Products I've used - Good-bye Garmin 405

This is my last weekend of owning 3 Garmin Forerunner GPS watches.  I'd been wanting to gift the 405 for some time since it makes no sense to own three of these devices, but had been conflicted about how to get rid of it.  Given their expense to purchase new, it seemed like giving it to a friend would be the way to go.  But given my frustrations with the device, I'd been unsure whether this would be a gift or a curse that I was passing on to said friend.

My Dad has been a fan of metrics forever and had been trying to get me interested in a GPS watch when I started showing some interest in running.  I thought the device he loved - the Forerunner 305 - looked ridiculous.  I have tiny wrists and simply didn't want a 305 no matter what it could do for me.  The 405 was new at the time (2008) and a much better looking watch to me due to its more standard watch-like shape and somewhat smaller size.  So I bought it with my REI rebate despite his feedback that it was an inferior product and unbeknownst to me that he had already ordered a 305 that was being shipped directly to me. 

My memory of the specifics about these devices is a little fuzzy from time and they are memories I'm mostly happy to let go of since buying a 910XT.  But I was moved to put them to paper before shipping it off following my ceremonial last run with the 405 last night.

L to R: Garmin Forerunner 305, 405, 910XT.

The strap's hard plastic does not follow
the contours of my small wrist very well,
making this fit more like a bracelet rather 
than snug like most sport watch bands.

The Forerunner 405.  As mentioned, this model looks a bit like a normal watch but is bulkier.  It has a touch bezel that is similar to that of an iPod (1st/2nd gen) which is used to navigate through the various menu features.  This device was pretty simple to use when newly out of the box.  The problem for me was that it was impossible to use once I was exercising because I sweat like a whore in church when I work out.  The bezel would respond in an erratic fashion, sometimes changing the display when I'd accidentally brush against it and most often being unresponsive to my attempts to change the display when I wanted to.  To ease my frustrations here I'd select the one view I cared most about and then lock the bezel (so it couldn't accidentally be changed) by simultaneously hitting the two other buttons.

This watch does not turn on/off so one needs to pay attention to the battery life.  It has a menu option to turn the satellites off which preserves battery life, taking it from ~8 h with the satellites on to reportedly 2 weeks with them off.  I won't pull any punches, it takes a long time to get a satellite lock with this watch and it seemed to need to do so often.  I used this watch very routinely when training for Ironman Lake Placid and would be disappointed to find that after running from the house wearing it (on a one way run from home to work, for instance) that when I turned the GPS back on at home later in the day for a bike ride, it couldn't find me and had to re-search for satellites though I was only 3 miles from where I had last turned it off.  I'm unsure this is reasonable.  

Two of the places I frequently run are tree-covered trails and both are places where the 405 would lose satellite signal.  Losing signal mid-workout isn't ideal but what I found more annoying was the message box that would pop up to indicate the signal was lost.  This error box unfortunately blocks the entire screen so you can't see any of the display.  This message can be cleared in 2 ways, one is to have the satellite signal restored and the other is to hit 'enter' to clear the message.  The problem was that locking the bezel meant I had to first unlock the bezel (by pressing both buttons simultaneously again), then clear the message, and then re-lock the bezel so my desired display wouldn't accidentally get changed.  Believe it or not, this was all a bit challenging to execute while running a hard workout and right after doing so the damn message would pop back up because the watch was insistent in sharing that information.  If losing the signal wasn't frustrating enough (because it meant the recorded distance information would be wrong), the darn pop up message would essentially ruin the rest of my time-based interval workouts.  

Given this watch's slimmer profile than the 305, I also tried to use it to time some of my swims even though this model doesn't have a setting for recording swimming.  The watch should be waterproof to 1 m (for up to 30 min - OOPS) but the bezel may not get on well with chlorine and it's possible I noted a decline in the bezel's performance over time.  

Yesterday, this watch took >3 h to go from zero to 90% charged.  After charging and turning the GPS on it took 10 min to get satellite lock.  Granted it had been a long while since I'd last used it (Jan 2012!), but this is still very much longer than the 305 took.  Data transfer is wireless via the ANT+ stick, which sounds nice, but I spent more than 1 hour trying to get the computer to recognize the device and transfer the old data, and another 20+ minutes trying to get the one new file to transfer.  It really is a small wonder that I never took a hammer to this thing.

This watch is awkwardly shaped and
 clearly meant for a much larger wrist.

The Forerunner 305.  This model is gigantic and uncomfortable to wear.  Having the band just a bit loose to ease the discomfort means the display would always rotate around to be facing the ground which is inconvenient when running.  The point is to be able to see the display, is it not?  My father swears these issues can be remedied by wearing a sweatband on the wrist and putting the 305 on top of that.  I disagree.  The watch still moves about and works its way off the sweatband.  Plus, this 'solution' doesn't fix that the watch nearly doubles the size of my wrist.  This is not an exaggeration - my wrist circumference is just under 5-3/4 inches, but with the watch it's just over 8-3/4 inches.

The 305 has an on/off power button and the first thing it does when you turn it on is attempt to acquire satellite lock.  This model also takes awhile to do this but is faster than the 405 and holds them much better.  In fact, I'm unsure I've ever lost signal on either of the two trails where the 405 routinely had this problem.  Unfortunately this model suffers from a poor programming feature in that it has to look for satellites first and only after an extended problem doing so does it ask if you are indoors.  At this time it's possible to turn the satellite off so you can use the timing and heart rate monitoring features during an indoor workout.  All the buttons require a good deal of pressure to depress which I find awkward to deliver while I'm running.  This model displays a message "charging in progress" when it's plugged in but doesn't give an indication as to how far along it is, which both the 405 and 910 do.

Pulling this out of a drawer after a long time of non-use, charging took maybe an hour but I don't know how low the battery was, again since there's no percentage of charge displayed.  Satellite connection was achieved in <3 min.  Data transfer requires the device be placed in its cradle and the cradle connects via a wire to your computer's USB port, but there is no problem getting the computer to recognize the device is present (unlike with the 405).

Still a bit larger than my wrist, but this point
is exaggerated by the quick-release strap
which makes the watch sit up a little higher.

The Forerunner 910XT.  I think the claim-to-fame for the 910 was the inclusion of a swim mode.  It's also smaller in size than either the 305/405.  The button design is more similar to the 305 but they depress with a usual amount of pressure and so are easier to operate than those of the 305.  Satellite lock occurs much more quickly than with the prior models (but could still be quicker!) and can be interrupted right away if you are indoors.  Somewhere along the line (maybe for the 310 model) Garmin came up with a quick-release watch strap which I use on the 910 to make it easy to move from my wrist to my bike.  This, combined with the longer battery life (up to 20 hours), makes this single device suitable for me during iron distance triathlons whereas I used both the 305 (bike segment) and the 405 (run segment) for my first iron distance race b/c the battery life on those devices weren't long enough to last for my long day. 

Pictured here are the Garmin Out Front bike
mount, the Quick Release Kit wrist strap, and
the attachment mounted to the back of the 910.

The Data from my run.  Below is a comparison of the data recorded by each of the devices on my run.  The 910 recorded a somewhat longer distance and there are various differences in the reported elevations.  Given the route I ran I suspect the 910 is most believable on this point.  The following day I took the watches to the same place outside to reacquire satellites.  Sadly my phone spontaneously rebooted during the process (proving that all electronic devices hate me) so all I can say is the 910 took less than 1 min (something like 53 sec), the 305 took ~30 sec longer, and the 405 - I was actually unsure it ever acquired them and gave up after 5 min.  

	305	405	910
Distance Recorded	7.74 mi	7.74 mi	7.79 mi
Elevation Gain	566 ft	683 ft	180 ft
Elevation Loss	574 ft	691 ft	194 ft
Min Elevation	49 ft	49 ft	113 ft
Max Elevation	177 ft	177 ft	234 ft
Time to lock satellites 24 h later	<2 min	5 min?	<1 min

What do I think would be better?  A still slimmer version of the 910 would be nice.  The 920 is that but has a bunch of features that I'm not interested in.  One is a larger screen which to me just about undoes the benefits of the device being more slim.  Another is a touch-active screen which I also don't care about following my experiences with the 405 touch bezel.  It also has a variety of other enhancements that don't interest me, such as additional swim metrics, the inclusion now of run metrics, inclusion of MP3 and email/text capabilities.  I know 3 people to have purchased the 920: two triathletes who love it and one runner who feels it's fraught with problems, not the least of which is GPS inaccuracy.  Either way, I can't imagine what feature it could possibly have that would move me to buy yet another $350 GPS watch.  The 910 does everything I need it to.

A word on Garmin heart rate monitors.

T to B: Classic strap, Premium Soft Strap (2010),
Premium Soft Strap (current, bought mine in 2014). 

In my experience, the classic strap worked great but because it was a tad uncomfortable I ended up with a "premium" strap that was supposed to be better; it wasn't.  In fact I think it's sharper at the edges and cuts in more and I have a small scar on my chest from where it chaffed me badly while running.  It also started giving wonky heart rate values so I bought the newest version of "premium" heart rate strap which is exactly as uncomfortable as its predecessor; however, this one

The back sides of the straps, showing the
plastic nature of the classic strap and the
plasticy business portions of the soft straps.  All
are powered with CR2032 coin cell batteries.
The battery is quick and simple to change
on the classic strap (open cover with a quarter)
and more of a pain in the ass on the other straps,
requiring a tiny screwdriver to remove the 4
microscopically small screws that are on the
back side of the oblong plastic part you see
installed on the front of those straps.  Let's just
say if you're using one of the premium straps
it stinks to be travelling and realize you need
a new battery unless you travel with that tool.

gives reasonable data.  All of these are sized for much larger human beings and I have to make the belt as small as possible to use them, and then when the elastic stretches (as happened with the classic strap) I have no more room to adjust.  I will be making the move to an IR-based HRM, either the Mio Link or the Sosche Rhythm, as soon as I get around to being interested in fiddling with yet another new piece of technology.  Knowing I'll be getting one of these one of these days, and quite frankly despising the way chest straps feel, I shipped both the older HRMs off with the 405.  Good riddance.

3 Heart rate monitors and GPS devices at once, for science!  

The white goop is Buh-Bump conductivity gel which I usually never need but

used here to help all 3 straps have the best chance of being read.  Even at 35 F I still sweat more than sufficiently and soaked all the straps.  This experiment taught me that I can actually wear the new strap at the bottom of my rib cage and still get data.

Race Report - Naples Daily News Half Marathon, Jan 2015

Flat and shady course through a neighborhood of cul-de-sacs which gives multiple opportunities to check up on runners ahead and behind you.  Nice crowd support, seemingly ample water stations.  63 °F and humid at race start the day I ran it (Jan 18).

First some (a lot of) running background

1987-1989

Field Hockey 1988.  
(Can't find any track pics.)

I’ve never been a good runner nor believed I would be.  I ran track in high school because it gave me something to do (that required no skill) and I was satisfied with seeing improvements over my own times even though I couldn’t keep up with the kids who won points for our team.  I ran the 1600 and 3200 back then and though on a team, pretty much trained by myself b/c I couldn’t keep up with the other girls and would quickly get dropped.  In my best race I either hit or just broke 14:00 for the 3200, which was a 2 min improvement over the season.

I remember having odd sensations back then, fierce itching of my legs while running, minutes-long sneezing fits upon stopping, and intense stomach cramping after my races.  I asked my track coach about some of this and felt a bit brushed off, like I wasn’t one of the cool kids and not really worthy of her time or concern.  It’s funny how such a thing can stick with you.  Looking back, I wonder why I kept doing it instead of just quitting.

2007-2012

2010 Philly 1/2 Marathon
(PS, I purchased this print 
but don't have it scanned.)

2007 Atlanta 1/2 Marathon

I’m unsure of what preparation plan I used for my first half marathon (Atlanta, 2007, 2:36:18, [11:55 min/mi]) but know the next two used carried-over fitness from other races.  Following Ironman Lake Placid in 2010 (a July race), for which my training focused on time-based volume over effort, I ran the ING Rock ‘n’ Roll Philly ½ in Sept in 2:23:17, [10:56 min/mi]; and following the Chicago Marathon in October 2010 I repeated the Atlanta ½ on Thanksgiving in 2:19:43, [10:39].  I focused on getting faster over the winter lead-up to my Ironman Wisconsin 2012 training by doing some speed intervals that I pulled out of my hat; following that September race I moved on to the Bucks County Marathon in Nov where I had a first half split of 2:03:14, [9:22 min/mi].  I think the moral of this recap is that tangible improvement comes from understanding and embracing that there really is no such thing as off-season.

2012-2014

If you’ve been following this blog you know the Bucks County Marathon did not end happily for me and that I earned an over-use injury of some kind training for it.  That was why I deferred my Shamrock ½ Marathon entry for March 2013 to 2014, but it turned out I couldn’t run it in 2014 either since I had a conflict with playoffs for one of my ice hockey teams.  Using my Broad Street 10-mile Run times for 2012 and 2014 for comparison (1:29:38, [8:57 min/mi] and 1:29:07, [8:54 min/mi], respectively) it looked like I was back to my pre-injury running pace.  And so in September I signed up for TriCamp and the Naples Half Marathon, wondering if I could break 2 h.

I had high hopes for this fall/early-winter's off season that I didn’t meet in large part due to a most unpleasant, never-ending and ever stressful remodeling job.  I can even quantitate the disruption: of the ~180 h of training planned for me between Sept 1 and Jan 11 I completed only 42%.  In fact, I asked to back out of the training camp, concerned I couldn’t run 13 miles and that I’d spend the entire camp’s workouts being dropped.  My coach convinced me this was not the case and I could not deny how badly I needed a vacation and wanted to put in some quality swim/bike/run time.  I figured that starting the run at a 10 min pace and finishing at an 11 min pace would be a reasonable success, given the circumstances.

2015

Alligator spotting after 
our recovery run

Friday evening of TriCamp was the first time since I was 17 that I’d done track workouts as part of a team.  We were put into pace groups and I was tickled pink to be paired with another runner.  For one thing, it gave me someone to follow without having to stare at my watch.  But it was also a boost that the coaches thought I could hang with this teammate.  Our first few intervals were comfortably uncomfortable, meaning I could do it but I’d rather slow down.  Then I felt the shift I sometimes do, where inexplicably running just seems easier.  By the end I was sprinting my butt off and felt fantastic in that satisfying I’m-going-to-puke-but-am-stoked-I-did-it sort of way.  This is when I thought I understood the point wasn’t to do well in the half marathon, but to eek it out on tired legs.

Race Day

With that thinking in mind I busted out in a full-gut laugh when I read my individualized racing plan on Sunday morning.  “Is this serious?!”, I asked my coach, who looked to be on his way to being irritated.  And I remembered the pre-camp pep-talk-email where I was supposed to embrace challenges and be positive and followed up with, “sorry, I’ll be able to do this in 20 min, it just took me by surprise.”  That sentence had a surprising effect on me – by golly, I was going to try to hit those paces, just like everyone else was going to try to hit theirs on equally tired legs.

I’m going to credit Emily just as much as Jack and Matt for my run.  I enjoy my coaching 100% but don’t know what to do with statements that seem ridiculous to me.  “We’re going to swim as a group for this” invaribly means ‘I will get dropped within 3 strokes and swim the whole thing alone and frustrated’.  I hoped I was going to be running with her again since we worked well together at the track and a quick comparison of starting pace ranges made me feel better.  She also confessed just enough skepticisim for her race to help me feel like less of a jerk for literally LOL’ing at my race plan.  For the first few miles, working to keep up with her or even keep her in sight helped to keep me from dropping off when I wasn’t sure I could achieve the prescribed paces.

The 2 h pace group [9:09 min/mi] was huge and crowded up the run path and I lost Emily and another teammate while working out how to get around them.  (Though I lined up in front of them, the 2 h group took off at faster than 8:50.  It took me ~6.5 miles to catch them and I used some micro-intervals of running in the gutter to pick them off one-by-one.)  After losing sight of my teammates I chose various strangers to serve as focal points and stuck to the planned paces pretty well, until mile 10 when I couldn’t seem to hit the end game pace.  I fought to not slow down, particularly after the girl I was following turned around, asked “where’s my friend?” and then sped off.  (I offered to be her friend, but I guess she wasn’t looking for a new one.)  I struggled past the well-meaning spectators saying, “you’re almost there” and the super enthusiastic daughter (?) who kept on screaming, “come on mama” at her running companion, and kicked it up a notch when I actually saw the finish arch.  Maybe I should apologize to the two runners I nearly mowed down in the final few feet, but after all that work I really did want to post my best possible time.  The participant in front of me changed her trajectory to step away from the man in front of her, and I chose to ruin their finishing photos rather than take out the camera man.

Cadence Cylcling and Multisport 
Epic Fort Meyers Tri Camp attendees

I’d been so focused on aiming for my target pace that I didn’t even see my overall time until I was lying on the ground after crossing the finish line: 1:57:06 [8:50 min/mi] - I had no idea I had it in me.  This was the first time I  (mostly) correctly executed a race plan, and if not for Emily, I’m unsure the defeatist in me would even have tried. Apparently, just as Jack has told me in the past, I’m capable of more than I give myself credit for.  

Water Balloon Theory for Female Saddle Discomfort

Well, I'd rather not say I've been spending my time thinking about women's privates, but after a conversation with a few ladies recently I guess I have to admit to having given this more thought of late than I'd like to.  The result of that thought is shared below.

Part 1 - What I've read about bicycle seats and women's fit on them.

Let's start where everyone does and talk about sit bones.  If I sit upright enough to firmly plant my ischial tuberosities, I'm sitting upright and not able to reach the handle bars of road/tri-bike set-ups - that is unless I hunch or round my back somewhere.  Sure, women's bike frames aim to help this, but I think that some of the thought processes behind the WSD concept, which have included: women have shorter torsos relative to their leg length; women may bend from the waist while men pivot more at the hips; women tend to sit further back on their saddles than men, possibly due to different distributions in muscle mass (ref 1) - are missing the boat.  Rotating our pelvises forward so as to maintain a strong core while reaching the handle bars pushes soft tissue directly into the nose of most saddles and is highly uncomfortable - I think that's why we as a gender tend to sit upright and farther back on the saddle. Personally, I want to rotate at the hips because this better positioning gives me much more power and feels more stable.  It's also the common positioning on a TT bike.  But guess what - this powerful positioning also completely disengages the ischial tuberosities from the saddle.  Therefore, I simply don't understand the frequent recommendation to choose a saddle based on a body part that is never going to touch it. (ref 1 = http://www.blayleys.com/articles/womensfit/).  

A browser search for bicycle saddles easily returns many results but seldom any actionable information on how to choose one, apart from reiterating reference to sit bones and that women have wider hips than men and may need a wider saddle.  An article on Cobb's site (Ref 2) describes a couple of trends they've found in fitting female cyclists.  The first is explained as a difference in hip orientation that results in some women having more prominent behinds but not a prominent pubic bone while others with flatter behinds may have more prominent pubic bones.  They go on to describe girl parts as being either more pronounced and exposed vs. being more enclosed and drawn up internally and have observed a 2nd trend between this and pubic bone prominence.  They've found that women fitting their trend tend to prefer certain models of their saddles and thus suggest one simply determine into which camp she falls - innie, or outie.  Sounds straight forward enough, I guess, if one knows how their parts stack up against those of other women.  The thing is, picture for a moment someone with an outie belly button.  It's only outie relative to an innie, right?  I mean, no one's belly button actually protrudes beyond the surface of their stomach - at least, not that I've seen.  So if you've never seen another belly button, how do you know which kind you have?  And really, wouldn't you need to see several to know whether yours is generally regarded as an innie vs. outie?  (Ref 2 = http://www.cobbcycling.com/articles/female-cyclist).

Cervelo does not produce saddles but have shared a really thoughtful presentation on saddle comfort that includes pressure point mapping (of a male rider).  (Ref 3)  This piece comes around to suggesting 4-1/2 rules for choosing a saddle that I'm mentioning because I appreciate their rational and scientific presentation of information, some of which is useful if perhaps you haven't already been trying for years to find a comfortable saddle.  In short, their advice is 1) wide enough, 2) flat enough, 3) firm enough, 4) maybe a cutout, 4.5) T or pear shaped.  Unfortunately, this didn't provide me with additional direction since there are many saddles available now with cut-outs and still not many offerings on how to select among them.  (Ref 3 = http://www.cervelo.com/en/engineering/ask-the-engineers/the-four-and-a-half-rules-of-road-saddles-.html)

Part 2 - Water balloon theory (volume and compressibility).

So now we come to my thought experiment where I was considering what happens when you squish a water-filled balloon vs. squishing a basketball.  To ease embarrassment, let's call the soft tissue 'the balloon' and the *sensitive* tissue inside the soft tissue 'the gem'.

What happens when you place the balloon on a firm surface and push straight down on it?  The balloon squishes out to the sides, away from the pressure.  I think there is also an increase of pressure inside, but as long as there is room around the periphery for expansion, a gem inside the balloon is perhaps not too bothered.  Now let's think of the balloon inside a snug box, so it is both on a firm surface (the saddle) and also restrained on the sides (the riders legs).  When you push down on the balloon there is now a dramatic increase in pressure inside and the gem is being strangled.  In the first case, a mild increase in friction may be eased by using a lubricating product (shammy cream).  But in the second case, no cream or shammy design is going to relieve substantial pressure to the gem.  

Saddles with central cut outs or grooves that run to the front of the saddle provide a means of pressure release.  But the amount of room needed for pressure release will vary depending on whether you're gem is sitting inside a balloon, or sitting inside a much less compressible basket ball.  If you're on a basketball, maybe a central groove/recess is sufficient to allow comfort.  Heck, maybe those folks don't need recesses at all.  But if you're on a balloon, extra work is involved in finding a cutout that is usefully positioned and both wide enough to allow for the displaced balloon and contents, but that does not result in a saddle so wide as to hinder movement of the legs.

Basically I'm thinking it's not just the orientation - innie/outie as Cobb suggests - or volume (suggested by Cervelo), rather it may be the relative firmness or compressibility of the body part.  Is this water balloon analogy useful?  I'm not sure, but maybe it offers another way of thinking and talking about saddle pressure points.  Perhaps a boob analogy would be better; well, at least that would be one way to get men to understand the issue!  

I know a variety of other factors can go in to what makes for a comfortable experience in the saddle.  Poor bicycle fit is likely common enough and often easy enough to fix to make it a reasonable first question.  Below is my saddle and bicycle fit evolution which aims to support that it isn't always just poor fit that leads to discomfort.  I wonder if I would have had an easier time of it had I known a useful and not-so-embarrassing way to communicate what I was feeling and if the fitters I worked with understood that not everyone benefits from sitting on their ischial tuberosities.

Part 3 - First Hand Experience of a 5'3" enthusiast who's been riding road bikes for >30 years.

I'm guessing my sit bones 
weren't in play here, either

My first 10-speed (circa 1982/3) was a Royce Union that I won off a 5-chances for $1 raffle.  It was most definitely fitted by ensuring I could clear the top tube after the proprietor asked if I was sure I didn't want a women's frame.  Ugh - with the big downward metal swoop that made the thing weigh an extra 10 pounds, no thanks.  It was stolen my first year in college (1989/90).  It's replacement was a Schwinn Caliente with 12-speeds and index shifting (ooh, upgrade) and lasted me until I met a couple of bike racers who thought my cycling enthusiasm deserved a better bike.

The 48 cm Cannondale (now I was up to 14 gear combinations with down-tube shift levers) was born from the extra parts graveyard of several competitive cyclists (1996).  I initially thought the hard leather saddle was brutal compared to the generic ones atop my prior bikes but came around to wearing padded shorts and eventually put enough miles in to condition my interface.  Putting in still longer miles however revealed how fucking stiff and unforgiving this tiny aluminum frame was.  The super short top tube also resulted in significant toe overlap with the 700 cc wheels which I thank for honing my skills in riding a straight line up steep climbs.  In fact, unless I used 23 mm tires (not 25 mm) the front tire actually rubbed the down tube.  That's how tight the clearance was.  This led another ex-bike racer to wonder if the fork was bent.  Either way, it was suggested again that I could probably be more comfortable on a different frame.

The Cannondale preceded the digital era
and is pictured here during my first century

I narrowed my choices for a new bicycle to two.  The Giant TCR1 (size small) was fitted with a shorter stem and seemed ok during my test rides.  The LiteSpeed had that perfect like-a-glove fit, was very comfortable to ride, looked sharp as hell, and was titanium (drool).  It was also unfortunately twice my budget.  I bought the Giant (2001) and spent years fondly remembering the LiteSpeed I let get away (sniff).  With the original stem returned to the bike I quickly recognized I was less comfortable than I was on the test rides but I didn't know which size/angle the shorter one was so didn't know how to replace it. The bike shop should have been more eager to help me out and I should have been more vocal about requesting it because I entered a new unhappy world of saddle discomfort which the women's saddle I chose (Fizik Vitesse) did nothing to alleviate.  

The Giant TCR1 had brake-lever-integrated
shifting; a nice upgrade from all my prior bikes

Fizik Vitesse, aka 'the fun ruiner'

Saddles with cut-outs were appearing but I heard they were a gimmick that caused pinching (eek).  I tried (purchased) another saddle of the same usual shape

Terry saddle resembling 
the tester

  

This is similar-looking to the 
gel-middle saddle I tried

(seemed there was less variety back then) with a central gel insert (can't remember which one but it resembled the Selle Italia pictured) however this offered no relief and I returned to the Fizik.  In 2010 I couldn't go on and was in agony training for my first full distance triathlon.  I asked around about refitting a bike I already had (vs. buying a new one)

and found a shop with a saddle trial program (Guys Bicycles

in Feasterville, PA).  They recommended I find a comfortable saddle first and then have the bike refitted after for best 

Adamo ISM Typhon

results.  

The first tester was a Terry (don't remember model) which was a wild improvement.  Figuring I shouldn't settle on the first one I next tested the Adamo ISM Typhoon and selected it since it seemed even better than the Terry.  Though comfort on the Giant was improved following changes to a much shorter stem, seat post with a different off-set (to move me forward), adding aero bars, and using the Adamo saddle (albeit slightly incorrectly), it still didn't seem quite right.  Fit aside, I also felt like I might benefit from different gearing (the Giant has 53/39, 9-speed 12x25) and so it was time to look for another bike.

In 2013 I moved on to a 50 cm Trek Domane with women's specific design (shorter top tube, taller head stack, with 10-speed 11x28, & 50/34 on a rather long 172.5 mm crank), unfortunately fitted to the saddle that came with it (Bontrager Afffinity RL WSD).  To quote the fitter (from BikeLine of Valley Forge), "most women like this saddle".  Turns out, even on what should be an appropriately-sized WSD bike, I am still not 'most women'.  That saddle has a small anatomical relief zone but its position is completely unhelpful (way too far back if I'm in the drops).  After several months, my tri coach refit the bike with the Adamo saddle.  

Bontrager Affinity RL Women's
'gender appropriate contour
relief zone' does not match
my anatomy at all

In 2010 the long and ample cut-out present in the Adamo ISM saddle had been such a welcome relief to the soft tissue smashing and tearing (yes, tearing) I experienced on other saddles, however it's still not the right answer for me.  I don't want to sit forward enough to have soft tissue hanging completely off the saddle (as it is intended to be used), and the thing is too bloody wide to sit on as done with most other saddles, though that is how I'd been using it (though positioned only on the front half).  (Zip ties void the warranty, which I don't really care about, but they also don't help enough.)  After 4 years on the Giant+Trek running concurrently with 3 years on my Cervelo it added up to where I couldn't stand the contact with my inner legs any more.  It was irritating my hip adductors and hamstrings, hindering my pedal stroke, and despite owning two of them, that saddle just had to go.

I ordered a Koobi 232T for the Cervelo (48 cm PC2) last summer (2014) after seeing an overlay of it with an outline of 'the competitors saddle' on an advertisement stuck into a race packet.  It's a nice improvement to the Adamo with regard to width between the legs, and with that adage 'the stronger a rider you are the less weight you're putting on the saddle' I find this saddle pretty ok for 4 h of riding.  Unfortunately that's not enough to hold me over for 112 miles.  I hope to fix this by finding a way to add more watts instead of having to buy yet another saddle.

(Ref 4 - http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/
bikefit/2011/09/all-about-smps/)

Intrigued by the design of the SMP saddles, which are even thinner between the legs than the Koobi, maintain a substantial central cut-out, and also possess a profile that looks to completely remove forward pressure, I decided to give the Evolution a try on my Trek via my shop's saddle trial program (Cadence Cycling and Multisport in Manayunk, PA).  For the first time ever (Jan 2015), I feel evenly and well-supported on a saddle, and I feel evenly and well-supported in every riding position: on the tops, on my brake hoods, in the drops, and even when stretched and lying on the handlebars as in aero position OR when sitting upright riding hands-free.  Oh dear god, where has this saddle been all my life ?!?  This saddle brand (like most) comes in a couple of flavors with variations in width, specific profile, and of course firmness.  I found this blog post (Ref 4) to provide an easy-to-follow presentation of how the various models relate to one another and ordered a Drakon after reading it.  That post also has the best depiction and description I've ever seen regarding how the pelvic bone structure sits on a saddle, and you should read it.  'Sit bones', my ass!  I'm siting on my inferior pubic ramen and loving it.  :-)

Conclusion - While writing this recap successfully offered me a fair bit of nostalgia, what I really wanted to convey is that many factors go in to achieving comfort on a bicycle and I find it darn disappointing that trial-and-error still plays such a significant role.  It's time consuming, it's frustrating, and it's expensive.  There really aught to be a better way.

Update: a newer post on saddle issues (here).