Wearable Fitness Trackers

[SPINMAN]

I'm wanting to change to a different wearable Fitness tracker. I have been using fitbit for years and currently using the Sense. Fitbit is now owned by Google. Don't know if that's good or bad. It has lots of sports available to sense. I need it to be able to use in the water for swimming. Mostly swim bike run but some hiking and HITT activities. Fitbit is OK but heart rate very delayed and not the most accurate. Distance seems accurate. What do you think? Anything better than a fitbit?
Thanks

[meamoantonio]

Garmin is the gold standard in terms of HR and Distance tracking, if you also like tracking effort using a power meter, their offering is also pretty good, I like the ecosystem they have developed which also includes being able to pay for stuff using the watch (Garmin Pay, similar to Apple Pay but its Garmin, only available in the US though)

[SPINMAN]

As far as power meters and pedals, Wahoo bought out speed play which I've used on MTB for years. Wahoo is known for its user-friendly interface, ease of use, and simple design, while Garmin provides a wider range of advanced features and training metrics, often at a higher price. Have to see what sales are coming up before memorial day.
Thanks

[GirishH]

I have only used the Garmin Instinct and wholeheartedly agree with @meamoantonio on his observations about Garmin. The Instinct is truly a watch designed for activity tracking and is incredibly rugged. It doesn’t have many bells and whistles, and I actually prefer it that way.

After about 5–6 years of use, the battery started having issues. I contacted Garmin customer service, and they offered to replace the battery or send me a refurbished Instinct for less than half the price of a new one. After hearing about the adventures my Garmin and I have shared, they threw in another 30% discount on top. The only catch is that I have to cycle to Nepal to pick up the replacement, as it’s coming from the US with a friend who’s visiting his family there..:-)

In the meantime, I bought a used Amazfit Bip. It has too many bells and whistles and doesn’t do fitness tracking as well. I truly can’t wait to have my Instinct back on my wrist.

I have heard of issues with Garmin Instinct Solar but can't really confirm.

[enkei]

I had a fitbit, now have an Apple Watch. However, the last time I researched the subject, I found the only way to get reliable, accurate HR was with a chest strap.

[meamoantonio]

(05-15-2025, 06:08 AM)GirishH Wrote:  I have only used the Garmin Instinct and wholeheartedly agree with @meamoantonio on his observations about Garmin. The Instinct is truly a watch designed for activity tracking and is incredibly rugged. It doesn’t have many bells and whistles, and I actually prefer it that way.

After about 5–6 years of use, the battery started having issues. I contacted Garmin customer service, and they offered to replace the battery or send me a refurbished Instinct for less than half the price of a new one. After hearing about the adventures my Garmin and I have shared, they threw in another 30% discount on top. The only catch is that I have to cycle to Nepal to pick up the replacement, as it’s coming from the US with a friend who’s visiting his family there..:-)

In the meantime, I bought a used Amazfit Bip. It has too many bells and whistles and doesn’t do fitness tracking as well. I truly can’t wait to have my Instinct back on my wrist.

I have heard of issues with Garmin Instinct Solar but can't really confirm.

Cycling to Nepal to pick up a watch sounds like an awesome adventure you can make a movie out of, please do send us pictures when you do this!

[Criminal]

So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

[GirishH]

@Criminal, I agree with most of your questions—I find myself asking the same ones all the time.

When I got my first Garmin ( Instinct), it was a basic, used model with no bells or whistles. I remember riding 20-30 miles to pick it up since it was a Craigslist purchase. For safety, I completed the transaction inside a police station.

To be honest, I never look at my heart rate and still don’t fully understand training HR compared to other metrics.

I also don’t check my sleep graph. I always joke that I’ll know how well I slept based on how I feel the next morning—no graph needed.

When I’m riding long distances, like hundreds of kilometers, I avoid checking my watch or distance. I prefer to distract myself from the long day ahead. Seeing that I still have 50 km to go can be pretty discouraging.

At the end of the day, though, I enjoy looking back at how far I’ve traveled and how many mountains, forests, or states I’ve crossed. So, my GPS watch is helping me give me with that pleasure.

Now, the task of picking up that new/refurbished Garmin is giving me an excuse to visit Nepal and meet friends from Boston—so that’s my motivation. So, that GPS watch is my excuse to cycle to Nepal and back.

As for nutrition, I stick to plain water, except on days over 40°C when I lose a lot of salt. Then, I use WHO-recommended Oral Rehydration Salts for dehydration.

I’m not trying to win any races, so I don’t see the need for extra chemicals or fancy gadgets on my bike.

(05-19-2025, 10:30 AM)Criminal Wrote:  So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

[SPINMAN]

(05-23-2025, 02:31 AM)GirishH Wrote:  @Criminal, I agree with most of your questions—I find myself asking the same ones all the time.

When I got my first Garmin ( Instinct), it was a basic, used model with no bells or whistles. I remember riding 20-30 miles to pick it up since it was a Craigslist purchase. For safety, I completed the transaction inside a police station.

To be honest, I never look at my heart rate and still don’t fully understand training HR compared to other metrics.

I also don’t check my sleep graph. I always joke that I’ll know how well I slept based on how I feel the next morning—no graph needed.

When I’m riding long distances, like hundreds of kilometers, I avoid checking my watch or distance. I prefer to distract myself from the long day ahead. Seeing that I still have 50 km to go can be pretty discouraging.

At the end of the day, though, I enjoy looking back at how far I’ve traveled and how many mountains, forests, or states I’ve crossed. So, my GPS watch is helping me give me with that pleasure.

Now, the task of picking up that new/refurbished Garmin is giving me an excuse to visit Nepal and meet friends from Boston—so that’s my motivation. So, that GPS watch is my excuse to cycle to Nepal and back.

As for nutrition, I stick to plain water, except on days over 40°C when I lose a lot of salt. Then, I use WHO-recommended Oral Rehydration Salts for dehydration.

I’m not trying to win any races, so I don’t see the need for extra chemicals or fancy gadgets on my bike.

(05-19-2025, 10:30 AM)Criminal Wrote:  So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

Yes, wearables help. MAXHR and HR limits are important if you ride over 100km

[GirishH]

@SPINMAN, please let us know what you end up buying.

I mostly check my elevation profile when I’m dead tired at the end of the day. I try not to look at it beforehand—I don’t want to scare myself before taking on the challenge.

After you mentioned HR and MaxHR, I reviewed that data from a few long rides. Now I have a sense of what my typical range is.

To be honest, the elevation and speed profiles help me appreciate my accomplishments, while the HR plot I guess, tells me about my health. I guess, it shows me whether I’m within my normal range or pushing myself too hard ( or not) compared to previous rides..?

(05-26-2025, 03:52 PM)SPINMAN Wrote:  

(05-23-2025, 02:31 AM)GirishH Wrote:  @Criminal, I agree with most of your questions—I find myself asking the same ones all the time.

When I got my first Garmin ( Instinct), it was a basic, used model with no bells or whistles. I remember riding 20-30 miles to pick it up since it was a Craigslist purchase. For safety, I completed the transaction inside a police station.

To be honest, I never look at my heart rate and still don’t fully understand training HR compared to other metrics.

I also don’t check my sleep graph. I always joke that I’ll know how well I slept based on how I feel the next morning—no graph needed.

When I’m riding long distances, like hundreds of kilometers, I avoid checking my watch or distance. I prefer to distract myself from the long day ahead. Seeing that I still have 50 km to go can be pretty discouraging.

At the end of the day, though, I enjoy looking back at how far I’ve traveled and how many mountains, forests, or states I’ve crossed. So, my GPS watch is helping me give me with that pleasure.

Now, the task of picking up that new/refurbished Garmin is giving me an excuse to visit Nepal and meet friends from Boston—so that’s my motivation. So, that GPS watch is my excuse to cycle to Nepal and back.

As for nutrition, I stick to plain water, except on days over 40°C when I lose a lot of salt. Then, I use WHO-recommended Oral Rehydration Salts for dehydration.

I’m not trying to win any races, so I don’t see the need for extra chemicals or fancy gadgets on my bike.

(05-19-2025, 10:30 AM)Criminal Wrote:  So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

Yes, wearables help. MAXHR and HR limits are important if you ride over 100km

[Flowrider]

Just curious has anyone found out if connecting to different satellites has an effect on the readings?

[meamoantonio]

(06-15-2025, 07:05 AM)Flowrider Wrote:  Just curious has anyone found out if connecting to different satellites has an effect on the readings?

there's a guy on YouTube who made content out of this, I totally forgot the channels name and what the results where on his tests haha

[SPINMAN]

(05-19-2025, 10:30 AM)Criminal Wrote:  So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

Hey Howard, I am a metrics geek and that's why I like the wearable, to see progress. Without it we would go by what's called "perceived exertion" 0-10 zero you are not doing anything, not even thinking, and 10 you are about to explode and throw up. Using this method a 5 would be moderate but some days a 5 might be at 90% of max heart rate and other days at 80%. Rest, Nutrition, alcohol, hydration, stress change change your perception. You can't train that way and expect progress without true analytics.

[GirishH]

@Spinman, What did you end up buying? My apologies if you already mentioned it earlier.

I’m a Garmin guy — love them for their simplicity and great service. I use the basic Instinct model, which has that old-school, rugged, military-style look. It's NOT another smart phone on your wrist. No answering phone calls or typing messages on your wrist, but a simple watch meant to "track"..

I used to be an engineer, but I was never big on data. Even now, I just track my rides and runs — nothing beyond that. Not VO₂ max, not recovery time, nothing. Honestly, some of those metrics are too much, seem way off, and can be misleading. Sometimes the numbers themselves make it obvious something’s not right, which makes me question their accuracy.

I also feel that too much data is just that — too much! For example, my recent blood test showed low Vitamin D. My dad, who’s a doctor, prescribed supplements, but I told him I have zero symptoms — no weakness, fatigue, or muscle pain. I’m out in the sun longer than probably I should be, so I’m skipping the supplements.

I am not competing professionally, so I stick to a simple measurement of getting faster on the same route/trail. Everything else simply gets ignored.

My point is, data isn’t always right or meaningful. That’s why I use my Garmin just to track distance and time — plus, I got a great discount from their customer service.

By the way, Coros is getting quite popular here in Asia. You might want to check them out if you’re still looking.


quote='Criminal' pid='50360' dateline='1747665004']
So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.
[/quote]

Hey Howard, I am a metrics geek and that's why I like the wearable, to see progress. Without it we would go by what's called "perceived exertion" 0-10 zero you are not doing anything, not even thinking, and 10 you are about to explode and throw up. Using this method a 5 would be moderate but some days a 5 might be at 90% of max heart rate and other days at 80%. Rest, Nutrition, alcohol, hydration, stress change change your perception. You can't train that way and expect progress without true analytics.
[/quote]

[SPINMAN]

(11-01-2025, 12:50 AM)GirishH Wrote:  @Spinman, What did you end up buying? My apologies if you already mentioned it earlier.

I’m a Garmin guy — love them for their simplicity and great service. I use the basic Instinct model, which has that old-school, rugged, military-style look. It's NOT another smart phone on your wrist. No answering phone calls or typing messages on your wrist, but a simple watch meant to "track"..

I used to be an engineer, but I was never big on data. Even now, I just track my rides and runs — nothing beyond that. Not VO₂ max, not recovery time, nothing. Honestly, some of those metrics are too much, seem way off, and can be misleading. Sometimes the numbers themselves make it obvious something’s not right, which makes me question their accuracy.

I also feel that too much data is just that — too much! For example, my recent blood test showed low Vitamin D. My dad, who’s a doctor, prescribed supplements, but I told him I have zero symptoms — no weakness, fatigue, or muscle pain. I’m out in the sun longer than probably I should be, so I’m skipping the supplements.

I am not competing professionally, so I stick to a simple measurement of getting faster on the same route/trail. Everything else simply gets ignored.

My point is, data isn’t always right or meaningful. That’s why I use my Garmin just to track distance and time — plus, I got a great discount from their customer service.

By the way, Coros is getting quite popular here in Asia. You might want to check them out if you’re still looking.


quote='Criminal' pid='50360' dateline='1747665004']
So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

Hey Howard, I am a metrics geek and that's why I like the wearable, to see progress. Without it we would go by what's called "perceived exertion" 0-10 zero you are not doing anything, not even thinking, and 10 you are about to explode and throw up. Using this method a 5 would be moderate but some days a 5 might be at 90% of max heart rate and other days at 80%. Rest, Nutrition, alcohol, hydration, stress change change your perception. You can't train that way and expect progress without true analytics.
[/quote]
[/quote]

@girish nothing yet. I think it will be a Christmas gift. From all comments it seems like I should be looking at a garmin product. I've heard Wahoo is good but Samsung has better battery life. It also has to have a swimming/waterproof feature and price, of course. I will dig deeper in the next few weeks. I'll let you know. Thank

[SPINMAN]

(05-26-2025, 03:52 PM)SPINMAN Wrote:  

(05-23-2025, 02:31 AM)GirishH Wrote:  @Criminal, I agree with most of your questions—I find myself asking the same ones all the time.

When I got my first Garmin ( Instinct), it was a basic, used model with no bells or whistles. I remember riding 20-30 miles to pick it up since it was a Craigslist purchase. For safety, I completed the transaction inside a police station.

To be honest, I never look at my heart rate and still don’t fully understand training HR compared to other metrics.

I also don’t check my sleep graph. I always joke that I’ll know how well I slept based on how I feel the next morning—no graph needed.

When I’m riding long distances, like hundreds of kilometers, I avoid checking my watch or distance. I prefer to distract myself from the long day ahead. Seeing that I still have 50 km to go can be pretty discouraging.

At the end of the day, though, I enjoy looking back at how far I’ve traveled and how many mountains, forests, or states I’ve crossed. So, my GPS watch is helping me give me with that pleasure.

Now, the task of picking up that new/refurbished Garmin is giving me an excuse to visit Nepal and meet friends from Boston—so that’s my motivation. So, that GPS watch is my excuse to cycle to Nepal and back.

As for nutrition, I stick to plain water, except on days over 40°C when I lose a lot of salt. Then, I use WHO-recommended Oral Rehydration Salts for dehydration.

I’m not trying to win any races, so I don’t see the need for extra chemicals or fancy gadgets on my bike.

(05-19-2025, 10:30 AM)Criminal Wrote:  So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

Yes, wearables help. MAXHR and HR limits are important if you ride over 100km

Wow, Garmin Instinct is $500 and Fenix $1000!

[meamoantonio]

I'm still on the Forerunner 45 after like 4 years(don't use a wearable for the swim portion) if you wanna go for a forerunner that has a swim I think its the 265 or 165 one which is a little bit more expensive but still very affordable compared to Fenix(solar is nice to have though) and Instinct.

Ill be wearing and using this until I break it and then that's when I'll probably buy a top spec one like the Fenix solar, hope this helps finally narrowing down what you get this holiday season

[GirishH]

@SPINMAN, please look for deals during the holidays and keep looking on FB Marketplace and/or Craigslist.

Some 5-7 years ago, I was looking for a basic Garmin—something simple, around $100. On Craigslist, I found someone selling a brand new Garmin Instinct for the exact price. We met at a police station, and sure enough, it was genuinely new—the seller had won it in his company’s holiday raffle but didn't have an use for it. He worked for one of the tech firms in the Boston suburbs.

So, I got lucky the first time. The Garmin Instinct is a rugged smartwatch that retailed for around $250 back then. It’s not fancy or colorful, but it’s built tough—a true “watch.”

I used it happily for a few years until the battery started dying within a few hours of charging. When I contacted Garmin support, they offered to either replace the battery or send me a refurbished one for about $90–100. I figured, why not pick a "new/refurbished"? So, I opted for the refurbished option.

After I shared some of my travel, running, and cycling stories with them, they kindly added a 15% - 20% discount—so I ended up paying around $70 total.

So, if you are lucky you might get such a "good" deal..

(11-08-2025, 02:03 PM)SPINMAN Wrote:  

(05-26-2025, 03:52 PM)SPINMAN Wrote:  

(05-23-2025, 02:31 AM)GirishH Wrote:  @Criminal, I agree with most of your questions—I find myself asking the same ones all the time.

When I got my first Garmin ( Instinct), it was a basic, used model with no bells or whistles. I remember riding 20-30 miles to pick it up since it was a Craigslist purchase. For safety, I completed the transaction inside a police station.

To be honest, I never look at my heart rate and still don’t fully understand training HR compared to other metrics.

I also don’t check my sleep graph. I always joke that I’ll know how well I slept based on how I feel the next morning—no graph needed.

When I’m riding long distances, like hundreds of kilometers, I avoid checking my watch or distance. I prefer to distract myself from the long day ahead. Seeing that I still have 50 km to go can be pretty discouraging.

At the end of the day, though, I enjoy looking back at how far I’ve traveled and how many mountains, forests, or states I’ve crossed. So, my GPS watch is helping me give me with that pleasure.

Now, the task of picking up that new/refurbished Garmin is giving me an excuse to visit Nepal and meet friends from Boston—so that’s my motivation. So, that GPS watch is my excuse to cycle to Nepal and back.

As for nutrition, I stick to plain water, except on days over 40°C when I lose a lot of salt. Then, I use WHO-recommended Oral Rehydration Salts for dehydration.

I’m not trying to win any races, so I don’t see the need for extra chemicals or fancy gadgets on my bike.

(05-19-2025, 10:30 AM)Criminal Wrote:  So have any of these things made you a better cyclist or improved your health?

If you did not have the device would your cycling experience be dimished?

You were particularly concerned about your heartrate before these devices hit the market?

Where does one draw the line? Is there a glucometer, oximeter, or urine testing on these things? Pregnancy test?

If you have definitive proof that you are a better, faster, and healthier cyclist with by using an electronic device than without one then by all means spend your cash on them. It should thus stand to reason that the more features it has will make an even better, faster, and healthier you by using it, right? Wrong!

My advice to general cyclists, who are not having health issues (generally those exercising under a physician's guidance) or are not planning on making cycling (specifically competitive riding) a career path, is to save your money for other uses (and no, do not spend it on energy crap either unless you are cycling under the previously stated conditions: dying or racing) like bike improvements or a better diet.

Yes, wearables help. MAXHR and HR limits are important if you ride over 100km

Wow, Garmin Instinct is $500 and Fenix $1000!

[SPINMAN]

I have to choose between 1-price, 2-battery, 3-performance
@lalan45 Yes, there are quite a few options. I'm in search as well, though at a higher level than a simple tracker. I've had 2 Fitbits over the last 6 years. The latest Fitbit Sense is mainly for the variety of sports available, especially swimming capabilities. Fitbit was bought by Google last year, and the updates are not working as well, so I may go for another one or a Google device. Garmin seems to be at the top, but pricey. Samsung is looking good to me, too. Maybe a holiday deal or an after-Christmas discount.
There is another link here for you to visit on the same subject.
https://forums.bikeride.com/thread-9285.html

[GirishH]

@SPINMAN, not sure if you already bought a new fitness tracking device but lots of my running friends are starting to use Coros..looks like quote popular now..

(12-18-2025, 09:54 AM)SPINMAN Wrote:  I have to choose between 1-price, 2-battery, 3-performance
@lalan45 Yes, there are quite a few options. I'm in search as well, though at a higher level than a simple tracker. I've had 2 Fitbits over the last 6 years. The latest Fitbit Sense is mainly for the variety of sports available, especially swimming capabilities. Fitbit was bought by Google last year, and the updates are not working as well, so I may go for another one or a Google device. Garmin seems to be at the top, but pricey. Samsung is looking good to me, too. Maybe a holiday deal or an after-Christmas discount.
There is another link here for you to visit on the same subject.
https://forums.bikeride.com/thread-9285.html