Marathon training plans - Why so many walk breaks? Other plans anywhere else?

? Anyone

I think that plan is aimed at the beginner who has never run a marathon before

Still... it suggests interruption of all long workouts even a few weeks before the race.
Anyway.... any other places with training plans that can be imported into connect?

Unfortunately there is not a way to import a training plan into Connect, nor does Garmin allow us to create custom training plans. There is a bit of a workaround, though it can be a pain to set up. If you add any of the plans available to your calendar and then add a workout to a day that is part of the plan it will ask if you want to add it to the plan. You can also delete the workouts that came with the plan. So in effect you can manually add all the workouts in a plan but like I said it is a bit of a pain.

Like you I would like the ability to import plans and to create custom training plans in Connect. If you want to you might consider submitting the feature request to Garmin to add another person to the list of those that want this feature: http://www8.garmin.com/contactUs/ideas/.

Those training plans are junk, you should also do minimally 4 days a week of training leading up to your Marathon. As suggested above, I personally build each work out, and add them to my calendar. I wouldn't hold your breathe over new features coming. None of the Garmin's are truly 'runners' watches. Their lacking in a lot of areas that become more visible when you are logging 130 miles a month at a competitive pace. Historically, the company uses it's R&D budget for new products ONLY. You're stuck with what you got, even if they sold you lackluster product.

@Tommy_2: Don't forget you're the one who selected the "lackluster" product for purchase. Even if nothing on the market at the time completely satisfies, it was still your choice whether to pick one anyway or hold off buying. The deal was never to just tide you over but improve over time on the material investment you've already made, so yes, it is only reasonable that "you're stuck with what you got" until you're prepared to make further material investment in your equipment, irrespective of whether the paradigm could be conceivably changed to favour the consumer's interests a bit more.

@ASmugDill: Actually, I did not 'CHOOSE' the product for PURCHASE. 2017 has been a prosperous year racing. My race winnings this year include a Fenix 3HR. As for me personally, I wouldn't spend more than $200 in this day an age for a running watch. They all have the same technology limitations and aside from the heart rate data, you can be just as competitive running with a phone in your hand. Lol!

One of my big contentions is these watches aren't smart enough to realize when they're collecting junk, nor is the Garmin Connect site. For instance, when I do open water swims, sometimes it will record my starting heart rate and sometimes it won't? In software development, a finished product shouldn't have an consistent behavior like that? Or I had several swims where the watch stopped recording my swimming (with my end in the dead center of a lake) while at the same time the watch continued to run and record the time as I finished my crossing. Okay, so maybe the watch makes an error. But for the price they're charging for these watches they should at least be able to catch these flaws when transferred to Garmin Connect.

GPS is still a very flawed way to gather data for pedestrian movement (run, bike). Most of the vendors have been able to bamboozle their users with dozens of features to hide this fact. It struggles with sharp turns and acceleration which is exaggerated even more with the smoothing (live massaging of data when it's unsure) that takes place. These really stand out like a sore thumb when you're intervals, none of the Garmin models can get better than around a 25% accuracy when doing stride intervals with a :25 second pickup to 5:18 (mile pace) or faster, then down to 7:55 (mile pace) for 1:10. That's an example from a workout I just did for my Marathon training. Usually, GPS takes a good :20 just to recognize any significant acceleration or deceleration. Even when you look at data from Intervals like the example I used, your visual display from the speed up and slow down will be at the exact same angle because it takes so long for the GPS to 'accept' the data it's collecting. The elevation is another huge issue, as there's not a person on the planet with a Garmin that is not collecting elevation data that's junk every now and then. Using Barometric Pressure can be very accurate, on one condition - it's calibrated prior to every run. Which of course isn't going to happen. For years, Garmin has been able to skate by with this being this way until they had to respond. What did they do? Added that feature via Connect to Fix data where you can check the box to fix it (they use map data that includes the real elevation). But in reality that was just smoke and mirrors since it corrected your elevation data but not you're distance? Note, whenever your elevation data changes, so will the distance of your workout (primarily longer running workouts and bike rides). It was a half-baked solution to get users off their backs. Then they added 3D Speed and Distance which was the first time EVER Garmin attempt to collect all of the data necessary to get an accurate reflection of your workout. Unfortunately, it's plagued with the inconsistent elevation data that I mentioned above.

As far as the being 'Stuck with what you got' comment is not relevant in the age we live in. With 'Smart' devices, consumer do expect updates and companies are responding. Take for example the Garmin Connect App. Garmin would've never released their mobile app if they weren't being held to the fire. That wasn't an 'advertised feature' on the boxes of items when they released it. Consumers have reasonable expectations that software upgrades will come their way when they purchase a premium product. For instance, the UI on the Fenix 3 is at best Beta. They took user data and polished it up a little and offered that in the Fenix 5. Consumers should expect that development trickle down to the Fenix 3, but it never will. Garmin won't spend a cent to remove the warts on older products. Seriously, a five year old could've designed a better music playing widgit than the one the comes with the Fenix 3, and the on screen data for workouts looked really classy but was way to hard to read on the Fenix 3 as well (for anyone that trains before the sun comes up or swims). Whose idea was it to put Workouts in the System? Or not be able to easily access the daytime clock on a workout (yes, I know you can hold the bottom left to get there. But if that was so 'logical' why did they add it to the data rotation on the Fenix 5?) My contention with these things is, it's not a matter of them making their product better. They didn't, with the Fenix 5 they made it close to how it should've been like in the first place.

The Fenix models do have one significant thing going for them, a rock solid case and that sapphire is worth it's weight in gold.


I think this is the time where I say Touche.ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1240729.jpg

My contention with these things is, it's not a matter of them making their product better.

It is, in the limited sense of making their current product offerings in the market more competitive, in order to attract the custom of prospective buyers and hence revenue. The more units of a model the manufacturer expects (or wants) to sell yet, the more it would be in its interest to enhance the value proposition post-market-release. What someone as a product owner today wants doesn't matter.

As far as the being 'Stuck with what you got' comment is not relevant in the age we live in. With 'Smart' devices, consumer do expect updates and companies are responding.

It's your prerogative to expect whatever you want to expect, but that places no obligation on any other party to accommodate or appease, irrespective of whether it is within their capability, technically feasible (or even "easy") and not financially onerous to do so.

@ASmugShill: Is that all you got? You could not defend one point I made technologically about Garmin GPS watches. So, you cherry picked 2 things out four paragraphs to take out of context.

Remember, I defined the word 'Premium' product. Based on prices, Garmin is in this category (which is Smart devices). How many times have you received an update for your Garmin watch in the last year? I'm guessing atleast 10. So, that's an expectation that they will fix things that are broke, right? The UI on the Fenix 3 sucks and the fact they completely reworked the majority of it on the Fenix 5 is admission of that. Like I said, it's not new and improved, it's how it should've been in the first place (which is how it should've been on the half-baked Fenix 3). Smart device consumers expect that. I'm guessing you don't have an iPhone where you're typically safe to assume you'll get a handful of free OS upgrades before your devices hardware is out of spec. The game has changed, and we know who the dinosaur in this conversation is.