935 for a couch potato?

I am a couch potato hoping to get serious with running and general fitness. I am in the Northeast, so I'd run outside during summer / fall but have to use treadmill for about half the year.

What I'm looking for in a fitness watch: I don't wish to spend a ton of time fiddling with data, but I do hope to have a watch that is accurate (distance, heart rate, etc), easy to carry, and most importantly, one that can motivate me to move and work out. I have a FR220 from a few years ago when I still used to run, but it is fairly outdated as it doesn't have step / sleep tracking and other general fitness functions.

I'm an apple fan - I have been using iPhone since gen 1 and have been using Macs for the last 10 years or so - and I love Apple's philosophy of product design: I simply don't have to fiddle with the computer much, and can just get my tasks done. I don't play with apps: I have about 10 apps on my iPhone and that's it.

I'm hoping to get a watch that follows this philosophy too: one that records data and motivates me, and that I don't have to deal with bugs / lags / fiddle with firmware versions and so on. I don't need much of "smart watch" features, and I don't play with apps. It seems that Apple Watch doesn't follow this philosophy.

Do you guys think a 935 would fit someone like me?

The honest answer is no. the 935 is a sport watch, with its usefulness in its ability to utilize outside sensors and advanced metrics. In effect if you're a triathlete, a dedicated week to week trainer, someone that is doing marathons (and beyond), hikes in mountains and bike there too; the 935 is your watch. If your intent is to get a bit more healthy, you'd be overpaying for a watch that is meant to do so much more.

If you want something that motivates you while recording, honestly, go with polar, in particular the m430. Polar's ecosystem is about motivating you and guiding you throughout your day/week/month/year. They also support enough external sensors should you want to go further. If that's too much, the fitbit blaze (or really old surge) will do just fine. If you're an apple fan, go with their watch. It's doubles as a fitness tracker, does run tracking (and I think exercise as well), might be able to be paired with a chest strap but from what i've read the OHRM on the apple watch is really accurate.

And from someone that grew up on the east coast, you got more than 6 months to get outside. It gets cold and snowy, but it's BAD for about 3 months tops (dec,jan,feb). Come in the midwest in winter, all that is in reverse here.

Thanks so much for your reply! I'm wondering if you can link me somewhere so I can read a bit about Polar's motivation system? I tried googling but have only seen reviews for athelets.

I disagree - I think the 935 would be an excellent watch for what you are looking at. You can simply ignore all the features you don't need. I can highly recommend this watch to anyone - even if you are just doing some short runs, it will also track your resting heart rate and sleep patterns. If you have the cash for it, I think this would be an excellent choice.

Just go to the Polar website and have a look around. They'll have the information there.

To answer your first post though. If you like the Apple watch using it with Strava or something similar would work well enough. I have one and a 920. I use the AW throughout the day, challenging myself to complete all three rings every day. It has move alerts to keep me moving and the AW2 can record GPS data if required. But I use the 920 for all my strenuous activities - I will be getting a 935 shortly though. I do agree that the 935 is much more than you need and it is quite expensive. There's a plethora of devices out there that would do. My suggestion is that you make a list of 'must have' features, a list of nice to have, and then go look for a device that meets as many items on the list as possible and your budget.

Do you plan to use the watch just when working out? Or as a daily watch including activity tracking...

All in all the 935 is probably overkill, but then again... It's probably overkill for me as well (as I solely run, though am now training for a marathon) and that didn't stop me from buying and being thouroughly happy with it. So I think it's more of a money thing. If you can (easily) miss it I'd say why not. It's a very nice watch which does everything you want and more. It looks good, battery lasts long, the software is quite nice (although garmin isn't known for it's bug-free workings btw!)

A nice feature is the ability to load tracks and locations, allowing you to kinda navigate (or rather point) somewhere and have a sense of direction to go to.

So you absolutely don't need this watch, but I think it is a motivator and just very useful in general so if you can and are happy to spend the money on it. Why not.

If you are in great doubt, look beyond and perhaps go for a 735xt or 235... The 735xt is the older brother of the 935 and 235 is the simpler brother of the 735xt (not as multisport targeted).

I have no experience with other brands apart from TomTom (was very happy with it, great value for money, but don't really like the looks and was less advanced), but know Polar is indeed very decent software wise. I just like the looks and possiblities of the garmin more.

Talk of "overkill" is often a question of budget. As John above says, the 935 pretty much does all the things any other Garmin watch does and a lot more besides (well apart from the Fenix 5 watches which are largely the same functionally) and I would be confident that nobody uses absolutely every feature anyway.

In terms of motivation there are plenty of "simple" things on the 935 - e.g. step counting, floor climbing, calories. And there is the training load, VO2 Max, LT, FTP measurements for more specific running and cycling features.

The current equivalent of the 220 is either the 235 (with OHR) or 230 (without OHR) but then the 735 is better still and probably can be had for a decent price right now. The 220 was hardly a "basic" watch though and moving to a 235 or 230 may not seem that much different.

Personally I think the 935 is the best Garmin watch I have used and, if you can afford one, I would certainly recommend it.

Yes!! Get it!! I think it's a great watch for anyone and I am a good example. I started running in my mid-40s (I'm 51 now) and I was a total couch potato my whole life. I like the triathlon watches (I've had 310xt, 920xt and now 935) because I can do any kind of activity with them, not just running. I don't swim so much, but I run and bike. I started out slow and quit many times but now I run regularly every week 12 months out of the year and I am highly motivated by the stats that I get from the 935. I compete only with my own self and I love seeing all the ways I am improving, currently training for my first marathon. It certainly does way more than I need it to, but I also know that as I improve and do more my watch can do what I want it to. I also wear it 24/7 as my regular watch, activity tracker, smart watch and 24/7 heartrate monitor. I get the weather including storm alerts and rain advisor and I even have an app that I use to do timed stretching after a run. It's the best Garmin ever made in my opinion and if you have the money just get it.

Thank you for all the replies, guys.

I wonder, to take advantage of the 935 as a couch potato, what kind of external sensors would I need to buy (just trying to gauge the overall cost)? I used to have FR220 hence I have the very basic garmin HRM strap that came with the FR220 package (what's the difference between that and the HRM-run by the way?), and a very basic foot pod.

Is my HRM strap sufficient to show V02max? Are the new sensors necessary (what is running dynamics)?

Sorry for these basic questions... Whenever I search for fitness-related things online, I often find raving reviews about every product, and it's difficult to find hard evidence or user review.

One sensor I really like, but it's optional for many, is the Tempe. Much better Temperature info in my opinion than the internal sensor if you want to see that during activities.

Is my HRM strap sufficient to show V02max?

Yes. Actually, my FR235 estimates VO[sub]2[/sub]max even if I only use its built-in wrist heart rate monitor to track heart rate when I run, so I'd imagine the FR935 would do the same, although using an external chest strap HRM is better for accuracy.

Are the new sensors necessary (what is running dynamics)?

See https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/02/garmin-hrm-details.html for a primer, and then https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/04/running-dynamics-finally-gets-its-own-standard.html as well.