MooreTrucker said:
easttexasaggie04 said:
This is going to sound like a fitness snob post, but I'm not trying to be. It depends on how serious you are about your watch and data. If you just want to count steps then an Apple Watch or FitBit is fine. If you want to run/bike/swim and track mileage, pace, calories, etc you will have to get a watch like a Garmin. I've used Garmin watches for over 5 years (currently wear a Garmin 920XT) and I can't say enough about their quality. Yea, they are not expensive but they are simply better.
You don't HAVE to get a Garmin, although they might be better. The Surge does a good job of tracking cycling miles, too.
I have a surge. It pretty much sits on the counter. It sucks as a running/cycling watch. Yes, it will track the total miles, but the data you can get from the watch during the run sucks. My biggest beef with it is that I can only see average pace of the entire run, it won't give me real-time average pace of the mile I'm currently running. It gives you some crappy measure of your current pace at that exact second (even though its usually 10 seconds behind). Additionally, the battery life sucks. Its probably not an issue for most people, but I can only get about 3.5-4 hours out of the watch. Meanwhile, I can get 7 hours out of an 8 year old garmin watch, and I can charge "on the go," which means I can get data for ultra marathons. Recently got an almost 14 hour run on the watch.
I used my old ass Garmin 405CX for running and i have a garmin edge 25 for all my different riding.
As easttexas mention, if you are just looking for basic info during a run/ride, fitbit is fine. Its all what you want out of the watch. I'm not a "data nerd" by any means, but there are certain features I need/want during a run/race that the Surge just doesn't have.