Latest news with #GarminForerunner570
Tom's Guide
9 hours ago
- Health
- Tom's Guide
I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570 — here's the winner
The Garmin Forerunner 570 is one of Garmin's newest AMOLED-screen sporting smartwatches aimed at runners. It boasts loads of training tools, Garmin's best heart rate sensors and a small smattering of smart features. Meanwhile, the Apple Watch Series 10 is perhaps the best full-featured smartwatch on the market today. It's also no slouch when it comes to fitness and wellness tracking. While the Garmin Forerunner 570 is a tad pricier than the Apple Watch Series 10, both are well equipped to keep tabs on your daily workout efforts, whether you're a runner, walker, hiker or prefer the gym. Each watch sports an onboard GPS and the best holistic tech offered by Apple and Garmin, respectively. The question is, which one is more accurate when it comes to tracking a basic workout? I decided to find out. The Apple Watch Series 10 is my favorite full-featured smartwatch in 2025, sporting a thin and attractive design, gorgeous screen, endless apps and loads of useful onboard features. It's also a mighty reliable fitness and sleep tracker. The Garmin Forerunner 570 is one of the brand's latest smartwatches aimed squarely at runners and outdoor athletes, boasting Garmin's best holistic tech, excellent training and recovery tools, a bright AMOLED screen and a fun, colorful case design. For this walk test, I wore the Apple Watch Series 10 on my left wrist and the Garmin Forerunner 570 on my right wrist before setting out on my manually-counted jaunt around Seattle, Washington, on the longest day of the year. To keep track of my steps, I clicked an old-school tally counter every time my count hit 100 before starting over again at one. With my left foot taking only odd-numbered steps and my right foot only making even-numbered ones, I trekked three miles before ending tracking and examining the results. In addition to the manual count, I also recorded my walk using Strava as a control for distance, elevation and pace data. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. See all the results below: Apple Watch 10 Garmin Forerunner 570 Control Step count 5,568 steps 5,542 steps 5,500 steps (manual count) Distance 2.99 miles 2.98 miles 3.00 miles (Strava) Elevation gain 216 feet 207 feet 212 feet (Strava) Average pace 18 mins 23 secs per mile 18 mins 28 secs per mile 18 mins 6 secs per mile (Strava) Average heart rate 128 bpm 128 bpm n/a Max heart rate 163 bpm 164 bpm n/a Calories burned 437 calories 375 calories n/a Device battery usage 12% 6% n/a Both the Garmin and Apple Watch were within 100 steps of my manually-counted total, an impressive showing for sure! However, while the Series 10 overcounted by 68 steps, the Forerunner 570 only overcounted by 42. Strava, meanwhile, calculated my total steps at 5,548. All three devices measured roughly the same total distance covered and fairly similar elevation gain metrics. Assuming Strava is correct here, both watches are within five feet of the actual total. Pace data also matches up nicely across the board. It's worth noting that both Garmin and Strava offer two average pace figures, including a moving average and an elapsed average, the latter of which is reported above. Garmin's average moving pace for my walk was 16 minutes and 4 seconds per mile and Strava's was 16 minutes and 48 seconds per mile. Despite the Apple Watch being worn on my right wrist and the Garmin adorning my left, heart rate data is a near match between the two, though Apple calculated slightly more calories burned during my roughly 50-minute walk. Finally, the Series 10 burned roughly twice as much battery using its onboard GPS to track my trek compared to the Forerunner 570. Before acknowledging our winner, it's worth pointing out that both the Garmin Forerunner 570 and Apple Watch Series 10 did extremely well in this walk test, and I'd gladly reach for either before recording my next adventure. However, the Garmin Forerunner 570 officially takes the belt in this bout against the Apple Watch Series 10. The margin may be razor thin, but a win's a win. Which smartwatches or fitness trackers would you like to see me test head-to-head in a future walk test? Let me know in the comments below. Until then, get those steps in!
Tom's Guide
4 days ago
- Health
- Tom's Guide
Could ‘Jeffing' be the secret to running faster? — I tried it, and here's what happened
A couple of weeks ago, I told you how I'd discovered Jeffing for the first time, despite running and writing about health and fitness for the past decade. I was inundated with messages from readers, some telling me how they'd 'Jeffed' all of their PR's, others asking for more advice. And I decided my dalliance with this run/walk method was far from over. With no races on the calendar for the foreseeable future (I'm still returning to fitness following the birth of my son, and have little time to think about training for a race right now), I decided to put the method to the test. One week I ran 10K, the next week, I 'Jeffed' the same route, and the results really surprised me — read on to find out more. As a reminder, for those who are new to the idea, Jeffing is a run, walk technique developed by US Olympian Jeff Galloway. In simple terms, you run for a bit, then you walk, allowing you to keep going for longer. 'By alternating running and walking from the start, runners stay strong, recover faster and finish feeling good,' says Galloway. As long as there's some form of walking interval from the offset, you're Jeffing. Instead of setting out for a run, and continuing at the same pace, Jeffing involves running for between 10-60 seconds, then walking for 30 seconds, from the beginning of the workout. The intervals are flexible — if you're a more experienced runner, you might want to increase the running element, or decrease the amount of time spent walking. As long as there's some form of walking interval from the offset, you're Jeffing. As mentioned above, I set out and ran a 10K on Monday, June 9. I ran without looking at my pace, and followed my regular route along the river. According to my Garmin Forerunner 570, I ran 6.5 miles, with an average pace of 8:09 minute miles. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. My average heart rate was 159 beats per minute (bpm), and my max heart rate was 178 bpm. A week later, I set out on the same run, but this time, I added walking intervals to see what Jeffing would do to my overall performance. I set up the run on the Garmin Connect app beforehand, programming five minutes of running, followed by a 30-second walk. Sure, these are slightly longer intervals than some run/walk plans, but as mentioned above, I'm an experienced runner. If you're new to running, I'd recommend a minute or two of running, followed by a walking break. The surprising thing was, when Jeffing a 10K on Monday, June 16, I ran 6.74 miles (to finish my final five-minute interval), at an average pace of 8:09 minute miles. My average heart rate was 163 bpm, and my max heart rate was 180 bpm. As well as keeping my pace and heart rate pretty much the same, I actually burned more calories while Jeffing, compared to running at a steady pace for the entire time — 606 calories, compared to 563 calories the week before. My splits were also more consistent. As I ran at a steady pace, I slowed down as I neared the end of my run and fatigued, whereas this wasn't the case while Jeffing. Split times and calories burned aside, I really enjoyed the Jeffing workout. The way I'd set it up on my Garmin beforehand meant I could only see what was happening in that segment of the workout. I didn't focus on my average pace; instead, I ran each five minutes to feel, and ended up consistently running a 7:45-7:50 minute pace throughout the workout. The 30-second walks felt a lot shorter than I thought they'd be as I set up the workout — it was barely long enough to catch my breath, and I was moving again. However, these little walking breaks allowed me to stop, breathe, and mentally reset for the next five minutes. I hadn't believed the hype when I started this Jeffing journey, but I've been humbled. Perhaps I'll join fellow Jeffers at my next major race!
Tom's Guide
5 days ago
- Business
- Tom's Guide
The best running watch I've tested for most people is $100 off — get the lowest price ever now
If I got a dollar every time someone asked me which Garmin watch to buy, I'd probably still need to work for Tom's Guide, but I'd be a lot richer. My recommendation, and one of my favorite Garmins ever, is the Garmin Forerunner 265, and it it's $100 off right now. The fantastic little watch just dropped to $349 from $449 on Amazon in both the 42mm and the 46mm versions. The watch has been replaced by the newly released Garmin Forerunner 570 as the brand's mid-tier Forerunner, but don't let this put you off — it's still a fantastic running watch to have on your wrist, whatever you're training for. The Forerunner 265 is on sale in both sizes right now on Amazon. In the larger 46mm watch, it looks like the deal is on the aqua and black color watch. In the 42mm version, the watch is on sale in black/yellow, white, and pink. Act fast, this deal won't be around forever. In Garmin Forerunner 265 review, I said it was the best Garmin running watch for most people, and I stand by my decision, even with newer, snazzier watches on the market two years later. The Forerunner 265 is extremely light and comfortable, with a stunning AMOLED screen, and it has a lot of the advanced training features usually reserved for Garmin's more premium watches. At the time I wrote, 'The Forerunner 265 feels like a more premium running watch and it's all thanks to its beautiful screen. I've loved having this watch on my wrist — it's slim, it's lightweight, and when next to my Garmin Fenix 7, it looks so much brighter, whether I'm in the gym, or out in direct sunlight.' Next to my Apple Watch, the Forerunner 265 is lighter and more comfortable. I wear the 42mm version, which has a 15-day battery life in smartwatch mode, and a 24-hour battery life in GPS mode. The larger 46mm 265 has 13 days in smartwatch mode, and 20 hours in GPS mode. Normally, it's the larger of the two watches that has the longer battery life, but it seems with the bigger and brighter screen, the larger 265 will need charging ever so slightly sooner. If you're training for your first race or just hoping to get faster and stronger, this watch has plenty of features to help you train better and recover faster. It's a fantastic gadget to have on your wrist, and at $349, it's a fantastic price right now.
Tom's Guide
11-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
I raced a 10K with the Garmin Forerunner 970 vs. Garmin Forerunner 570 — here's the winner
The Garmin Forerunner 570 and Garmin Forerunner 970 are the new stars of the Garmin range, and both have impressed me during the weeks of testing I've done with both so far. Both are among the best sports watches available, but both are also very expensive and there are Garmin watches that offer most of the same features for less. To help see if the Forerunner 570 and Forerunner 970 are with their lofty price-tags, I wore both at the High Easter 10K, a local race in Essex, UK, to check their overall performance and compare them against one another. The Garmin Forerunner 570 might be the best looking watch in the entire Garmin range thanks to its bright display and colorful bezel. It backs up its looks with reliably excellent sports tracking and training analysis, plus some useful smarts like music storage. It's expensive for a watch that doesn't offer offline maps though, which you get on the Garmin Forerunner 970 plus some design upgrades. For $200 more than the Forerunner 570 the Forerunner 970 offers a more durable design thanks to the titanium bezel and sapphire crystal screen, and it also has a built-in flashlight. It also has offline maps and extra running stats, though some of these are only available if you pair it with the $169 Garmin HRM600 chest strap heart rate monitor. I ran 33:17 at the race and both watches impressed with their accuracy — here are my key takeaways. The High Easter 10K takes place on open countryside lanes in Essex and as a result I expected highly accurate GPS tracks from both watches, which were both in the most accurate multi-band mode. Both were indeed very accurate, with the GPS tracks being almost identical and sticking the exact route I ran. The Forerunner 570 logged 10.02km compared with 9.98km on the Forerunner 970. I was able to run tight lines around most corners so I probably ran very close to the official 10K distance on the route, which has a UKA license as an officially measured course, so the Forerunner 570 was likely spot on. Both watches were accurate for pacing each kilometer split though, which is the main thing I use a watch for in a race. During the race the Forerunner 970 was getting its heart rate info from the Garmin HRM600 chest strap, which I had paired to the watch in order to get Garmin's new step speed loss stats that are only available if you use the HRM600. As a result I was only really testing the heart rate accuracy of the Forerunner 570, which did mostly line up closely with the HRM600's reading's throughout the race. There was one error during the race where the Forerunner 570's heart rate reading dipped erroneously. It also took a minute or two to get up to speed at the start of the race, which is something I expect to see with optical heart rate sensors, which aren't as quick to track sudden changes in heart rate as chest straps. The battery life of the Forerunner 570 and Forerunner 970 has been one of the only disappointments I've had with the watches during testing, with both draining rapidly thanks to their bright AMOLED displays. Garmin has actually already launched an update to improve the battery life of both watches, so hopefully that will help, but if you have the always-on display enabled they will need charging regularly. On race day, I used the most power-intensive multi-band GPS mode on both watches, and had the always-on screen enabled. According to the DC Rainmaker Analyzer, during the 10K the Forerunner 970 drained at a rate of 4.8% per hour, which would work out at just under 21 hours of multi-band GPS tracking. The Forerunner 570 drained at a rate of 6% per hour, which is 16.67 hours of multi-band tracking. On paper the Forerunner 970 is meant to last 21 hours, so this drain is in line with what's expected, but the Forerunner 570 outperformed its listed battery life of 14 hours of multi-band. One of the big upgrades you get on the Forerunner 970 compared with the Forerunner 570 is more running stats. These include step speed loss (SSL), an estimate of your running economy, and running tolerance. To get step speed loss you need a Garmin HRM600 paired to the watch, and it measures how much you slow down with each stride when you land. You want a lower score here, because slowing down less means you need to put in less effort to speed up again with each stride. During the 10K race my SSL got bigger as the event went on, which you'd expect — as you tire, your running form tends to get less efficient, and building strength and endurance through training is a way to combat that. This stat feeds into the overall running economy measurement on the Forerunner 970, which I recently unlocked after several outdoor runs. Both are interesting, and will hopefully prove useful over time — they're stats I'd hope to improve during a long training block for a marathon, for example. Running tolerance is the other new stat on the Forerunner 970 and you don't need the Garmin HRM600 for this. Running tolerance estimates how much training your body is equipped to handle that week in terms of mileage, based on your training history. Many runners use total mileage to judge their training load — you don't want to suddenly increase the total you do in one week as this risks injury. Instead you want to build it up gradually. What I like about running tolerance on the Forerunner 970 is that it doesn't just go on straight mileage, but adds the impact of harder runs. So my 10K race was rated as having the same impact of 15km of flat easy running, because I was working harder. Measuring it like this helps runners to factor in the impact of harder runs, so you're not just looking at an overall mileage number each week, but also how challenging your runs are, which will help reduce injury risk. With regards to the key performance stats during the 10K race, both the Forerunner 970 and Forerunner 570 performed well, giving accurate distance and pacing stats, and accurate heart rate on the Forerunner 570 compared with the HRM600 chest strap. You do get longer battery life and some interesting extra stats on the Forerunner 970, though you have to spend $200 more on the watch and then $169 on the HRM600 strap compared with the price of the Forerunner 570. Neither watch excels on the value front, even if both have been excellent for performance throughout my testing, including at this race. Better value can be found in older watches like the Garmin Forerunner 965, if you don't need the latest and greatest Garmin on your wrist.
Tom's Guide
09-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
Garmin's newest watches just got a battery life boost thanks to a free update
Battery life is one of the main reasons that many people opt for one of the best Garmin watches instead of an Apple Watch, so there's an expectation with Garmin that they'll last weeks rather than days on a charge. I've been testing the new Garmin Forerunner 570 and Garmin Forerunner 970 watches, and the battery life has been one of the few complaints I have with them so far. Both watches have bright AMOLED displays — brighter than on past Garmin models — but even so, I was surprised to only get three to four days of use from the 47mm Forerunner 570, and four to five days from the Forerunner 970, when I had the always-on screen enabled. That's less than I got from the previous models, the Garmin Forerunner 265 and Garmin Forerunner 965, so it did feel a let down even with the screen upgrade. Garmin has moved to address this with a free software update for the watches, where the main change is focused on improving battery life. Software version 6.17 is available now on both watches, though it's worth noting that the battery improvement is only on the larger 47mm model of the Forerunner 570. The update is live now, and you might have already received a prompt from your watch to update it — when that pops up, you just have to confirm it on the watch for it to go through. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. If you haven't had the prompt or rejected it at the time, then you can access the update through the menu on the watch. Hold down the Menu button — the center of the three buttons on the left of the watch — then go to System. In that Menu go to Watch Settings, then System, then Software Update and Check For Updates. In the change log for the update, it says it will improve 'expected battery life on watch face'. I'm not actually sure what that phrasing means, but hopefully the result is just longer battery life in general. The Garmin Forerunner 970 should last up to 15 days in watch mode, and the Forerunner 570 47mm model up to 11 days, according to the official specs. That's with the screen set to raise-to-wake, but even with it always-on, I wouldn't expect the drop-off in battery life I've experienced so far. Even with the screen set to raise-to-wake, I've found both watches have only made it to six or seven days of battery. I am a fairly heavy user, in that I run every day and use the most power-intensive GPS setting on those runs, but I'd still expect to get a week of battery from the Forerunner 970 in particular with the screen always-on, as I did with the Forerunner 965, so hopefully this update makes a difference.
