. It calculates distance with an algorithm tied to step count, which itself is an imperfect metric.

Your Garmin distance of 10.49 miles based on GPS looks legit to me. GPS watches calculate distance and speed based on logging your precise GPS location every 5 seconds (or whatever interval Garmin uses). If the official trail distance is 10.3 miles, 10.49 miles is a difference of 0.19 miles or about 1.8%. That delta is easily explainable by you not walking perfectly in the center of the trail i.e. you probably meandered slightly from side to side along the course going around rocks and shit and over 10.3 miles, logged incrementally more distance.

 

[maximus__]

A basic meter is not technology that doesn't exist yet. But I'll give it another chance. Is hiking a specific activity the garmin programs? I thought hiking and walking would be the same thing. Ergo, if it can't just track steps, it's useless

You aren't asking for a step counter. Your problem is having an accurate measure of distance, pace and heart rate.

Think about it logically. Hiking is done in isolated areas, has tree cover to interfere with gps and is done over undulating ground. It's sending signals up at cwrtain intervals to work out pace, time and location.

Compare that to walking at the local park.

That's before we add in HR tracking

 

[deadshot138]

You aren't asking for a step counter. Your problem is having an accurate measure of distance, pace and heart rate.

Think about it logically. Hiking is done in isolated areas, has tree cover to interfere with gps and is done over undulating ground. It's sending signals up at cwrtain intervals to work out pace, time and location.

Compare that to walking at the local park.

That's before we add in HR tracking

That was gonna be my next question. If cloud cover or other factors could interfere with gps signal.

 

[ChickenBrother]

That was gonna be my next question. If cloud cover or other factors could interfere with gps signal.

Weather can impact it but even with heavy cloud cover, as long as you have direct line of sight to 4 GPS satellites (possible from every point on earth), modern GPS watches are stupid accurate. If the watch ever loses connection to at least 4 satellites (due to buildings or tree cover), it will say "GPS signal lost" or some shit until connection is restored. That's why it initially takes about 30 seconds for a GPS watch to pinpoint your exact location. Smartphones can get a GPS read faster (like on Google Maps for instance) because they use cellular connection to boost the GPS capability. If you're in an area with no phone service and you've downloaded local maps to your phone, it will take your phone about the same time as your watch to pinpoint your location.

The 24-satellite NavStar GPS system was developed and put into service by Jesse the Body Ventura and the rest of the military industrial complex starting in the 70's. It was initially only available to the military and they did (and still do) extra shit to make it even more accurate for them. But it became available for civilian use in 1983 with an intentional error +/- 100 meters. That's useful if you're flying an airplane or big ass container ship but not for precision surveying or a person trying to measure walking distance from point A to point B.

The military turned off the Selective Availability error in 2000, so now Joe Schmo can get GPS accuracy +/- around 10 feet on the GPS watch he bought at Walmart. With my 10 year old Polar, I often run a 2.25 mile route around my neighborhood with lots of hills. And over the years in various weather conditions, it's always registered 2.25 miles on the nose somewhere on my driveway which is about 20 feet across.

It sounds like your Garmin works just fine bro.