Pace Yourself
Since our sport is measured predominantly by time, a watch can be a valuable tool for any runner’s training. That’s especially true for our program, where most of our runs have assigned durations, pace ranges, or both. Whether it's a twenty-minute easy run, a four-part progression run, or kilometer repeats, most days of training are going to be difficult if not impossible to complete as intended without a watch.
Watch technology has expanded greatly in the last decade, with many people spending their day with a smartphone effectively strapped around their wrist. But is the highest dollar option really necessary for runners--or even a good thing for that matter?
A full discussion of the options is below, but If someone needs a new watch or is due to replace an old one, here are a few things to keep in mind in summary:
Feel free to reach out with any watch-related questions.
Watch technology has expanded greatly in the last decade, with many people spending their day with a smartphone effectively strapped around their wrist. But is the highest dollar option really necessary for runners--or even a good thing for that matter?
A full discussion of the options is below, but If someone needs a new watch or is due to replace an old one, here are a few things to keep in mind in summary:
- A durable non-GPS watch with a lap memory is perfectly sufficient for most runners. Casio offers a balance of cost and quality in styles for men and women.
- The fancy bells and whistles on high-end GPS watches are largely unnecessary for a high school athlete. If someone is dead set on a GPS watch, an entry model from a reputable brand like the Coros Pace 4 or Garmin’s Forerunner 55 does all that’s needed.
- While running with a phone can make sense in a number of situations, it shouldn't be used as a watch and if taken on runs should be stored in a specialty belt or pocket rather than carried in hand.
Feel free to reach out with any watch-related questions.
Buying Time
I would group watches into two general categories. Non-GPS watches simply measure time. Those can be further divided into three tiers:
With the presence of GPS technology, the second group of watches has the ability to track distance and time and thus calculate paces. Because the GPS drains more power, they typically include a rechargeable battery. That--along with the technology--generally drives prices of these watches to a minimum of $100.
Rather than categories, I would place most GPS watches along a spectrum of additional functionality. The most basic models simply measure the duration of a run and the distance traveled and then calculate the pace, sometimes in nearly real time.
Moving along the spectrum, one find watches with additional features. That could be biometric sensors like a heart rate monitor or a sleep tracker. It could also be smartphone functionalities like the ability to receive calls/texts, play music, or pay. As expected, the price tends to go up with these. At the far end are essentially smartwatches, but with the advanced biometric sensors and features like solar charging, prices can climb well over $800.
- Simple Watch: These tell the time of day. That’s pretty much it. They could time a run, but someone would have to do the math themselves to figure out how long they’ve been running.
- Basic Stopwatch: These watches have the ability to measure the duration of a run from a starting point to a stopping point. They work well for easy runs, long runs, or any run where the pace remains constant.
- Lap Memory Watch: These watches can measure the duration of a run while also logging the duration of individual segments (or laps) within the run. These make workouts with multiple intervals far easier to time and/or pace.
With the presence of GPS technology, the second group of watches has the ability to track distance and time and thus calculate paces. Because the GPS drains more power, they typically include a rechargeable battery. That--along with the technology--generally drives prices of these watches to a minimum of $100.
Rather than categories, I would place most GPS watches along a spectrum of additional functionality. The most basic models simply measure the duration of a run and the distance traveled and then calculate the pace, sometimes in nearly real time.
Moving along the spectrum, one find watches with additional features. That could be biometric sensors like a heart rate monitor or a sleep tracker. It could also be smartphone functionalities like the ability to receive calls/texts, play music, or pay. As expected, the price tends to go up with these. At the far end are essentially smartwatches, but with the advanced biometric sensors and features like solar charging, prices can climb well over $800.
With solar charging that can extend battery life beyond a month, gradient-adjusted pace calibration, a built-in LED flashlight, turn-by-turn route directions, and contactless payment, it's no surprise that the Garmin Fenix 7X Pro comes in at cost of $899.
Running by Feeling
So what sort of watch does a high school runner need? My opinion has changed a bit on this over the last year. For most runners, a GPS watch isn’t necessary and might even be less than ideal. Here's the rationale.
The first reason involves responsibility. GPS watches have to be recharged. This is probably once or twice a week rather than daily like a phone or Chromebook, so it's harder for a routine to take root. A common occurrence in the past is runners forgetting to charge their watches. And a dead watch isn’t helpful. While it would be wonderful for our runners to have enough responsibility to come prepared, it just hasn't happened in many cases.
Along those lines, we've also seen multiple watches lost/destroyed. That’s a harder pill for parents to swallow when $200 is on the line instead of $30-40.
For a more responsible runner, those aren’t big concerns, but another thing I’ve heard from some of the top performers in the sport and seen in my own running is the impact GPS watches have on the ability to run by feel. There’s an analogy here to ultra-cushioned shoes. Just as shoes with a huge layer of foam can become crutches that inhibit the natural strength of a runner, a GPS watch can do the same for their ability to sense effort levels. Runners who aren't constantly fed paces from their watch are generally less prepared to hit specific paces and effort levels. Whereas those who have to internalize paces have a strong enough sense of their body and fitness to know what specific speeds feel like and whether they are revving the engine a bit too much or taking things too easy.
For the super competitive runner, the numbers from the watch can also open a dangerous rabbit hole of overexertion. If their average pace on last week’s easy run was 9:45, a natural tendency the following week is for a runner to try to beat that. This can become a slippery slope toward too much, too fast, too soon.
Plus, the ability to run by feel can be incredibly valuable for a runner, especially during a race. Being in tune with their body can help a runner make adjustments better than most watches. In a race on a hilly course, a watch might tell someone with fair accuracy that they are running a pace of six minutes per mile, but it probably can’t factor in the elevation change or the insane heat wave. A well-trained runner listening to their heart and lungs can sense the reality that while their pace might have been fine on flat ground, it’s too much on the hills. Runners who constantly depend on their watch lose that art.
The first reason involves responsibility. GPS watches have to be recharged. This is probably once or twice a week rather than daily like a phone or Chromebook, so it's harder for a routine to take root. A common occurrence in the past is runners forgetting to charge their watches. And a dead watch isn’t helpful. While it would be wonderful for our runners to have enough responsibility to come prepared, it just hasn't happened in many cases.
Along those lines, we've also seen multiple watches lost/destroyed. That’s a harder pill for parents to swallow when $200 is on the line instead of $30-40.
For a more responsible runner, those aren’t big concerns, but another thing I’ve heard from some of the top performers in the sport and seen in my own running is the impact GPS watches have on the ability to run by feel. There’s an analogy here to ultra-cushioned shoes. Just as shoes with a huge layer of foam can become crutches that inhibit the natural strength of a runner, a GPS watch can do the same for their ability to sense effort levels. Runners who aren't constantly fed paces from their watch are generally less prepared to hit specific paces and effort levels. Whereas those who have to internalize paces have a strong enough sense of their body and fitness to know what specific speeds feel like and whether they are revving the engine a bit too much or taking things too easy.
For the super competitive runner, the numbers from the watch can also open a dangerous rabbit hole of overexertion. If their average pace on last week’s easy run was 9:45, a natural tendency the following week is for a runner to try to beat that. This can become a slippery slope toward too much, too fast, too soon.
Plus, the ability to run by feel can be incredibly valuable for a runner, especially during a race. Being in tune with their body can help a runner make adjustments better than most watches. In a race on a hilly course, a watch might tell someone with fair accuracy that they are running a pace of six minutes per mile, but it probably can’t factor in the elevation change or the insane heat wave. A well-trained runner listening to their heart and lungs can sense the reality that while their pace might have been fine on flat ground, it’s too much on the hills. Runners who constantly depend on their watch lose that art.
Heather MacLean, NCAA Cross Country All-American and Olympian in the 1500m, does the bulk of her training in a $15 Armitron watch from Wal-Mart.
Too Much Time
On One's Hand?
The wider problem is that even as technology has advanced, GPS remains inconsistently accurate. Effectiveness depends on the brand, but also on other elements like weather or surroundings. Running through a dense forest or city towering with high-rises can easily lead to subpar data with location, throwing off measurements of distance traveled as well as pace. Locally this is true at locations like the Perry County Lake Trail.
Beyond pace, there are issues with other metrics a GPS watch claims to offer. A heartrate monitor on the wrist is fairly unreliable, sometimes off by more than 10%. Something on the chest would get more accurate numbers. The same is true for cadence (the number of times the feet hit the ground per minute). Watches generate estimates based on hand movement, but the only way to get exact results is with a foot sensor.
Many GPS watches claim to know a runner's VO2 Max and plaster a number on the screen after every run. Not only is VO2 Max probably overemphasized in the running community, but a watch on the wrist has absolutely zero way to measure the amount of oxygen someone is using. It’s all estimates based on case studies of people of similar ages and weights running similar paces with similar heart rates, which one can find free tables for all over the Internet.
Many watches or their corresponding apps will offer scores for sleep or recovery. These have been shown to have low reliability … with Garmin's own study giving values below 70% accuracy.
Fancier GPS watches will offer additional values like ground contact time or vertical oscillation that will supposedly optimize someone's biomechanics. Again, these are mostly estimates based off hand movements and corresponding lab data. And in the running community there’s currently way too much uncertainty about the relationship between these values and injury or performance to really get obsessed with them.
My point is that a lot of the industry talk is just smoke and marketing. I’m not saying a GPS watch is all bad. It can still have its place. However, I do think consumers should understand what they are paying for and the potential downside of frequent use.
Beyond pace, there are issues with other metrics a GPS watch claims to offer. A heartrate monitor on the wrist is fairly unreliable, sometimes off by more than 10%. Something on the chest would get more accurate numbers. The same is true for cadence (the number of times the feet hit the ground per minute). Watches generate estimates based on hand movement, but the only way to get exact results is with a foot sensor.
Many GPS watches claim to know a runner's VO2 Max and plaster a number on the screen after every run. Not only is VO2 Max probably overemphasized in the running community, but a watch on the wrist has absolutely zero way to measure the amount of oxygen someone is using. It’s all estimates based on case studies of people of similar ages and weights running similar paces with similar heart rates, which one can find free tables for all over the Internet.
Many watches or their corresponding apps will offer scores for sleep or recovery. These have been shown to have low reliability … with Garmin's own study giving values below 70% accuracy.
Fancier GPS watches will offer additional values like ground contact time or vertical oscillation that will supposedly optimize someone's biomechanics. Again, these are mostly estimates based off hand movements and corresponding lab data. And in the running community there’s currently way too much uncertainty about the relationship between these values and injury or performance to really get obsessed with them.
My point is that a lot of the industry talk is just smoke and marketing. I’m not saying a GPS watch is all bad. It can still have its place. However, I do think consumers should understand what they are paying for and the potential downside of frequent use.
Once common issue in watches measuring heartrate at the wrist is what is called cadence lock, where the movements of the wrist that the watch uses to gauge cadence (orange dots) get mistaken for the pulses of blood it uses to detect heartrate (gray line). The cadence ends up being presented as the heartrate.
Armed for Success
My personal recommendation for most runners is a non-GPS watch with a lap memory. Casio (men, women) and Timex (men, women) are the bigger names at this level. Casio is generally cheaper for similar features. Most people think Timex looks a bit nicer. Prices can range from $25-$50 depending on the retailer, model, and color. These watches are waterproof with durable screens and a backlight. They don’t have to be charged or taken off, so the odds of them getting dead/lost/left at home is much much lower. I could wear mine 24/7 and still get more than 2 years out of it before the battery died or the band started to wear out. At that point it was more cost effective just to replace the whole thing.
These are just a few of the watches with lap memories found at our local Wal-Mart. The Casios were about half the cost of the Timex. The Timex options for women have been largely underwhelming.
If someone is really insistent on a GPS watch, I would only suggest two brands. The leading brand of GPS watch is Garmin. The entry model of their Forerunner series is currently the 55. It retails new for $200 but is sometimes a bit cheaper on sale. If you want a bigger and brighter screen, their 165 model tends to cost around $50 more but can also be found on sale. Their Clipboard App also makes it possible for runners to share their run data privately with coaches rather than venturing into the more problematic world of something like Strava.
Recently, the COROS brand has also emerged as a top choice for running watches, getting endorsements from dozens of elite runners. Their staff seems dedicated to creating the optimal run experience. The PACE 4 is their flagship model. It offers similar features and price point to Garmin's Forerunner 165 but with a longer battery life and improved GPS technology. Its predecessor the PACE 3 is also currently still available from many secondary retailers for an even lower price.
You can certainly find other brands of GPS watch at far cheaper prices, but you largely get what you pay for. GPS accuracy is a major issue with many of the other brands. Considering this is the entire benefit of a GPS watch, the strong recommendation is to stick with one of the two above brands.
If the other fancy features like music and payment are truly a priority for someone, an Apple Watch is another alternative. While smart watches pose their own potential mental health challenges for teenagers, the watch works well enough from a training performance perspective. The GPS on the Apple Watch works fine (some say it’s slightly less accurate than Garmin, but the tests are mixed), and it can often still sync to a number of run analysis apps. The run-tracking experience is still simpler on the Garmin or COROS models, but it's understandable that in most situations purchasing both a smartwatch and a separate running watch doesn't make sense.
Recently, the COROS brand has also emerged as a top choice for running watches, getting endorsements from dozens of elite runners. Their staff seems dedicated to creating the optimal run experience. The PACE 4 is their flagship model. It offers similar features and price point to Garmin's Forerunner 165 but with a longer battery life and improved GPS technology. Its predecessor the PACE 3 is also currently still available from many secondary retailers for an even lower price.
You can certainly find other brands of GPS watch at far cheaper prices, but you largely get what you pay for. GPS accuracy is a major issue with many of the other brands. Considering this is the entire benefit of a GPS watch, the strong recommendation is to stick with one of the two above brands.
If the other fancy features like music and payment are truly a priority for someone, an Apple Watch is another alternative. While smart watches pose their own potential mental health challenges for teenagers, the watch works well enough from a training performance perspective. The GPS on the Apple Watch works fine (some say it’s slightly less accurate than Garmin, but the tests are mixed), and it can often still sync to a number of run analysis apps. The run-tracking experience is still simpler on the Garmin or COROS models, but it's understandable that in most situations purchasing both a smartwatch and a separate running watch doesn't make sense.
Garmin and COROS each make reputable products within the GPS watch market.
Isn't My Phone a Watch?
Go to the city park on any afternoon and you're more likely than not to find someone running with their phone in hand. And on one hand (pun intended) this makes sense. Phones have a stopwatch and GPS. There are even a number of dedicated running apps one could install that could offer real-time pace and many of the same metrics as a watch. This begs the question: Is a watch even necessary? Couldn’t someone just run with their phone?
As the people in the park obviously demonstrate, someone certainly could use their phone as a watch. However, this isn’t ideal for a number of reasons. While some argue a phone is at greater risk of overheating during a long run in someone's hand, the much greater risk is of a phone being dropped and damaged.
However, the greater concern is how the practice affects the runner rather than the phone. First, a phone weighs significantly more than a watch. To be readily available for checking times and paces, someone pretty much has to hold it in their hand. That poses a number of concerns. Gripping a phone for close to an hour is likely to cause hand fatigue and/or cramps. Furthermore, the extra weight of a phone is going to create an imbalance between the left and right sides of the body. Initially this will affect shoulder movement, but because arms and legs largely synchronize, issues can begin to spread throughout the body’s kinetic chain. Over time that can disrupt form and mechanics and increase risk of injury.
To be clear, the opposition isn't to someone running with their phone. Especially when running alone, the presence of a phone provides an added sense of security in case of emergency. While easy runs alone offer time to disconnect and process, some people prefer turning to music or podcasts. The upper end GPS watches can call, text, and play music independent of a phone, but this isn’t true of the more affordable models.
There is no problem with a runner keeping their phone on their person during a run. They simply shouldn't run with it in their hand in place of a watch. If someone does want to bring their phone on a run, a number of alternatives to holding it exist. Pockets are probably not one of them, and some—like armbands—are only a marginal improvement. However, several companies make shorts, leggings, or sports bras with large but secure pockets that can hold a phone. These are nice, but obviously someone would need a full wardrobe of these garments if they plan to bring their phone daily. And depending on the location of the pocket, it could still shift weight more to one side of the body than the other.
My recommendation would actually be a belt that stores a phone at the waist. Because the phone is centered at the core, it won’t generate any lopsided imbalances. Two brands to consider are Flipbelt and SPIbelt.
As the people in the park obviously demonstrate, someone certainly could use their phone as a watch. However, this isn’t ideal for a number of reasons. While some argue a phone is at greater risk of overheating during a long run in someone's hand, the much greater risk is of a phone being dropped and damaged.
However, the greater concern is how the practice affects the runner rather than the phone. First, a phone weighs significantly more than a watch. To be readily available for checking times and paces, someone pretty much has to hold it in their hand. That poses a number of concerns. Gripping a phone for close to an hour is likely to cause hand fatigue and/or cramps. Furthermore, the extra weight of a phone is going to create an imbalance between the left and right sides of the body. Initially this will affect shoulder movement, but because arms and legs largely synchronize, issues can begin to spread throughout the body’s kinetic chain. Over time that can disrupt form and mechanics and increase risk of injury.
To be clear, the opposition isn't to someone running with their phone. Especially when running alone, the presence of a phone provides an added sense of security in case of emergency. While easy runs alone offer time to disconnect and process, some people prefer turning to music or podcasts. The upper end GPS watches can call, text, and play music independent of a phone, but this isn’t true of the more affordable models.
There is no problem with a runner keeping their phone on their person during a run. They simply shouldn't run with it in their hand in place of a watch. If someone does want to bring their phone on a run, a number of alternatives to holding it exist. Pockets are probably not one of them, and some—like armbands—are only a marginal improvement. However, several companies make shorts, leggings, or sports bras with large but secure pockets that can hold a phone. These are nice, but obviously someone would need a full wardrobe of these garments if they plan to bring their phone daily. And depending on the location of the pocket, it could still shift weight more to one side of the body than the other.
My recommendation would actually be a belt that stores a phone at the waist. Because the phone is centered at the core, it won’t generate any lopsided imbalances. Two brands to consider are Flipbelt and SPIbelt.
Something like the SPIbelt above is perfect for keeping a phone secure and impact-free during a run.