Suunto Run vs Garmin Forerunner 165

metrodraft

I just switched from a Garmin Forerunner 165 to a Suunto Run. I give you my thought which may help some out if they’re trying to decide on one. Maybe tell us your story or comparison.

First off, I had a FR165 for the past 2 years. It was a nice watch but it was starting to annoy me. The watch was very accurate but it had too much junk on it. I also hated how everything was a challenge (how many days in a row can I hit my Steps target, how many days getting good sleep, badges for everything. Stress score “really”) It would drive me nuts if I got a good night sleep and then it told me my score was 52!). The morning report was useless too, always giving me a workout that I would never use. Also, being in my 60s I wanted a little bigger screen, just not too big.

I had wanted a Suunto watch. I finally decided to buy one. A friend has a Race S which I liked but it didn’t have music (which I wanted). The Maps looked cool but I’m in the country and run the same routes all the time. I decided to try the Run. I didn’t know what to expect with the new UI I gave it a try.

I absolutely love the Run. First the construction is exceptional. The textile strap is awesome as well. I hate silicone straps. The watch is nice and light as well. The watch is actually much easier to navigate than the FR 165. It has all the metrics I want nothing else. Perfect! I love the Quick Start buttons. What a great idea.

The first couple runs I found small issues with the HRM, at the beginning of a run, but it has been perfect since then. The GPS seems really good too. The VO2 Max seems fine.

Now the Music function I not very good compared to the Garmin but it does work. It takes forever to download songs as well. One good thing is the actual sound quality. It’s quite a bit better than the 165. Another nice part about Music is the watch gives you updates at each km (time, pace, average HR). You hear them through your speakers.
The display is a great size (the Race 2 was too large) and very detailed. It’s actually brighter than my friends Race S but not as bright as my old FR 165.

One issue I had with the FR 165 was I needed to lock the screen at all time. If not, I was accidentally pressing buttons all day. I had to lock the screen 24/7. With the Run I only lock it in the shower. No issues of any kind. Nice.

Now the watch isn’t perfect. There aren’t many watch faces and not many good ones (in my opinion). The only real issue with the functionality of the watch is Steps. I would guess its 10%-20% lower than the 165.

What are your thoughts.

raven

@metrodraft Some random thoughts on your comments. First, “steps” isn’t a great metric to track, and Run being lower than 165 doesn’t mean Run is “wrong,” as 165 could easily have been overcounting. If you want accurate steps you need either a footpod or a pedometer like on your belt, not a device on one of your arms. Personally, I ignore steps altogether; if you wish to track it then accept no one device is likely to be fully accurate and instead you’re looking for trends within the device itself. So you need to “start over” with the Run compared to 165 it seems.

I have no idea why people wear devices in the shower. I always take off devices so I can wash the skin which is in contact with the device all day. So locking a screen for shower makes no sense to me as well.

Interesting comment about the metrics of the 165. Curiously, are you tracking CTL-ATL-TSB with the Suunto? Some people find this system a bit difficult to get into, but it’s far better than tracking steps, and I hope this gives you actionable metrics where perhaps the 165 didn’t.

sky-runner

@raven said:

I have no idea why people wear devices in the shower

I run almost every day. I wear my watch in the shower to keep the watch and the strap clean. I relax the strap before going into the shower to let the soapy water on between the watch and the skin - no skin irritation ever.

The one thing that is super annoying is that the watch always does “things” while I am in the shower - changes settings, sets up alarms that go off in the middle of the night, etc.

If there was an option to not activate touch until a button is pressed, I’d gladly use that!

André Faria

@sky-runner at least on the race s is there,down button and it will lock the screen

sky-runner

@André-Faria said:

@sky-runner at least on the race s is there,down button and it will lock the screen

If you mean button shortcuts, I already use them for other functions - one for the flashlight and another for the “Find my phone” function that I use often. Locking the screen via the control panel requires a lot of steps.

As I said, not activating the touch until one of the buttons is pressed would be a perfectly usable solution. Another solution would be a touch unlock by swiping the screen similar to what Garmin has. When under rain or shower, a natural droplet movement direction across the screen is either right to left (this is how the watch enters control panel) or left to right, or bottom to top. Garmin requires top to bottom swipe to unlock the touch which doesn’t occur naturally when droplets hit the screen.

Kevin Doucette

@sky-runner I actually use the lower shortcut button to lock the screen. Just on press. It’s easy to turn on while walking into the shower.

Kevin Doucette

@raven I do look at CTL although it’s something I really pay attention to much. That’s like the Recovery metric. I know when need rest and when I don’t a lot more than a watch.

I will admit that I’m 62 and have run a lot more without a GPS watch than with one. They are really cool but I know my body better than anyone. I usually run about 5 days a week and know when to go hard and when to go easy.

Concerning the Steps, the Run actually is off by quite a bit at times. Just last night I ended up getting up to go the bathroom. That’s about 40 steps. In the morning the watch showed 12. For just walking around it’s perfect. It’s the times just walking a few steps around my kitchen or office where it misses alot.

Kevin Doucette

@sky-runner I totally agree. With my 165 I had actually started runs while in the shower.
Just change one of your shortcut buttons to lock the screen. It makes it easy.

raven

Regarding the shower, I suppose part of my attitude involve the fact I dual record with the Apple Watch. So my habit is to remove both watches after my session, then both get placed either on a charger (Apple) or next to the charger (Suunto) some days, on the charger roughly every fourth day.

Apple’s watch bands are super easy to switch, so I take off one band and put on a second one to wash the one that got sweaty. For the Suunto, as it’s the Courtney silicone band, I find a quick rinse/wash is sufficient. This way I don’t need to fumble with them in the shower, and to me it seems loosening the band while showering to do this cleaning would be too weird. The only time I’d consider “shower watch cleaning” I suppose would be if I did my workout at a gym and didn’t want to risk leaving the watch in a locker while showering, but even then I’d have other valuables like my phone and clothes in the locker and I’d of course actually lock it up.

Typically I hear of people wearing fitness devices in the shower in cases like Whoop strap, which has a charging system such that you can charge the strap while still wearing it, so continuous tracking 24/7, and to me even as a data geek that’s a bit too obsessive. I’m fine having a short “break” in my recording metrics while I transition out of workout mode and into my regular daily mode. And those Whoop people, if really not wanting a break in metrics, likely are not doing the “loose strap to wash skin” technique (as they’d then lose data) which makes me feel a bit icky if I consider how long it may have been since their watches were properly clean. I don’t wear my running shorts, socks, and top to the shower to wash my clothes while washing my body, and I don’t see the need to wear my watch for that purpose either.

Anyway, for those who wish to shower with their watches, have fun, but if you’re having trouble with the screen activating when doing so, then consider the (what seems to me) simpler method of removing the watch, cleaning the band at your sink before you jump in the shower, then let it dry out while you attend to your own hygiene.

raven

Regarding step counts, I still think for those who are highly focused on that, getting a waist-based model will likely give better overall accuracy that the majority of watches and is fairly inexpensive. Here’s a quick article to show the style I mean: https://www.verywellfit.com/best-pedometers-4159148

I know people who do activities like knitting or drumming that would get a lot of “accidental steps” if relying on any wrist based model. My own attitude is simpler — steps cannot tell me intensity of effort. The other day I did 5082 steps for one activity, which was a walking effort of 5km with average HR of 92bpm. Then another day I did another 5km effort doing track intervals (100m x 10) which was less steps 4461 but higher average HR of 154bpm. If I were only looking at steps, the second effort seems “weaker” which is the complete opposite result of my own analysis. Of course, the walking session was good for recovery, while the intervals was just a general intense workout.

And today we have thunderstorms outside, and while I’ll get a decent amount of steps just going through the house, my primary workout today will be a rowing session which technically is “zero steps,” and yesterday was an hour long cycling workout that also was “zero steps”. Now I know in the Polar ecosystem they have a feature where they can give you “step equivalents” for things like that, but I dislike that system.