Nike+ on the iPod Nano Review - Nike Plus Website Review

Yes, yes, I have a Garmin. So no, I don't really need to use the Nike+ system at all. But about a month ago, I bought a brand new Apple iPod Nano, 7th generation. I saw that had a Nike+ button on it, but I didn't really think about it, since I haven't had a shoe sensor for years. Then I noticed the instructions said you don't have to use a shoe sensor at all. It will work without one.

Wut?

So clearly I had to give this thing a try. How exactly was it supposed to work without a shoe sensor? I had no idea. Technical specs on the whole thing is sort of hard to find. Basically, it says it tracks you using an accelerometer. OK, I almost accept that. Although it also seems to work when you're running on a treadmill, so...what exactly is it measuring? Your arm movements? What if you have it in your pocket? What if you have it in a backpack? I don't know. I've given up on the science of the thing and just moved on to testing it out.

So, the Nike+ system does allow some calibration. At the end of a run, it may ask if you want to calibrate the run you just finished. You can then adjust the mileage if you know the Nike+ system has it wrong. I figured this was a pretty important feature, so I calibrated the system on three different runs before I officially started testing it.

Here is the first test - a 12 mile run through Corvallis. This run was mainly on paved, flat bike trails with just a few dirt trails thrown in. Pretty flat and simple overall.



And here are the Nike+ splits from the same run. Pretty basic, but Nike does provide your running time, your average pace for each mile and the up or down percentage change for each mile, compared to the average for the entire run.



So let's compare this to my numbers that my Garmin Forerunner 110 spit out. Now if you want to scoff at the numbers Garmin provides or that particular watch model, please be my guest. But it's as close as I can get to a "gold" standard for distance and pace, so that's what I'm using for my base comparison.



OK, the first note is the total distance. The Garmin has it at 12.02 miles and the Nike+ at 12.1 miles. That's shockingly close and quite remarkable really. An impressive feat for the Nike+ system to be that accurate on that long of a run. However, note the total time is not the same on the two systems - I walked a little to start and a little to end while I tried to get everything going and everything turned off. So there's about 3 minutes difference between the two...so maybe the Nike+ was quite as accurate as I thought. You can also see this in the pace numbers - the Nike+ and the Garmin have a few miles where the pace looks the same, but most are quite a bit off. Still, not bad overall.

Now let's take a look at a tougher run to track. Here's a run where I went up and down Bald Hill twice and had a total distance of 9.80 miles according to the Garmin.



And here is a look at the splits from the Nike+ system.



And then let's compare the Nike+ splits with the Garmin splits.



OK, now we start to see some issues. The accelerometer seems to have some issues when the pace/cadence changes quickly. Going up and down hills causes your form to change, your stride length to change, and definitely your speed to change and the Nike+ seems to lose a little in the translation. The Garmin says I ran 9.80 miles and the Nike+ says I ran 10.30 miles. That's a .50 mile difference over 10 miles, or a 5% difference. Now depending on how you look at it, maybe 5% doesn't make that big a difference to your training. Good for you. But that much of a mileage difference changes the average pace from 10:00 to 9:30 and that's a pretty big number.

And looking at the splits, it seems the Nike+ system has my pace WAY fast going uphill. Why? I couldn't tell you. I'm guessing it's because my upper body, and iPod, move pretty normally going uphill, but my feet are taking tiny, little strides.

I've done a bunch of runs over the last month and I can confirm these general observations.
-normal, flat paved run: Nike+ will get you within 5% accuracy and usually even better than that.
-odd paces like tempo runs or odd terrain like hills and trails: Nike+ will be probably be off 5%-15%.

Now the treadmill.

Yes, the Nike+ works, sort of, on the treadmill. It's not great - usually it shows me MUCH slower than I'm actually running - but it does work. Whereas the Garmin doesn't do squat (obviously) on a treadmill. So if you're just looking for some kind of numbers and aren't too concerned with the accuracy, go ahead and use the Nike+ on the treadmill. Then again, the treadmill itself keeps pretty good record of how far you've run and your distance, so why would you need anything else? Hmmmm... Of course, when you're trying to break records and win challenges on the Nike+ website, you wear it on EVERY run.

OK, the website.

Maybe it's just the middle school kid in me, but I've got to admit, I like all the fancy graphics and colors and prizes and trophies and STUFF that is on the Nike+ site.



I mean look at all this cool stuff! What time of day you run, your fastest records, your challenges against other Nike+ members...stuff, stuff, stuff! Of course they also have this Nike Fuel thing, which makes no sense to me...but I've almost got a million units of it, so...maybe I'll win a stuffed chicken or something!



Ah, but even here, the main problem - accuracy - crops up. Note that the shot above states I have a 4:41 mile record and a 17:25 5k record. Well, I don't have either. Not even close. My 5k PR is a 19:58 and I wasn't wearing an iPod when I ran it.

So basically, if you're running for strictly health reasons or for fun, the Nike+ is perfect for you. Hey, I like it for those reasons.

But if you need seriously accurate times and distances, stick with a GPS unit of some sort.

Boston Marathon 2012 Heat Test

I realize the rest of the country has been suffering from a heat wave for weeks now, but this weekend was truly the first time this year that Corvallis has had hot weather.

Unfortunately, I needed to do a long run today. After last week's Corvallis Half Marathon, I had taken five days off to rest my legs and my ouchy oblique muscle. But I couldn't stall any longer, so I did a short six-miler in the heat yesterday and had a 20-miler scheduled for today.

As soon as I woke up this morning, I knew I had to get cracking - at 7:00am, the sun was already blazing into our bedroom window. I jumped into my shoes, had a quick Clif Bar and got going just after 8:00 to try to beat the heat, but...

As an aside, while understanding that the Boston Marathon folks had it tough last week in the heat, I must admit I sort of felt, "just suck it up and run already." This is called "foreshadowing."

So I took off and felt pretty good for the first seven or eight miles. It was still fairly cool and the sun wasn't high enough in the sky to worry about - still lots of shade. Still, I had gone through my water bottle and had to fill it up again at Dixon on the OSU Campus during mile eleven.

Then, the second half of the run...

As you can see by my pace times, it got hot. There was no shade anywhere. All the uphill sections were in the second half. And I ran out of water completely around mile 17. I was starting to feel a little queasy right around then - probably not a surprise since I was out of water. I was close to home though, so I figured I'd just keep struggling toward home. Stopped at a stop light during mile 18, I was feeling really light-headed. Oh boy...

As you can see by my pace, I had started walking, a lot, by then, but I was still feeling terrible. I limped home, grabbed three glasses of ice water and sat on the floor of the living room for about 20 minutes. I felt awful. Then I went to take a shower and had to sit on the side of the tub for a minute to clear my head. It was almost an hour later before I started to feel almost back to normal. Oof.

Which is all a long way to say, "Yeah, it's hard to run in the heat, and I have a lot of respect for all those people that made it through the heat in Boston last week. Congratulations on a great run."

Running and Triathlon Links Monday!

Slow week, but a few good tidbits:

Garmin returns the "Moving Time" field to Garmin Connect - the right move

Another promising young runner, Daniel Vertiz, chooses triathlon over running - much like Lukas Verzbicas did earlier this year

A little video on the Leadman Tri in Vegas - the race comes to Bend, OR later this year...also results...and photos

Here are some athletes of note in the Boston Marathon B.A.A. 5k and mile - sort of odd to see Desiree Davila in a 5k

Look good, feel good, race good? - I know I'm always worried about fashion when I hit the start line

Some fantastic shots of Anton Krupicka running in New Zealand - running downhill on scree is just asking for a broken ankle

Very interesting two part interview (first and second) of Alberto Salazar by Amby Burfoot of Runner's World - he's got a book coming out as well

168

Garmin Connect and Forerunner 110 Problems

In other words, "Arrrrggggghhhhhh!!"

Garmin, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to slouch down to the lowest common denominator and make some changes to "time data fields." In their words, "more accurate and meaningful (and less confusing)" by removing the "moving time" field completely.

And not just remove it from this point forward, but remove the "moving time" data from all past runs stored in Garmin Connect as well! What?!?

Let me try to explain why this is a horrible idea. "Moving time" is a pace average that shows how fast you've run a particular mile with the benefit of removing the time where you were not running (at a stoplight or bathroom or collapsed on the side of the road perhaps). In other words, it's the only pace number that you care about. Why would anyone want to know the pace they ran with the 90 seconds added in where you were standing at the stop light? Nobody needs to know that!

Here's a snapshot that I had of an old run with "moving time" included: the only one I have anywhere since Garmin erased it from every run in the Garmin Connect database!

Note the "moving pace" and "average pace" were the same here because this was a race, and I didn't have to stop anywhere.

And here's a capture of the new data.

Note the slow Mile Two (stoplight) and the slow Mile Five (stoplight) - I'll admit the slow Mile Six was due to the elevation on that mile. But without the "moving pace" designation, how can you tell you were stopped at some point during the mile? It just looks like you were dragging ass!

Ah, but Garmin says, don't worry. Just set your "Auto Pause" feature on your watch. That will do the same thing automatically.

Yeah, I would, you bunch of geniuses, but the Forerunner 110 doesn't have the Auto Pause feature!

So instead of having three columns of data, and letting everyone choose which column is most useful, Garmin eliminates one column from the entire history of runs that anyone with a Forerunner 110 has ever done...and gives you no way to get the information back.

Here's Garmin's explanation about how they got rid of the "moving pace" because it was too confusing for the masses. Of course, they don't mention that Forerunner 110 owners are just screwed.

Well, you could go buy a new $200 Forerunner 405, I guess. Gee, I wonder if they thought we might have to do that?

Pete Pfitzinger Marathon Training - FTW!

Whew...just finished week five of the 18-week Pete Pfitzinger Marathon Training Plan. The long run yesterday was a 16 miler, in which I was supposed to run a number of miles at marathon race pace (well, who's kidding who, I was supposed to run 10 of the 16 miles at marathon race pace, but that just wasn't going to happen).

So we're now three months away from my goal race in Newport. Will I be ready to run at Boston pace in three months? Well, that's the question, isn't it?

I think I'm improving. If we compare my run yesterday to a long run (12 miles) from three weeks ago, I'm definitely getting faster. In both runs, I had five miles that were at a pace well above average. In the run three weeks ago, those five fast miles were averaged at 8:15. Yesterday, those five fast miles were averaged at 7:48. Which is good, because that's the pace I need to run the whole stinking marathon at in Newport.

So the speed is coming around. But what about the endurance? I won't lie, I don't think I could hold that pace for more than about eight or nine miles right now. Can I increase that to 20 or 22 in three months (figuring that I can somehow survive the last few miles on willpower alone, I guess)? I don't know, but that's the goal.

Sometimes you've got to put the over-thinking and worrying aside and just trust in the program. The Pfitzinger Plan has worked for lots and lots of runners - there's no reason it shouldn't work for me, right?

Right?

170