Lemi Berhanu’s reported Forerunner 255 use offers athletes over 35 a practical way to assess whether their current watch still meets their needs.
Lemi Berhanu won the men’s TCS Amsterdam Marathon on October 18, 2026. World Athletics reported his winning time as 2:03:33. Gadgets & Wearables reported that his representatives confirmed he wore a Garmin Forerunner 255.
According to Gadgets & Wearables, Garmin introduced the model in June 2022. That makes the model more than four years old at the time of the race. Several newer generations had appeared in the meantime, the outlet noted.
For athletes weighing an upgrade, that is a useful piece of context. A current race winner wore an established model with a substantial set of running features. The practical question is how well those features match the information an athlete actually uses.
World Athletics reported that Berhanu finished six seconds ahead of Kenya’s Nicholas Kipkorir and three seconds outside the men’s course record. That places the watch detail in a high-performance setting. The result itself remains an athletic achievement rather than an equipment evaluation.
The product report supplies a concrete feature list. Gadgets & Wearables identifies the following capabilities on the Forerunner 255:
The same report gives a weight of 48 grams. It also reports Garmin’s quoted battery life as up to 30 hours in GPS-only mode and up to 16 hours with multi-band positioning enabled.
Those specifications make the story more useful than a simple comparison of release dates. The device described in the report already includes location tracking and several forms of training information. Its position in an older product generation does not erase that feature set.
The evidence establishes the model worn in the race, not the role it played in the result. The reports do not describe Berhanu’s training setup or establish whether he used the listed HRV and training features. They provide no direct explanation from Berhanu or his coach about the watch’s role, and no independent test of its accuracy or comparison with newer models. This is an equipment report rather than a study showing that the device caused the win or that every runner would be equally served by it.
For ambitious endurance athletes over 35, the useful translation is a needs-based equipment decision. At Reendure, the priority is guidance that supports performance today and continued racing over the long term. In that spirit, a watch is worth judging by its contribution to training rather than its place in a release cycle.
The reported feature list offers a straightforward starting point for a review of an existing device. GPS, heart rate and HRV status are all on that list. Running power and training metrics are there too. These are categories to compare with personal requirements rather than a list that every athlete must use in full.
A useful inventory separates information that influences a decision from information that is merely available. The questions can stay simple:
This is a review of fit, not a demand to collect more data. An athlete who uses only part of a device’s feature set can still have a clear reason to keep it. Another athlete may identify a specific missing function that makes a replacement worth considering.
The reported battery figures illustrate why specifications need context. The Forerunner 255’s quoted GPS-only figure and its quoted multi-band figure refer to different settings. A useful equipment comparison keeps that distinction visible rather than treating a single battery number as the whole story.
For an athlete evaluating an existing watch, the relevant question is whether it supports the intended activities in the settings that athlete uses. The reported figures are a reference point for that assessment. They are not a reason to select a setting solely because it produces the larger number.
A stronger purchase case names the problem a new device would solve. That might mean a desired function absent from the current watch or a battery requirement the present setup does not meet. The point is to define the requirement before comparing products.
A weaker case begins and ends with the fact that a newer generation exists. Berhanu’s reported equipment choice offers a useful counterweight to that reasoning: an established model still appeared in a demanding competitive setting. The practical value lies in reopening the question of need rather than closing it with an automatic purchase.
The product report also lists an original U.S. price of $349.99. That is historical price context rather than a current shopping quote. It adds another useful distinction to an upgrade discussion: the cost when a model arrived is separate from the value an existing owner now gets from it.
For that owner, the comparison is between keeping a device that meets defined needs and paying for a change that addresses a defined gap. A purchase can be reasonable when the gap is real. Keeping the current watch can be equally deliberate when the relevant functions are already covered.
The same decision-first approach applies when weighing additional training features. A feature is easier to assess when its intended use is clear. More options and a better fit are different ideas.
For a veteran athlete, the desire for better guidance is reasonable. It helps to name the question clearly: is the issue missing information or uncertainty about interpreting information already available? Those are different problems and deserve different responses.
For example, questions about returning to harder running after a marathon are training questions first. Framing them only as a search for a different device can obscure the decision that needs attention. Reendure’s view is that technology should serve the training process rather than become a substitute for understanding it.
Berhanu’s Amsterdam win puts a familiar equipment question into sharper focus. A marathon winner wore a Garmin Forerunner 255, a model introduced in June 2022, according to the equipment report. Its listed features provide a concrete basis for considering what an existing running watch already offers.
For athletes over 35, the modest takeaway is to assess the job before replacing the tool. Keep the functions that matter at the center of the decision. A newer release is a reason to compare options, not an obligation to buy one.
Follow ReEndure for practical insights on endurance training, recovery, nutrition and healthy aging. Stay connected for new articles, research led guidance and ideas to help you perform better for longer.
Read practical ideas on endurance training, recovery, nutrition and healthy aging to keep progressing for years to come.
Read the Blog