Nike+ vs. Forerunner 305

First: I am not the runner some are. I have completed a single 10k in my life. I don't run everyday, I don't even run every week.

That being said I own a Garmin 301, and a Nike+ system, so I will first compare my thoughts on the Garmin family vs the Nike+ family and then move on to comparing the Garmin 301 vs the 305. I used gmaps pedometer to compare distance accuracy.

Although Garmin makes accelerometer/pedometer systems I have never used them. So I can't compare them vs the Nike. I suspect they suffer from similar issues.

Nike+ is a foot mounted device that right out of the box will be a fairly accurate method of tracking your steady pace runs. You can calibrate it further if you wish via calibration runs. There are pros and cons to this methodology. The chief pro to it is it can be used indoors, outdoors, around trees, tall buildings and I assume it has potential to work on a treadmill as well, although I have never tried it. The main con is that as a foot pod based system, it makes some assumptions, it needs to be level for optimum performance and that means special Nike+ shoes.

You can use a clip to place the sensor on non Nike+ shoes. Clipping it down by the toes will make it fairly level as well. Some shoes do not allow this option. If you for instance run in Classic Vibram Five Fingers, clipping is not an option at all. If you use VFF Sprints, like I do you can clip it to the shoe, but it is not level. For me with a calibration run the result was still out by a couple if hundred meters over 3km.

The best thing Nike+ has going for, outside the technical, it is community. Nike+ website has challenges against other Nike+ users of all levels. This in itself can be a powerful motivator for people. They also have training plans based on what days you should run. Looking over the website as I write this I see it has been improved as well. Large icons with plans for popular distance, 5k, 10k, half and full marathons. As well as customizable programs for distances and sports.

My biggest complaint about the Nike+ is not it's lack of accuracy. It is not it's community. It is that it does not allow for even the simplest interval session. I personally think the Nike+ system would easily be 10x better if they added simple functionality over and above the tracking of a steady pace run.

The Garmin 301 and 305 are both GPS enabled tracking devices. They sync with the orbiting GPS satellite network and are constantly using your ground position to calculate your distance and your pace. It's pretty cool. However like the Nike+ system it does have some drawbacks. When I run at work the 301 takes a long time to get a fix on the satellites due to all the tall buildings and tree cover along the paths. Once it has it, it tends to hold on to the signal until I run under a bridge or covered area, then I get a hole in my collected data. On a whole though I feel it is a more accurate system than the foot pod idea. Garmin in fact makes a foot pod sensor, but I have never used it.

The 305 is supposed to have a much better antenna than the 301 so it will hopefully gain a better signal downtown than the 301 has.

The Forerunner series is simply awesome when it comes to training features. Simple intervals to complex interval sessions are possible. It can be fully customized in terms of interval sessions. Maybe you want to run 3mins, walk 2mins, run 3km, walk 1km, run 10km, walk 20secs. Whatever you can set the Garmin up to do it. It also allows you to race old times with virtual partner. This is one my my favorite functions. It is a simple idea but very clearly shows you how you are doing vs. previous runs.

Although Garmin makes a cycling computer, the Forerunner series can just as easily track your speed and distance on a bike. Foot pod systems are unable to do this. The Forerunner also allows 3 categories of training sessions. Run sessions can be kept separate from Bike sessions and "other" sports. I have used the Garmin interval functions for other cardio machines such as rowers and even some kettlebell work, although it can't be worn as a watch, or the KB is likely to smash it during snatch and jerk moves.

Now what do I think of the 301 vs the 305? Well visually the 305 is much different looking, but still a fairly bulky wrist based system. My sister got one for x-mas and joked about it's size slowing her down in her races. It's wrist strap is a plastic and metal buckle system vs the old Velcro system on the 301. It comes with a longer strap in case the installed strap is too small. However the installed strap is already larger than the Velcro strap on the 301. It is a nicer looking unit than the 301, so the redesign here is a step in the correct direction

The 305 has a charging/interface cradle vs a direct mini USB connection on the Garmin 301. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is different. The display on both machines is fairly similar, so if you are used to a 301, moving to a 305 will not be difficult. The 305 has features for courses which my 301 did not have. In essence it can save courses you have previously ran so you can try and run them again either as you did before or with the virtual assistant. These courses can also be exported directly to Google earth or as a standard .GPX file.

Both the 301 and 305 have included wireless heart rate monitors. The 305 can display your BPM or a % of max HR. On my first run I displayed % of max HR. It seemed to be fairly decent. Keeping my HR at approx 82% HR I was able to run/walk 3km and felt absolutely fine. Pushing the HR up to 90%+ wore me down fast and I was exhausted after a 400m stretch. Those seem to fall decently into where HR Zones place aerobic vs anaerobic.

At the core of the Forerunner is a Garmin GPS system. It even allows for basic GPS way points. You could use this for geocaching if you wanted to for example.

If you have a 301, you probably won't get THAT much more moving to a 305, but if you want to upgrade for looks, slightly more functionality and can get a good deal on it, I doubt you will be disappointed.

Sadly like the Nike+ the Garmin does have a huge gap in terms of functionality, which ironically is where the Nike+ Excelled. Although it has an impressive software tool for managing your run history, it's online presence is not up to the standard of Nike. Basically it gives you your offline information in an online setting. Although it allows you to view other people's run's in the area it really lacks the social aspect of Nike plus. Fortunately a few months ago I wouldn't have even been able to say that much good about the Garmin online experience. So things have changed and I hope they continued to push and improve their online presence.

So which do I like better? Well I am currently leaning towards Garmin. I like the Nike+ system, do not get me wrong, but the Garmin just gives me SO much more information, splits, graphs, charts and maps, that it really gives you an idea of how your run went after you are finished. How you responded to hills, how various paces effected your heart rate etc. It is simply a more robust unit. You will however pay for the extra functionality. The latest and greatest models are not cheap, although Costco was selling the 305, which is NOT the latest and greatest, for around $170.

So if you want all the bells and whistles: Garmin wins hands down in my books. If however you chiefly do steady state runs, the Nike+ might me just what you need for a lot less money.

P.S. The Forerunner doesn't have Lance Armstrong and others congratulate you when you achieve a personal best. Seems a little cheesy, but it's nice to get that instant feedback that you did something better than you had previously.