> First, there's really nothing small cost about Bannister's stopwatch:

I was unfamiliar with the term and incorrectly assumed it was a common type of mechanical stopwatch rather than a ridiculously expensive brand of stopwatch. The fallacy is straw man, because my argument stated mechanical stopwatch implicitly as an inexpensive alternative to an Apple or Garmin watch. You effectively laid a trap for me and I walked right into it. Well done. But whatever your point may be, it is beyond the argument that I have made. I have no idea what the difference is between two expensive products.

> Sure, I can pick up the awesome Casio F-91W today for £10 and it would do much the same job. But for the modern day money equivalent of that gorgeous Omega piece I'm going to be able to afford a high-end GPS watch. There's nothing comparatively exponential about it.

Again, this is a straw man argument you have constructed in order to attack it. Regardless, it is not my argument.

> Accuracy requirements will depend on training context - if you're running 60 second laps on a track and trying to shave 1 second of your mile PR like Bannister was, then you'll be wanting a certified track and decisecond accurate clock. If you're training for the marathon and running 5K repeats on the road, a few 10s of meters or seconds here or there doesn't really matter.

The only running I am aware of that requires accuracy to the hundredths of seconds available on $5 digital stopwatches is sprinting races. Sprinting is not a cardiovascular workout but instead an anaerobic exercise. Regardless, the $5 stopwatch will suffice in tracking either cardiovascular or anaerobic exercise.

> I can understand why some people don't want to run with a smartwatch, measure themselves, broadcast their progress to all on social media, judge themselves against others, and so on. (I also don't generally judge those who do, unless they're truly awful!) I can also understand why some people would rather not run with any measure of time or distance at all. They feel it gets in the way, they'd rather just run free, they'd rather just run for fun, or they'd rather just race others for places in the spirit of pure competition. I just can't get my head around the concept (and this isn't the first time I've heard it), that somehow old-school watches are acceptable but modern watches are bad. It smacks of neo-luddism (or sometimes hipsterism).

Again, this is a straw man, a rephrasing of my argument such that it is no longer recognizable as my argument. My argument was that these extremely complex and expensive accessories become the ends themselves, they distract from the original intent of improving fitness, trading the natural incentives for fitness with the incentive of being entertained by a gizmo, which fundamentally is vanity. Beyond that, I speculate that it is merely the difference that money can make, and in this particular case, the difference is negligible and entirely arbitrary.

Simply be aware that unnecessary reliance on affectations will synthetically make it more difficult to do the same activity if the affectations are removed, for whatever the reason they happen to not be available. Exercise is its own reward, and there is little reason to replace that incentive with the need to be entertained by detailed metrics of past events.

But that said, for the love of serenity, please do whatever makes you happy.