>Gears and Wears>Trust treadmill readings..or Fitbit Blaze?
I received a fitbit Blaze a year or two ago as a gift and have been using it exclusively for running. Had not researched or thought of using anything else until recently.
I run outdoors but just got a treadmill about a week ago to use when it’s too cold to go out.
I’m seeing a pretty big difference in the fitbit and treadmill readings as far as distance traveled.
For example, I remember telling my husband (when I first noticed it) that at that point the fit bit said I had traveled 0.8 miles and the treadmill was reading 0.64 miles.
Now I’m under the realization that I have not been running as far as I previously thought! Which could explain another reason why my first race felt so hard.
The treadmill is nothing special and is a few years old. Are they generally accurate?
I guess after Christmas I’m going to be looking for an actual running watch, preferably under $500. I’d like heart rate and elevation tracked too. I see some actually store music, do they work with Itunes? I know apple can be funny about that.
Treadmills are not accurate unless you make them so but neither is wearing a watch on the treadmill. I have seen different methods of calibrating (e.g., https://runsmartproject.com/2017/04/05/treadmill-running-part-iii-how-to-calibrate-your-treadmill/) but have never bothered doing it myself.
Are you using GPS on the Blaze when you run outside? Then inside, I assume it uses estimates of your stride length? I'd guess outside using GPS is accurate, inside is an estimate.
I tend to run based on time on the treadmill and call it good enough. My treadmill is easily 20+ years old, got it from a neighbor who asked my DH for help taking it to the dump. It tells me I am barely briskly walking when I run.
Neither one is likely right but If I had to pick one to believe I'd probably go with the treadmill over a wrist-based accelerometer.
I agree with mikey...neither is completely accurate, but I’d go with the treadmill over the accelerometer on a watch. I have a Garmin Forerunner 235 and use a footpod with it indoors which makes the readings a bit more stable. I love the watch which I guess is about $200 and has everything you need running wise including wrist based heart rate. There’s a Garmin 645 Music on the market (around $400) which has the same features PLUS you can download music, but you’d need to read the spec to see if it’s worth the extra money. (I just use an iPod shuffle for music)
5k - 18:29 (2018) 10k - 37:53 (2018) Half - 1:22:06 (2017) Full - 2:51:32 (2016)
Next Up: Brighton Mary - 14th April. London Mary - 28th April
If you're in the market for a Running Watch, I do not suggest a Fit Bit product. I used a simple Timex running watch for a long time - until my wife bought me a Fitbit Surge about 2 years ago for about $250. It had GPS tracking, and I thought it was so cool....but the quality really sucked. It was not waterproof, and you could see humidty in the watch after a run. the watch stopped working properly after about 13 months of use. Fitbit insulted me by offering me $25 off the purchase of another brand new watch for $300 - as they had discontinued the Surge model. I connected on their website with many other users having the same problem....and they do not stand behind their poorly designed products. Incidentally, I bought my wife a Fitbit bout 2 years ago or so....and hers broke too. I will never buy another Fitbit product, and don't' suggest that anyone else do so either. if you follow the company, it's obvious that they have abandoned the running community.
I bought a Garmin Forerunner 35 earlier this year, and I do love it. It does have a setting for running indoors, but I have not used it yet. Not sure how it does on a treadmill as I run outdoors most of the time.
Garmin Vivoactive 3 Music might be a good choice. It's really nice looking, and has a boatload of features.
I have its predecessor, the Vivoactive 3 without music.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.- Mark Twain