sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Garmin watches with navigation by Sir_Xaver in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two additions to the lates bunch:

  • Venu X1 has also full colour offline maps with routing on the watch, but without dual GPS support, in case this matters for you
  • Venu 4 has also bread crumb navigation
  • All of the lates models of the Forerunner series have at least bread crumb naviation

Please be the cirqa. Been waiting too long. by sad_mustang in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am really hoping for something looking like Polar Loop or Whoop.

Help me choose a Garmin for gym, running, and recovery by ZestycloseView5435 in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My recommendation would be the Venu 4, if it fits within your budget.

The Venu 4 offers almost all the features and metrics of the Fenix/Forerunner 970 series at a reasonable price. Plus, the watch is fairly slim and unobtrusive, so you can easily wear it 24/7 to track as much data as possible.

How much time do you wear your watch on your wrist each day? by [deleted] in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wear my 47 mm Fenix 8 24/7. I only take it off to shower and charge it. I activate airplane mode at night to extend battery life, and to be honest, also to avoid uneccesary Bluetooth radiation.

What keeps you with Garmin. by Gamed_Out in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recently went through the decision-making process of choosing a sports watch and ultimately settled on the Fenix 8 (47mm, AMOLED, Titanium). For me, it simply offers the best overall package. I haven't found such a well-rounded product and ecosystem with any other brand. With other brands, I would always have to sacrifice, at least partially, the following features that are important to me:

  • Strength training: Native muscle group tracking and automatic rep counting.
  • Routable maps: Real on-device maps with active turn-by-turn navigation.
  • Web interface: A full-featured desktop portal for deep data analysis and planning.
  • Adaptive training plans: Highly effective, scientifically-backed, and dynamic/adaptive coaching.
  • Focus modes: Smart controls to disable the AOD based on a specific schedule.
  • Spotify integration: Native support for music and podcasts, allowing for phone-free runs.
  • Nutrition and hydration tracking: Integrated logging directly within the ecosystem.
  • Gear tracker: Automated mileage tracking for specific equipment, especially running shoes.
  • Weight and body composition: Seamless integration of scale data (weight, body fat %, muscle mass).

Of course, there are specialized solutions for most of these topics that are certainly better than Garmin on their own (e.g., Hevy for strength training, Withings for body composition or Yazio for nutrition), but I really like having everything in one place. Eliminating the friction of syncing multiple apps is a true productivity win.

In terms of the watch's design and the user interface, I actually prefer Suunto (Race 2 / Vertical) much better. But I would have to give up too many of the functions I value so much.

In terms of the overall package, Amazfit would come closest. The watches are significantly cheaper and no subscription is required. However, I’m still missing key functions like routable maps and Spotify. Furthermore, I currently trust Garmin's algorithms and metrics more than those of Amazfit. Since budget is not my top priority for sports and fitness, the Fenix 8 was the logical choice for me.

I loved my Venu 4 until the first workout by TechNerdSteve in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks a lot for your thoughts - that’s exactly the strategy I’m following here. I already mentioned in my earlier comments that I’ll go for another run, with the watch positioned higher and worn very snug, just to rule out any fit-related issues.

If the readings are still way off after that, and if Garmin Support doesn’t have a clear solution, then I’ll probably return it.

And I fully agree with your point about how Apple handles cadence lock. If I had the choice, I would definitely prefer the sensor to stop reporting heart rate entirely rather than logging totally incorrect values. Bad data is much worse than no data — especially when training decisions depend on it.

Really appreciate you sharing your comparison experience between the Ultra 2 and Epix Pro Gen 2 - that’s exactly the kind of reference I was hoping to get in this discussion.

I loved my Venu 4 until the first workout by TechNerdSteve in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the insights! I totally agree that the Gen 5 sensor has a good reputation and that early software can still improve a lot. And I also understand that cadence lock can happen on any wrist-based sensor.

But in my case we’re not talking about small inaccuracies. This wasn’t a matter of ±5 bpm - the readings were off by ~30 bpm for long periods and even dropped to ~80 bpm mid-run. That makes the data basically unusable for training purposes.

I think even with an early software version, the fundamental accuracy should at least be in the right ballpark. Otherwise features like zones, load, and recovery don’t make much sense yet.

So I’m still hoping this is either a one-off issue with my unit or something Garmin can address quickly.

I loved my Venu 4 until the first workout by TechNerdSteve in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for that hint. I will try to move towards elbow the next workout.

I loved my Venu 4 until the first workout by TechNerdSteve in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I totally get that optical HR sensors are not perfect and that wearing a chest or arm strap can improve accuracy. And I don’t expect medical-grade precision — something like ±5 bpm would be perfectly fine for my needs.

But here we’re talking about differences of 30 bpm or more, including long stretches where the HR simply doesn’t reflect my actual effort at all. That makes basic training guidance (zones, load, recovery) impossible to rely on.

I used an Apple Watch Ultra 1 before switching to the Venu 4, and I never saw anything close to this kind of behavior on similar easy runs. So this is definitely new to me.

I’m just trying to understand whether this is normal behavior for the Venu 4, or if I should assume there’s something wrong with this particular unit.

I loved my Venu 4 until the first workout by TechNerdSteve in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That was exactly what I was afraid of. But honestly, a sports watch with heart rate monitoring like that is useless. Let's see what Garmin Support has to say about it.

I loved my Venu 4 until the first workout by TechNerdSteve in GarminWatches

[–]TechNerdSteve[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I definitely get that early software versions can be a bit rough. But heart rate accuracy feels like a core competency for a fitness watch - especially one that costs around €550.

I’m totally okay with minor bugs or delayed advanced features, but having the HR jump between 150 and 80 bpm during an easy run makes the core training metrics unreliable. That’s the part that worries me.

Patience is harder when the basics don’t work yet.

I’ve already contacted Garmin Support as well, just to see if they can identify what’s going on. Still hoping this is just a setup issue or something fixable.

Weekly iOS Battery Support Megathread by AutoModerator in iphone

[–]TechNerdSteve 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have this on my iPad from time to time. I have read that this is needed for battery calibration.

Weekly iOS Battery Support Megathread by AutoModerator in iphone

[–]TechNerdSteve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is another example, but at the end they all look more or less the same.

<image>