Super B****
Hmm, that would be interesting. I run in lane 5, so I run less than 4 laps.
I run in lane "whichever one doesn't have a shitload of walkers in it at the moment." So I probably DO run 400m in one lap, thanks to all the zigging and zagging. For the life of me, I can't understand why someone would want to walk around a track. No interesting scenery (after lap one, you've seen it all anyway)... what is so exciting about it??
chasing the impossible
because i never shut up ... i blog
lol - I have never thought about it actually. I guess they are wondering the same thing about us.
The track I run on now is always loaded, so I head right to the outside (and stay there) to avoid all of that.
I was thinking about the 220 for Christmas. I have a beginner GPS basically and know I need to step up. I heard that the 220 does cadence. (I know foot pod does it better), and heart rate. Is that correct?
If not I want a mid range one that measures those 2 things, plus has at least 2 views like distance, and pace. I don't care how it downloads to anything as I use Excel.
Time to start running in lane 1! I notice that my 610 is off at the track, too. I use manual lap and then update the distances once I get home.
At the track I go to, on Thursday nights it is very crowded and lane 1 is really fast. I run in lane 4 or 5 for my MP stuff. The times I ran in lane 1 (on Wednesday evenings, it is the club I belong to who 'own' the track), my 610 records a bit long. 405-410 m. My old Timex used to record short all the time, and I prefered that as in races, it was a nice surprise that the last km (or mile) was 'shorter'.
MTA: I hesitated between a 610 at clearance price and a newer 220 when I decided I wanted to change my perfectly fine Timex. I'm glad I chose the 610 from what I read. I would have cried if I would have paid big bucks to change for a watch that does not do the most basic function (GPS reading) well. At least, with the 610, I have a great running watch. Does a lot of stuff I don't need, but it also does the basic stuff really well.
A guy in the running club once told me his 210 stopped performing well after a time. He tried many things (hard resets, etc) and what he found that works is to delete all history (all stats). His watch works great now. Maybe you can try that with the 220? We have our history on the Garmin site AND here... no use keeping it on the watch.
I was thinking about the 220 for Christmas. I have a beginner GPS basically and know I need to step up. I heard that the 220 does cadence. (I know foot pod does it better), and heart rate. Is that correct? If not I want a mid range one that measures those 2 things, plus has at least 2 views like distance, and pace. I don't care how it downloads to anything as I use Excel.
It does have heart rate and is configurable for three screens, and a fourth screen for heart rate info if I recall correctly. It is actually a clean piece of tech and very simple to operate and get around on. I just think my particular one has a gremlin in it.
I looked hard at the 620 (which is probably what I should have got) but many of its bells and whistles are tied to heart rate and I am just not all that interested in that.
At least, with the 610, I have a great running watch. Does a lot of stuff I don't need, but it also does the basic stuff really well.
Thank you, that is essentially the gist of the issue here. It's not like I am asking for peace in the middle east or a Genie in a bottle FFS, just do the simple shit.
Former Bad Ass
We don't have a track nearby. Boo.
Damaris
I bought a 220 several months ago after my 210 went kaput, and I am very happy with it. I do not use HRM or cadence so can't comment on those, but I think it does all the basics well. I like the way it handles intervals in terms of how they are programmed & especially the multiple display screen options, which I think is improved vs the 210. But I don't do any workouts nearly as complicated as LRB, just standard stuff.
Dave
How far is the nearest high school?
The workouts:
3 mile warmup + 1 mile + 6 x 400 w/400 meter rests + cool down (issue with splits/pace).
3 mile warmup + 1 mile + 5 x 200 w/200 meter rests + cool down (issue with splits/pace).
3 mile warmup + 2 miles + 1 mile + cool down (not a programmed workout, ran with 410 & 220 using manual lap).
3 mile warmup + 3 x 1200 w/400 meter rests + cool down (issue with distance).
The problems with distance yesterday was completely new, and did not start until the quality portion. The 3 mile warmup there was fine and the mile splits were true as far as I know them to be.
Maybe I should take up bowling.
This was actually a factor in my move a few years back.
I really miss the other track because it was fairly new and rarely used by anyone at the times I was there. This stupid thing I run at now sits across from a senior complex and they hit it hard and often.
We have two high schools here; none have a track. They do have a football or soccer field and a basketball court. No track. Next one is down South and around 1 hour in traffic. The next town over would take 30 minutes to get there (if they have one) most days due to the stupid traffic.
I've never known why our schools (which are charter and great schools) do not have any.
We have two high schools here; none have a track. They do have a football or soccer field and a basketball court. No track. Next one is down South and around 1 hour in traffic. The next town over would take 30 minutes to get there (if they have one) most days due to the stupid traffic. I've never known why our schools (which are charter and great schools) do not have any.
Weird. And annoying.