On the Garmin

I once read a fellow runner's blog entry in which she recapped her first marathon.  She ran a 4:08, as I recall, but claimed she could have broken 4 hours if she had been using a Garmin.  Well no, I thought, if you had run 9 minutes faster, then you would have broken 4 hours.  The Garmin had nothing to do with it.  It only served to reinforce my thoughts on running and how people tend to rely too much on the gear that goes with it.  Worse, I see too many new runners who convince themselves that buying a Garmin makes them a "real" runner.

I try to live simply, and that philosophy extends to my running.  I refuse to spend so much money on such a simple sport, and consequently own very little running gear.  I have two pairs of running shorts - one is just a pair of gym shorts.  I have a few tech shirts culled from past races.  I never get fitted for shoes or get my gait analyzed; I just buy whatever is comfortable and cheap.  I never run with heart monitors, hydration packs, headlamps, music or GPS devices.  My approach seems to be working, which my PR's on the right will show.

I have nothing against any of these things or the people that use them, mind you, but as I have stated before on my blog, these things shouldn't be thought of as the only way to become a faster runner.  Hard work in training will make you better, not a fancy watch the size of a klondike bar.

So guess what I got for Christmas this year:

Not only did I get a new Garmin Forerunner 410 (which appears to have more technology than the original Apollo space program), but I got a Nike +.

Having already set new PR's in various distances in the past two years, including a BQ, I feel like I've proven my point, and I'm kind of looking forward to using these new devices and seeing if they really will make a difference in my quest for a 2nd BQ.