Page 12 of 44 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 431

Thread: Let's see your watch collections!

  1. #111
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hornsup84 View Post
    I was about to ask you guys -- instead of going G-shock or something, why not just go with a Polar and get a heart rate monitor strap? Actually more functional than a g-shock in terms of your intended uses, unless I'm missing something.
    Depends what you want. I don't really care about my heart rate when I am working out. I'm running a distance, doing a certain rep count for time, or something like that. I can feel when my heart rate is up. I think heart rate comes more into play for endurance training, for triathalons and the like. And then you start getting into wanting something that does GPS, etc. And now we have surpassed the price by quite a bit. I bought my G-Shock in PRISTINE condition off of WUS for $50. And I won't ever have to replace batteries (most Polar or other similar products have to be charged) and it sets the time every night to the atomic clock (which really isnt necessary but c'mon, nerd points). My desire was for something that can be shaken like hell, dropped, have a barbell knurling scraped against, sweat all over, get chalk in the crevices, and I don't have to think for a moment about while it counts down/up my time. Also, for as big as G-shocks get, a lot of those heart rate watches are even bigger. Just opinions, of course.

  2. #112
    Super Moderator LesserBlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,588
    Mentioned
    434 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2099 Post(s)
    G-Shocks are great when absolute toughness is the driving factor for the purchase. For a workout watch, however, I honestly prefer Timex Ironman for functionality. Their modules are enormously more user-friendly and the displays are significantly less cluttered and more legible. I'd probably wear a Solar 5600 G-Shock or something similar if I were a manual laborer or going into a combat zone, but for timing runs and bike rides, I will pick Timex every time.

    GPS watches can be pretty interesting if you do a lot of hiking and whatnot, but I personally find a HR monitor to be kind of superfluous. I find it easier to pace myself by paying attention to my own body signals, rather than relying on a HR monitor. And the calorie counting function is simply silly. I once wore 2 HR monitors at once to see how accurate they were. The HR monitors themselves were highly accurate (at least to each other) but one of them estimated that I had burned over twice as many calories as the other (900 vs 400 or something).

    I do wish Casio made more moderately sized G-Shocks. The only one that's wearable for me is the 5600 style. I have a Japan domestic market "Mini G" that is a good size but the actual functionality of the module is embarrassingly outdated.
    Ben

  3. #113
    Super Moderator hornsup84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Quoted
    970 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tremperj View Post
    Depends what you want. I don't really care about my heart rate when I am working out. I'm running a distance, doing a certain rep count for time, or something like that. I can feel when my heart rate is up. I think heart rate comes more into play for endurance training, for triathalons and the like. And then you start getting into wanting something that does GPS, etc. And now we have surpassed the price by quite a bit. I bought my G-Shock in PRISTINE condition off of WUS for $50. And I won't ever have to replace batteries (most Polar or other similar products have to be charged) and it sets the time every night to the atomic clock (which really isnt necessary but c'mon, nerd points). My desire was for something that can be shaken like hell, dropped, have a barbell knurling scraped against, sweat all over, get chalk in the crevices, and I don't have to think for a moment about while it counts down/up my time. Also, for as big as G-shocks get, a lot of those heart rate watches are even bigger. Just opinions, of course.
    That's fair, I have an older Polar model that does seem to be a lot smaller than some of the current models. Why they have to be enormous, I'll never understand (unless I guess you have bad eyesight). I'm actually coming up on having to replace the battery in mine, which is annoying since I have to send it away (they apparently closed down their licensed dealer shop in NYC)...

  4. #114
    Super Moderator hornsup84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Quoted
    970 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    The HR monitors themselves were highly accurate (at least to each other) but one of them estimated that I had burned over twice as many calories as the other (900 vs 400 or something).
    What do you mean that they were highly accurate "at least to each other"? I agree that kcal counters are a bit shady since so much goes into calculating that, and there's no way a watch can factor in all the variables and be accurate for all people. For example, I have a relatively higher heart rate than most people (even factoring in fitness levels, etc.). I generally use my HR monitor / kcal counter to generally guage my workouts' respective intensity, meaning they have value even if the nominal kcal outputs aren't actually accurate in scale. Limited use tool, but I like following it so I have some metric to see how I'm pushing myself overall.

  5. #115
    Super Moderator LesserBlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,588
    Mentioned
    434 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2099 Post(s)
    I mean that the heart rate functions on the monitors were accurate to each other - always within 1 bpm of each other when I paid attention. That leads me to trust the accuracy of the HR function on both watches. The burned calorie functions, however, were nowhere near each other, as I noted. Since I find it more useful to know how many calories I've burned than to know my heart rate, that inaccuracy renders most HR monitors rather useless for me. If I am attempting to track my data to enhance performance, I would rather spend the extra $ to get a GPS/HRM that lets me review my exertion relative to particular areas of elevation change, my pace at different points throughout a workout, and so on. Most basic HRMs only really tell you your heart rate in the moment, which I find not to be a very helpful data point in isolation.
    Ben

  6. #116
    Super Moderator hornsup84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Quoted
    970 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    I mean that the heart rate functions on the monitors were accurate to each other - always within 1 bpm of each other when I paid attention. That leads me to trust the accuracy of the HR function on both watches. The burned calorie functions, however, were nowhere near each other, as I noted. Since I find it more useful to know how many calories I've burned than to know my heart rate, that inaccuracy renders most HR monitors rather useless for me. If I am attempting to track my data to enhance performance, I would rather spend the extra $ to get a GPS/HRM that lets me review my exertion relative to particular areas of elevation change, my pace at different points throughout a workout, and so on. Most basic HRMs only really tell you your heart rate in the moment, which I find not to be a very helpful data point in isolation.
    Makes sense, thanks for explanation.

  7. #117
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    380
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    37 Post(s)
    The latest addition to the collection....
    Thanks to Joe for spotlighting it a while ago.
    And my wife for a great birthday gift.


  8. #118
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Johdus View Post
    The latest addition to the collection....
    Thanks to Joe for spotlighting it a while ago.
    And my wife for a great birthday gift.


    Nice. I would like to own a chrono– just dont want batteries. Eco-drive is a great solution, because I am most certainly not wealthy enough to own a mechanical chrono right now.
    I just got a nice looking beater for $25 on WUS. Timex Field Watch. Nice size, loudest tick ever, the backlight is nice.


  9. #119
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    The Collection:

    Rolex Yachtmaster
    Seiko
    Louis Vuitton GMT
    Locman
    Casio G-Shock


  10. #120
    Dappered Veteran Vicious49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Quoted
    562 Post(s)
    Just placed an order for this one. A bit on the expensive side for a quartz but I really liked the look of it. Plus my birthday and 1 year anniversary is coming up and the wife has been looking for a gift to buy for me so maybe I can convince her that this can be my gift.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •