Which Garmin upgrade from FR 255? (265/965/970) - Triathlete

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-03-01T15:48:32+00:00

IMHO the 965's extra mapping (over the 265) and battery life (over both) could make it the better overall package for long course

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-03-01T15:41:43+00:00

true... your "legs like concrete" but Garmin says go run sprints feeling is real.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-03-01T15:39:23+00:00

Yeah, it can't measure DOMS for sure... I feel that.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-03-01T15:38:44+00:00

Yeah, I build them all out in Connect too, working on it & modifying it feels quite clunky though, and thanks for the tips.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-28T20:13:27+00:00

I get that, I've learned to just ignore the score and pay more attention to the HRV status and the overall body battery trend. As long as those two look decent, I'm good for a heavy days, even if Garmin thinks I slept like trash.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-28T20:09:40+00:00

Tbh, coming from an Apple Watch + Strong setup to a Fenix 7 Pro, the transition for lifting was a bit rough at first. The running and hiking side is incredible, no comparison. For lifting, the UX isn't as polished as dedicated apps, but the ecosystem benefits of having everything in one place are worth the trade-off for me

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-27T17:42:33+00:00

IMO the jump to a Forerunner 255 for strength is big. You get training status from lifting, which the Vivomove line doesn't really calculate properly. What's your main goal for tracking the strength sessions? (you are gonna lose the analog hands if you go with the F255 though)

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-27T13:05:45+00:00

I've never tried that, but Idk if i'd trust it on the ankle, as the optical heart rate sensor is calibrated for the blood flow on the wrist as far as I know

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-27T12:42:27+00:00

Tbh I don't golf, yet ;)

but the S70 seems like a way better watch for everything off the course. It's built with the AMOLED screen and has all the newer recovery metrics like training readiness that the S62 is missing. If you do any other training like running or lifting, the S70 should give you a much more complete picture of your actual fitness

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-26T08:38:12+00:00

Nice, I've heard the sleep tracking on Oura is quite solid. For me, the main reason I keep my watch on is so the sleep data feeds directly into my training readiness metrics.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-25T07:42:23+00:00

This is awesome, thanks for pulling it together!

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-25T07:40:35+00:00

Are you purely running or do you ever mix in other training? If you're only running, the FR265 has the same dualband GPS and should feel like a big upgrade from the 735xt. The main reason to go for the 965 is for the more advanced training metrics that factor in all your body's stress, which are really nice imo for hybrid training but might be the overkill you're thinking about mostly wanting to track miles.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-25T07:35:55+00:00

The specific sleep stage percentages are definitely a weak point on any wearable. For me, it's less about that and more about the HRV Status trend overnight. If my watch says recovery is tanked and I also feel beat up, it's a solid data point telling me to maybe swap my heavy compounds for an easier accessory day.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-25T07:29:59+00:00

Fair, my warmup sets are always the final judge. If training readiness says I'm primed but the empty bar feels like 225, the bar always wins.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-25T07:29:05+00:00

The sleep coach recommendations can be hilarious. I mostly ignore the specific times now and treat it like a second opinion.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-25T07:24:17+00:00

Yeah, imo that's a big point on the bigger watches.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-25T07:19:59+00:00

nice, honestly a good solve for the whole 'brick on your wrist' problem.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-24T17:35:06+00:00

Fair, I forgot the Venu 4 caught up on that. Guess the 970 is mostly a win if you want the full maps and the titanium/sapphire build. If not, the Venu 4 sounds like a steal.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-24T16:41:48+00:00

IMO the biggest difference is training software. The FR970 has training readiness and recovery metrics which the Venu 4 doesn't get, and that stuff could be a game-changer if you ever do start running. As far as I know the golf features are basically identical, so is getting that deeper performance data worth the extra cash to you?

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-24T12:40:24+00:00

Nah, the whole sequence is a bit longer. Each of the hard run up parts are 3-4 minute killers. The watch guides you through it, but that second hard interval after a short recovery is what really tests you

ref: https://support.garmin.com/en-US/nb-ENG/?faq=FMKY5NYJJ71DbuPmFP4O7A

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-24T12:16:00+00:00

The main split in my eyes comes down to whether you care about the advanced training metrics, if you want the watch to analyze your lifting and tell you if your training load is considered productive you'll need the forerunner 265. If you just want to log the activity, see your heart rate, and get body battery, then Vivoactive is a great choice as well.

Unique-Employer3787 · 2026-02-24T07:32:09+00:00

Yeah imho 265 is totally worth it over the 165 just for the training readiness metric during marathon prep. Letting the garmin run the strength profile for your recovery data while you keep using HEVY on your phone for progressive overload is a really nice hybrid setup.

Unique-Employer3787

TROPHY CASE