Wahoo Blue HR Heart Rate Monitor for iPhone and Android

Wahoo Blue HR Heart Rate Monitor for iPhone and Android..

Grab Now Wahoo Blue HR Heart Rate Monitor for iPhone and Android By Wahoo Fitness

Most helpful customer reviews

142 of 147 people found the following review helpful.
Wahoo Blue review
By frmark
My 1st review after careful deliberation
After careful consideration of the reviews, I decided to try this device on my I phone 4s. I had been to both the web-site and multiple sites reviewing this product. I decided to order through amazon because I can just return the product if it doesn't work. I am training with coach for 2 Iron man races in 2013. Heart rate stuff important. reviews made me very cautious. I did double check all sources to make sure I have an I phone 4S as described on wahoo blue site. This is important.
GOAL
My goal was to be able to utilize my Iphone 4S to capture heart rate information, training zones, cadence, speed, etc. and to upload to my training peaks account online. I already use multiple APPS to get most information. My dilemma, Buy new Garmin watch or use I-phone 4S (either Ant+ or Bluetoothe). Decided to use bluetoothe and return if it does not work. I decided I would try just the heart rate monitor and see how it goes, then move onto the Speed/cadence later if all goes well. If it doesnt work, I could just return and not waist alot of time. Thanks Amazon.
SHIPPING
Shipping was very fast thru amazon prime..... in 2 days.
SETUP...easy
The product came in a box with few instructions (Slight negative), so I did go to the website to make sure that I followed the directions on the wahoo blue site [...] then followed link to "BLUE HR getting started guide" near the bottom of the page.
Next,
I went to the apple I-store and downloaded the wahoo fitness app prior to trying anything. Wet the transducer, put on the strap, and opened the Wahoo fitness app and followed the directions. this is the sequence... Run settings, heart rate, add a new device. and it paired. back to start page.....push GREEN (get ready) and the heart rate was displayed and it was working. Similar process with Endomondo pro.
Adjustable strap comfortable and adjustable. electrode pads stand out from the rest of strap, easy to wet.
HEART RATE INFO
I a drawer full of Heart rate straps, wore the Wahoo Blue heart rate monitor at the same time as my Polar FT1 and FT4 Coded on multiple 6-8-10 mile runs and 25 mile rides. Virtually identical information with both. Max on the Blue was 2 beats more than the Polar 1 and same on Polar FT4 coded. Average Heart rate the same on all. Have not worn this in the pool. Zones change smoothly and quickly. no lag time with heart rate changes.
UPLOAD
I found that the App that you use will determine upload to training peaks. With Endomondo, when you finish the workout, you must go to the website and upload from Endomondo. With Wahoo fitness you are given the option to upload each workout from either the iphone from workout history or at the end of the workout. Both are very easy. This is nice but will upload to a bunch of other apps also.
Not all apps worked with the Blue HR, some apps do not work. Sport-tracker does not work, you must use their heart rate strap. Conclusion is that some apps work and some do not, but I think that each app may or may not work, double check the list on the website for training peaks and wahoo blue. I know that Wahoo fitness does work. All data including heart rate zones uploaded along with maps and data. Conclusion, the apps control this heart rate monitor. Make sure the app you use is listed with wahoo blue Compatible Apps: Wahoo Fitness, MotionX-GPS, RunKeeper, Runmeter, Cyclemeter, MapMyRUN, MapMyRIDE, 321run, Endomondo, and more!
BATTERY USE
Been using for 2 weeks now, no problems.
All heart rate zones transferred to training peaks. Went on a 2 hour run yesterday and started at 80% battery on the I-Phone 4S. Turned off WiFi and closed all apps except both Endomondo and Wahoo Fitness. Left Blue tooth on obviously. Listened to music, had a 10 minute call while running, and had a set of headphones plugged into I-phone, I also turn off the display most of the time. Battery left after 2 hours.....65% (15% battery Usage). Did another similar 2 hour run and left the display on the entire time and I used 28% of battery over 2 hours . Conclusion, blue tooth isn't using much battery, screen monitor does.
CONCLUSION
I will move onto the Speed/Cadence and see how that works. So far very pleased with this heart rate monitor. Do not need to pair each time. once it is set up it seems to work. Have also used simultaneously with a Bluetooth headset, all works well. 2 Bluetooth devices at once. So far.....I liika dis.
Hope this helps

70 of 73 people found the following review helpful.
All of the good and bad reviews are correct!
By PrimeAddict
Right off the bat, I'll say YES it was an "out of the box failure." But I'm rating it good anyway.

First things first - it came out of the box with a dead battery. Oops. Yeah, that's a bummer, maybe they got a bad batch of batteries from Sony or maybe these have been sitting on a shelf too long. Fortunately I have a drawer full of CR2032 cells for various other devices, so replacing the battery was a simple matter.

Upon inserting a new battery, it IMMEDIATELY paired with the open Wahoo Utility app on my iPhone 4S.

Now for the other weird stuff. I hope this can save others some confusion. And I blame this not on Wahoo or the device, but on Apple's implementation of Bluetooth 4.0 or possibly on the BT4 standard itself.

BT4 devices need to be paired not with the DEVICE, but with the APPLICATION. So logically, once it was paired with the Wahoo Utility app, I switched to the Wahoo Fitness app. It wouldn't pair. Because the Wahoo Utility was still sitting in the background, paired with the heartrate monitor. I had to pull up the task switcher on my iPhone, KILL the Wahoo Utiility app, and then try pairing again with the Wahoo Fitness app, and it worked immediately.

Same thing happened when I tried pairing with Runkeeper. Because the Wahoo Fitness app was still maintaining a connection in the background, the app had to be killed before Runkeeper would pair. But ultimately, it did pair, and once paired it was accurate and responsive.

The device works fine, but the technology is not intuitive, and Wahoo does a poor job of providing documentation or support, which prevents me from giving a 5 star review. But with a little bit of effort, I think this is still the best option for someone looking to integrate a heartrate monitor with their iPhone-based workout tracking routine.

If you buy one and have trouble with pairing, first make sure you're wearing the monitor - if it's not on your chest, it's probably asleep. Next, try swapping batteries. Next try killing any apps which have attempted to pair with it. Next try restarting your iPhone. If it doesn't work after that, send it back!

87 of 93 people found the following review helpful.
Very Nice, but I Prefer the Polar H7
By Joseph
Summary: This is a nice bluetooth heart rate monitor that uses the low energy bluetooth standard to communicate with the iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, or 3rd generation iPad. It's a great choice, particularly if you like Wahoo's free fitness app. However, after trying this unit and the similar Polar H7 Bluetooth Smart Heart Rate Sensor, I personally prefer the Polar. I'll break down some of the similarities and differences so that you can make your own choice.

1. Fit: The Wahoo unit is an elastic belt with a snap on each side, plus a small transmitter. You dampen the contact points on the belt, wrap it around your chest, then snap each side into one side of the transmitter, which then holds the belt closed. (It's hard to describe, but the belt doesn't literally connect - it as a gap which is bridged by the transmitter.) The belt has two slides that let you size it to fit, and is comfortable. I like that you can unhook the transmitter to turn the belt off, which saves power -- in older HRMs, the transmitter was built in and did not turn off until the belt lost contact.

The Polar unit is similar, except that the belt has a hook that holds it closed, then you snap the unit onto the belt after that. (Again, it's hard to describe, but with the Polar, the belt itself goes all the way around your chest and connects with a bra-strap style hook on the side. The transmitter then clips on top of the belt.)

Result: Tie - both units are comfortable and work well.

2. Compatibility: Both units use low energy bluetooth, which saves power, but is only built into the newest generation of devices. They both work fine with my iPhone 4S and my 3rd generation iPad, and are both rated compatible with the iPhone 5. (Some of the reviewers have complaints about the Polar's compatibility with some iPhone uses, but I've never had a problem).

Unfortunately, neither one is rated as compatible with android or windows devices, even if those devices have low energy bluetooth built in. That's unfortunate, and I hope that it gets resolved soon. (A few people have reportedly gotten the Polar to work in limited cases, and the Wahoo might too, but I would not count on it without a lot of research.)

The Polar does win on one compatibility issue -- it also transmits standard HRM data on a 5 gz band. As a result, it will show your heart rate on gym equipment that accepts standard HRM data, and works with my basic Polar watch, my rowing machine, etc. (In fact, maybe it works too well -- last week at the gym, it put my HR on my machine AND on my neighbor's!) I haven't been able to get the Wahoo monitor to show up on any of my non-bluetooth receivers, so if backwards compatibility is important to you, take a look at the Polar.

Result: Slight advantage to the Polar on backwards compatibility.

3. Apps: In my tests, both the Wahoo and the Polar work with Runkeeper. I don't have Endomondo, but understand they both work with that too. If you prefer one of those apps, then it's a wash. However, Wahoo's app works with Wahoo (obviously), and Digifit currently works only with Polar. I like Digifit a lot, so I prefer the Polar on this element, but your preference will obviously affect your vote. (Note that it costs a few dollars to activate cardio monitoring in Digifit, while the Wahoo app is free, but IMHO it's worth it).

Result: Depends on your app preference.

4. Price: The price of both units is likely to vary over time, so I'll let you do the comparison. As of the time of this review, the Polar is slightly less expensive, even if you are going to buy the full version of Digifit, but definitely check before you make your decision.

Summary: This is a great unit for a user with a newer iOS device, especially if you like the Wahoo app. The Polar H7 is a very close competitor though, so your choice will probably come down to which app you like better.

See all 352 customer reviews...More...

Polar Ft7 Men's Heart Rate Monitor (Black/Red)

Polar Ft7 Men's Heart Rate Monitor (Black/Red)..

GET Polar Ft7 Men's Heart Rate Monitor (Black/Red) By Polar

Most helpful customer reviews

1256 of 1269 people found the following review helpful.
Not Too Basic and Not Too High Tech
By AthenaKTT
Before settling on the Polar FT7 Heart Rate Monitor, I did a lot of research on the various types of HRM out there. I was looking for a HRM that wouldn't just give me my heart rate, but I also wanted a bit more features, but I didn't need a lot of features that the higher numbered FT models offered.

When I saw the FT7 model, I was surprised to see so little reviews or mentions of this model. I'm not sure why, maybe this is a newer model or Polar just prefers directing people to the more expensive models because I kept seeing numerous reviews for the F6 or F7, FT40, and FT60 models.

After comparing various Polar HRMs, I settled for the FT7 because it had all the features that I was looking for in a HRM.

Watch/HRM

- Monitors heart rates. I found the monitoring to be accurate except underwater. (I'll go into detail about that a bit later.)
- Counts Calories. The Calorie counter seems to be quite accurate. I have used it for walking, spinning classes, swimming, and strength training sessions and the calorie counts are reasonable.
- Target heart rate graph. The graph is useful for seeing where you are and if you're within your minimum and maximum HR "fitness" ranges during a session.
- Very user friendly. Even though there aren't any instructions on setting up the watch, I didn't think they were needed. I didn't even bother looking at the manual until I was done configuring the watch, but I've never been one to read manuals. However, others may find the lack of a detailed manual a bit frustrating.
- Stores Training Files. Which include records of session durations, calories burned, average HR, Maximum HR, and the amount of time your workout HR was spent in the target range.
- Weekly Summaries. This basically sums up the total amount of time spent training, the total calories during each session, and how many sessions during the week.
- Settings are very easy to change especially if you have any weight changes and want to keep an accurate count of calories being burned.
- There is also a backlight, which is quite handy if you're somewhere with minimal lighting.
- I also found out that if you hold the "down arrow" button, you can change the time to a second time zone that you can set by going through the "quick menu" which is accessed by holding down the "backlight button (*)" which also leads to the "button lock" feature. If you hold down the "up arrow" button, you can change the "Watch face" to just display the time and date or the time and date and logo, which is smaller on the face, but it includes seconds and FT7 logo along the bottom.
- The women's watch is black with a gold stripe down the center of the band. I found the design to be all right. It is less flashy and colorful as the other models, which is one reason I like this watch. I can wear it with my work clothes and it does not stand out much.
- User changeable batteries. This was something I really wanted out of my HRM. I never liked sending something to the manufacturer for replacements even under warranty. I just don't like dealing with shipping, waiting, and extra fees.
- Water Resistant. I have used this HRM in the pool and the monitoring is relatively accurate when it actually reads the transmitter. I believe the Polar website notes that in some highly chlorinated pools or seawater the transmitter will not be picked up underwater. The pool in my gym is very chlorinated and there were times when the HRM will not pick up my heart rate. But if I just sit still in the water for a minute or so the watch will pick up the signal again. Though this can get annoying if you are trying to swim laps for endurance. The watch still gives me a fair calculation of calories I have burned during my swim sessions. Though the calorie count is most likely lower since I'm not sure how long the watch is not reading my heart rate during times when I am swimming several laps nonstop. I also tried using this in a saltwater treated pool and the moment I went underwater the transmitter does not work at all. So I'm guessing that this HRM will not work if you are swimming in the ocean.

Chest Strap

- The Chest strap is very comfortable, and I usually don't feel it, but then again it might be because I'm used to having something strapped around my chest all day. And I have had no problems of it slipping. It is also recommended to wet the straps a little. I usually just wet my hands a bit and rub against the cloth area, and I'm good to go.
- User changeable batteries. The transmitter pops off easily from the strap, and like the watch, I can change my own batteries, but unfortunately the watch and transmitter use different types of batteries.
- Another perk is that most of the machines in my gym also pick up the transmitter readings, allowing me not have to keep glancing at my watch while I'm on the elliptical or cycling.

Overall, I really like this watch. For the price I paid, it was worth it and it gives me all the basic things I need to monitor my workout sessions.

If you want a simple watch that gives you fairly accurate heart rates, calorie burns, training records, and user changeable batteries the FT7 is a cheaper option to the FT40 and FT60 models.

430 of 472 people found the following review helpful.
Good monitor, with one main flaw
By Topeka Larry
I've had the ft7 for maybe two weeks now, using it many times, since it is my first heart rate monitor. Overall, i think it is a good deal. It feels and looks like a high-quality instrument - solid, if not "flashy". It fits my wrists just fine and seems to have plenty of adjustment for larger wrists (I have fairly small wrists for a guy, at a "healthy" weight of 157 at 5'8", at age 40). I believe the watch band is anti-microbial (and anyway, has a cool yet subtle almost snakeskin kind of look to it). The band's connection to the watch seems quite integrated and sturdy, with the vertical thickness of the band being the same as the watch where the two meet. The watch's main body, while plenty large, does not dwarf my wrist or anything.

I understand that it is a fairly recent development for Polar that the chest strap and the watch will both take regular batteries, rather than having to order replacements from Polar. Certainly that is more convenient. Also as I reviewed potentially replacing my ft7 (see reason below), I found that it is also a treat to have a fabric strap for the heart signal transmitter, as a lot of manufacturers use plastic or rubber (?). I find the fabric strap to be no discomfort at all.

The "heart touch" (i think that's the name) feature, is at least a cool novelty - bring your watch close to your heart strap and the watch will beep then flash to show the time, then go back to the previous display after a few seconds.

You can manually rotate through several displays as you are training. I would prefer a display that shows the heart rate and the training time at once, but that combination doesn't exist. The heart rate is a part of one of the combo displays, but oddly, it is paired with the time of day rather than the training time.

Also, the timing functions are rudimentary. As far as i can tell (and i've read the manual too), there isn't a timer or stopwatch function separate from the heart rate training - to use any kind of timer you must "start training" which then looks for a heart signal. If you continue without the strap, it will warn you there's no heart signal, but once you acknowledge that, that warning disappears and you'll see the timer again. There is no interval or lap timing or countdown function, which seems odd to me as a newbie, for a $110 watch, even if lesser timer/stopwatch functions might be usual for this heart rate monitor watch industry. The watch just keeps track of your training duration, but you can pause and continue your work as many times as you want.

The recording of your training sessions is exceptional - the manual said up to 99 training files will be saved. I know i've already got over 20 that are definitely in the watch.

It also automatically keeps track of how much time you spend in "fat burning" or "fitness" zones during your workout. The calculation for that is automatic based on the input you gave when you set up the watch. (age, height, weight, maximum heart rate).

I'll emphasize that this watch will allow you to change your maximum heart rate setting, which presumably will change the watch's calculations for your different training zones (I'm not sure how big the effect is, having just learned enough about my probable true maximum heart rate to change it today). I've read that for similarly trained people of the same age in the same athletic endeavors, max HR can differ by as much as 60 bpm (!), so this feature seems very important. I seem to have a much higher max HR than what the usual formulas calculate. (That, or the watch doesn't detect HR well, which I don't think is the case, as I've noticed this tendency for a long time on gym equipment with pulse detectors).

Besides being able to set your own maximum heart rate, the ft7 has a zone alarm, that will beep when your heart rate has exceeded the limit (which you can set). UNFORTUNATELY (and this is why despite liking the watch overall, i will be taking it back), the sound the watch makes is very very low in volume. If I'm biking against the wind - I'll hardly hear it if at all. If I'm running on a quiet trail, I'll probably hear it if i'm listening for it. If i'm running on the sidewalk along a main road, I'll probably not hear it above the vehicle noise. As is, kind of defeats the purpose of having an audible alarm if despite having it I'm always having to steady my hand while running, or let go of the handlebars while riding to see what my heart rate is. I can find no volume adjustment, looking through the watch settings or reading the manual.

I'd like to say I know more about whether this might simply be a problem with my particular watch, or a design defect. I started a forum question at Polar's site, but got little response. One other person said they had the same problem there, last i checked. The watch's alarm-clock function also has a very low volume when it goes off, so perhaps that is an indication that is the particular watch and not a design defect.

The problem has turned what was an acceptable impulse purchase into a situation where I've investigated models much more thoroughly, and I think I'll try a Timex, mostly because they do tend to have much better timer/interval/stopwatch functions, and I'd like to see if they're cheaper prices, on the average, are worth it.

That being said, otherwise I am overall fond of this watch, and likely would have stayed with it.

125 of 135 people found the following review helpful.
Perfect Device For Basic Heart Rate Based Training
By Philip R. Heath
BACKGROUND: Since buying my Garmin Forerunner 305, I found that I hardly scratched the surface in terms of taking advantage of its features. I was also disappointed that it only calculates calories burned if you are running outside. I know that this allows for a more accurate algorithm, but I workout in the gym 90% of the time. So I opted for the Polar FT7 as a simplified device that would give calories burned for all workouts.

SETUP: There isn't a lot to do here. When turning the device on it walks you through basic setup of date, time, and personal information such as age, height, weight, and gender. I wanted to verify that the WearLink unit and watch were able to communicate prior to going for my first workout so I connected the WearLink unit to the chest strap, wet the sensors, and put it on. The wrist unit began receiving heart rate data within a couple of seconds. Satisfied that everything would work OK, I put the watch and chest strap into my gym bag.

USAGE: Since the wrist unit is a digital watch, you could use it as your primary watch since it doesn't have an off button. However, I don't think it is very visually appealing, and I do not plan to do this.

The chest strap seems to be designed for right handed people. I say this because it only attaches on one side, and it felt natural to me. This is different than my Forerunner which had attachments on both sides of the strap to accommodate both lefties and righties.

The buttons on the watch are fairly small and somewhat stiff. While I've gotten used to this, it almost gives it a bit of a cheap feel. This is merely a perception, but it is not one that I had with the Forerunner. That being said, using the FT7 is about as straightforward as you could ask for. After putting the wrist unit and chest strap on, simply push the middle button on the right to establish a connection between the two. When you are ready to begin training, push the button again to start recording your workout.

During your workout, the top and bottom buttons on the right navigate the display between heart rate, calories burned, elapsed time and clock time, and exercise zone (fitness or fat burn based on heart rate). When you are done, press the bottom left button. You can then scroll between resume and stop and select your choice. Once you have stopped, the FT7 displays your summary stats that you can scroll through, and it saves the file with the date and timestamp of your workout.

You can also review your workout history. While in the main time display, press either the up or down button on the right side. You will have a choice of "Settings" or "Data". Selecting "Data" gives you access to week by week information. You can look at weekly summaries as well as data for a specific day. The unit stores up to 99 data files so this should hold 4-6 months of data for most people.

If you need to change any of the information that you entered during setup, you simply choose "Settings", and navigate to the appropriate place.

I was curious how the calorie burn numbers would compare to those of the cardio machines at my gym. I was able to compare with a Precor Elliptical trainer, and I found that the numbers are fairly close. While they did not track identically, they usually came out within 20-30 total calories out of 600 in a 35 minute session. This gives me confidence that the numbers are reasonable, and that what it tells me for activities in other settings are close enough. I also noticed during my session on the Precor that the Elliptical picked up the heart rate from the WearLink unit. This should be the case for any cardio equipment that is labeled for use with Polar technology.

I found the FT7 very easy to use. If you can navigate menu driven software such as Windows Explorer or Windows Media Player you should have no trouble with this device.

CONCLUSION: If you want an easy to use heart rate monitor that tracks calories burned, this is a great place to start. It does what I expect it to do in a straightforward manner. If your needs are not beyond what I have described, there is no reason to spend more money on features that you will not use. If you have questions that I have not addressed, please feel free to ask in the comments section below.

See all 1446 customer reviews...More...

Garmin Forerunner 110 GPS-Enabled Sport Watch with Heart Rate Monitor (Red)

Garmin Forerunner 110 GPS-Enabled Sport Watch with Heart Rate Monitor (Red)..

Grab Now Garmin Forerunner 110 GPS-Enabled Sport Watch with Heart Rate Monitor (Red) By Garmin

Most helpful customer reviews

1023 of 1046 people found the following review helpful.
This 405 user loves his new 110
By ldm616
BACKGROUND:
-----------
I have used a Garmin 405 to track my weekend long runs for about 1.5 years. Previously I owned the Garmin 305. I'm using the 110 with with my 405 chest strap (saved me $50).

SUMMARY:
--------
The 110 does everything I do with my 405 in a significantly smaller, lighter form factor with a superior GPS chip (in theory, to be proven).

REASONS WHY I LIKE MY NEW 110 BETTER THAN MY OLD 405:
-----------------------------------------------------

* It's smaller and less bulky than the 405, looks and feels like a regular watch, and wraps snugly around my smallish wrist.

* I don't have to fiddle around with the temperamental 405 touch-(in)sensitive bezel.

* The displayed numbers for distance/hr/time/pace are bigger on the 110 than the 405, so easier for me to read on the run.

* There are fewer menus to navigate.

* Like the 405, GPS locking and accuracy works just fine, even under trees (more below).

* Like the 405, I can set the auto-lap to increment every 1 mile (other distances available).

* The 110 displays everything I want to track during and after my run.
- Elapsed distance (for run), Elapsed time (for run), Current HR, Average pace (for current lap), Last lap pace (displayed automatically for a few seconds after each lap), Average HR (for run), Average pace (for run). Average HR and pace for the entire run are show under "History" at the end of my run.

* To make this tangible, I can glance at the watch to see that so far I've run 2.1 miles in 21 minutes, my current HR is 160, my pace for the current mile (mile 3) is 9:56 and my pace for the last lap (mile 2) was 10:01. At the end of my run, I click through to "History" and see that my average HR for the entire run was 162bpm and my average pace was 9:54 minute miles. For me, currently, all I care about is keeping my HR in the 160-170bpm range (your range will probably be different) while trying to keep my pace under 10:00. In general, I suspect most runners will have the same requirements: Track your current HR to keep it within a target range while attempting to meet or beat a per-mile pace goal.

* The 110 has a longer battery life

* I never used the other 405 features like courses, virtual partner, etc. Ironically, I "customized" the 405 screens to pretty much do what the 110 displays by default (but cannot be changes).

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT "CURRENT PACE"?
-----------------------------------------

I guess some runners want to know the pace they are running RIGHT NOW. Think of it as their instantaneous pace - kinda like what a car speedometer gives you. Some folks call it "current pace" but that can be confusing when you also have average pace for the current mile, so let's call current pace the "right-now" pace. Unlike the 405, the 110 does not give you your right-now pace. Instead you get your average pace for the current lap. If your auto-lap is set to 1 mile (the default setting) then you'll see your average pace for the current mile. I for one don't need right-now pace. Since I'm trying to hit per-mile pace goals I want to see my average pace for the current mile. If I'm trying to hit a 10:00 pace for the current mile, and I start out too slow, the 110 will tell me my average pace for the current mile is slower, let's say 11:00, and I know I need to run the rest of the mile faster to bring my average pace for the current mile down from 11:00 to my target pace of 10:00. As I speed up, my average pace for the current mile will slowly drop from 11:00 to 10:00. Bottom line: Right-now pace doesn't help me hit per-mile pace goals so I could care less if it's "missing" from the 110. If all you are doing is trying to hit per-mile pace goals (eg run a 10:00 miles) then you'll be just fine with the 110.

ANY GPS ISSUES?
---------------

Not for me. Check out connect dot garmin dot com slash activity slash 44862992 and you'll see my test walk/run. Click to view the map in "Satellite" mode and notice that most of my test walk was under thick tree cover.

404 of 420 people found the following review helpful.
Does what it says it does well
By Mike
pros-quick satellite fix, very clear display, waterproof, shows the info you need not what you don't, uses buttons instead of bezel controls, uses USB instead of wireless connection.
cons-fairly expensive, GPS loses some accuracy under heavy tree cover.

This watch is especially good for two kinds of runners: those who run on trails, and can't easily lock in distances (and thus pace); and those who travel, but still want to run outside, rather than on hotel treadmills. In both instances, this watch will give you accurate distance information, as well as pace and heart rate. The other big improvements that I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews are that unlike the 405, it has reverted to button controls, and also to a direct USB cable connection to your computer for uploading run information. Garmin is not advertising these changes, since they are ostensibly steps backward from the 405's bezel controls and wireless connection, but these were the sources of most of the complaints about the 405--especially problems with the bezel once it got wet with sweat or rain. This is no longer an issue.

You have to wonder whether some of the people writing these (one star) reviews actually run--or whether they work for Polar or Timex? The watch gives you distance, time and pace, as well as heart rate information, as you go. For most easy or long runs on trails or the road, this is all you need. On the track, you know the distance, so if you're doing intervals, just use the stopwatch. The only scenario where the lack of 'current pace' could be a problem as far as I can see is in doing tempo runs, if you do do them by time (say 20 minutes easy, 40 minutes tempo, 10 minutes warm down) instead of by distance, as I do them. By time, you could get a situation where your first and last miles of tempo running get mixed in with running at an easy pace, and the pace data would be useless. Still, if you set the autolap function at .25 miles, very little of your run is going to be logged inaccurately (at most the first and last quarter mile in that tempo workout). Similarly, if you happen to be changing pace lot during a run and want immediate feedback, the watch does give you that. So-called current speed on a GPS watch is always somewhat of an estimate anyway, since it is plotting your location between two points, measuring the time it took you, and then doing the math. There's really no such thing as an instantaneous current pace calculation, and if you have your watch set on .25 mile autolap, that's not much more than the distance that would actually be used for a current pace calculation otherwise.

One criticism: although the satellites initially lock onto my watch after an average of 30 seconds and seem to give very accurate distance ad elevation information (the latter on the Garmin Connect website), there is one part of my usual run under heavy tree cover where it seems like the satellites lose me for a tenth of a mile or less, which makes the data for that mile always come out slower than I'm actually running. It makes up the difference on the next mile, which makes that one come out too fast. Both are off by around 15 seconds/mile, and this is a bit annoying. Although I can do the calculation to average the two and see that each time they basically come out even, it seems that Garmin should have come up with an algorithm for the watch's software that would compensate for such discrepancies within the mile where they happen, rather than giving inaccurate information for two consecutive miles.

Bottom line: this watch gives you a lot of useful information, and even more when you download it to the Garmin Connect site. Unlike other Garmin watches, it doesn't give some extra cycling information and the heart rate monitor doesn't work in the pool, so it's really a watch for runners, not triathletes. But for semi-serious to very serious runners, it gives you everything you need, without the bells and whistles--and the headaches--of the 405.

349 of 383 people found the following review helpful.
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT
By Maricela Farfan
I'am no marathon runner, just trying to get back to running like back in my cross country/track high school days. It's sooooo easy to use. I bought the 305/405 and immediately returned it because it was entirely too hard to figure out how to use. With the 110 you charge it, create your profile (weight, age, sex) go outside and let it sink with the satellites...then press start. It's that simple. If you get the one with the heart rate monitor, it gives you calories burned, and heart rate. I see people in here griping about something regarding the "pace". I don't know..it displays the pace you are going at, so i'm not too sure what that is all about. You sync it with the garmin website, and it give you greater "in depth" information about your run.

Just remember that this isn't suppose to have all the bells and whistle the other running watches have. This is for just simple use; distance, pace, calories, heart rate, time. This will suffice most people, and definitely extremely user friendly.

See all 936 customer reviews...More...