I ran 5K with the Fitbit Air vs Garmin

I took Fitbit Air out for a 5K run in opposition to a Garmin, primarily to see whether or not Google’s screenless tracker might sustain on the fundamentals. It did higher than anticipated, particularly on coronary heart price, though the expertise nonetheless feels very totally different from working with a correct sports activities watch.

The check was easy sufficient. I wore Fitbit Air for a 5K run and in contrast the outcomes in opposition to a high-end Garmin Forerunner, utilizing the identical route round central London in heat situations. This was not a lab check and I’d not fake in any other case, however it was a helpful real-world examine of how shut the 2 platforms come once you head outdoors for a traditional run.

The Garmin recorded 4.96km, with a median tempo of 6:01/km. Fitbit Air logged 4.92km, with a listed tempo of 6:00/km. That is shut sufficient to be encouraging, significantly provided that Fitbit Air depends on Connected GPS slightly than built-in GPS.

The coronary heart price outcome was the half that stood out most. Garmin confirmed a median coronary heart price of 135 bpm and a most of 147 bpm. Fitbit Air additionally confirmed a median of 135 bpm, with a most of 146 bpm. For a small, light-weight screenless machine, that could be a very strong match.

---

Running with out a display screen feels odd

The largest distinction shouldn’t be the numbers. It is the texture of the run. Fitbit Air has no display screen, so you don’t get that glance-at-the-wrist behavior that comes naturally with a Garmin.

You want to start out the run from the smartphone app. In principle, you possibly can nonetheless have a look at your cellphone throughout the session for reside stats, however that adjustments the rhythm of the run. It makes the Fitbit Air really feel much less like a sports activities watch different and extra like a passive tracker that occurs to deal with exercises.

That may be good or unhealthy, relying on what you need. I discovered it barely unusual at first, as a result of I’m used to checking tempo, coronary heart price and distance mid-run. After some time, although, it was additionally fairly releasing. There is one thing clear about simply working with out a small dashboard in your wrist nagging for consideration.

Still, anybody coaching to a tempo goal will really feel the limitation shortly. A screenless machine can work properly for informal runs and background monitoring, however it’s much less helpful once you wish to regulate effort in actual time. Garmin wins that half earlier than the run even begins.

---

The Fitbit Air is sort of forgettable on the wrist

The upside of the Fitbit Air design is consolation. It could be very mild on the wrist and nearly disappears when you begin transferring. That shouldn’t be a small factor for individuals who dislike sporting bigger watches whereas working.

Garmin provides you extra information and extra management, however it additionally appears like a watch. Fitbit Air feels nearer to a easy band or pod. That makes it simpler to think about sporting all of it day and all evening, which is clearly the broader concept behind the machine.

On this run, the shortage of bulk was noticeable in a great way. I didn’t give it some thought as soon as after beginning. For a tool constructed round passive well being and health monitoring, that’s most likely the purpose.

---

The core stats had been surprisingly shut

The headline comparability is tighter than I anticipated. Fitbit Air got here in 40 metres shorter than Garmin, which is a small distinction over a 5K effort. An equivalent 135 bpm common and solely a 1 bpm distinction in max coronary heart price is about as shut as you possibly can fairly hope for in an off-the-cuff subject check.

That is a strong outcome for a small, screenless tracker utilizing Connected GPS. For the fundamentals most individuals examine after a run, specifically distance, tempo, coronary heart price and energy, Fitbit Air held up effectively.

The hole seems once you look past these headline numbers. Garmin provides rather more coaching context, together with coaching impact, train load, stamina, energy, cadence, stride size and working dynamics.

Fitbit Air retains issues a lot less complicated. The stats don’t go as deep – and in a way the smartphone app appears like it’s nonetheless work in progress. This is the place Google has some work to do. Fitbit Air can accumulate helpful information, and this run suggests the core monitoring is healthier than some may anticipate. The larger query is whether or not the app can flip that information into one thing extra helpful with out making the machine really feel overcomplicated.

---

The takeaway

I got here away extra impressed with Fitbit Air than I anticipated. Against Garmin, it was shut on distance and coronary heart price, that are the numbers most individuals will care about after a standard 5K run.

It shouldn’t be a Garmin alternative for runners who need on-wrist stats, built-in GPS and detailed coaching evaluation. But that’s most likely not the appropriate method to take a look at it. Fitbit Air feels extra like a lightweight, low-friction tracker that may deal with a run effectively sufficient whereas staying out of the way in which the remainder of the time.

That screenless design will divide folks. Some runners will hate giving up reside wrist stats. Others might benefit from the simplicity, particularly in the event that they largely run by really feel and examine the outcomes afterward.

For me, the shock was not that Garmin gave the richer expertise. That was anticipated. The shock was that Fitbit Air acquired the fundamental run information this shut whereas feeling nearly invisible on the wrist.