I've gone running twice with the Nike+ SportBand. Both times were on a route I normally run during long-run recoveries. I figured the route is 5 miles. That felt right to me. But Nike+ told me the run was 4.72 and 4.69, putting my pace at 7:37 and 7:45. Uh-uh. I just didn't buy it. Yes, I'm still just 10 days or so from the marathon, but those runs felt faster, closer to 7:20 pace.
Tonight, I put my internal feel for distance and, more important, pace against Nike+ technology. Nike could argue it's not completely fair because I don't run in Nike+ shoes. Instead, I put the sensor in a pouch that attaches to the top of my Asics. Yesterday, on Twitter, I estimated that Nike+ was off .25 mile. My body told me it was a five-mile run to the Bridle Path, not these 4.72 and 4.69 miles that Nike said. To test the accuracy, I ran to the park, then started Nike+. I did the four-mile loop (technically, a USATF-measured 4.04). Nike+ told me 3.71 miles. I was pretty much exactly right about the distance. My internal odometer kicked Nike+'s ass.
It got me thinking about technology, something I write about quite a bit. For the most part, technology is great, even awe-inspiring the things it enables. Yet at the same time, I feel it's alienating people. We overlook the very simple things about life. It's why I was hesitant to add Nike+ to my regimen. Running is so basic, so elementary, so free of what Noakes calls "society's false privileges." My best miles in the marathon tick off one after the other, completely alike although unique. The times in the miles never vary too much. When there's a misplaced mile marker, our pack knew it because we had a sense of pace, developed with the most amazing piece of technology: our bodies. Bill Bradley, the former senator, was the subject of a great book called A Sense of Where You Are. The title came from the way Bradley, a basketball star at Princeton, described to the author how he always knew where he was on the floor without looking at the basket. He'd spent so much time practicing and playing that he developed an innate sense. We all have that, I believe, but we often don't trust it.
5.2 miles, 35:30
Monday, May 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
I find that technology can be a real crutch in any athletic situation. That you start to rely on the machine or the technology more than your instinct. Whether it's a heart rate monitor that does everything but sweat for you or an ellipsometer at the gym that makes it way too easy to cheat by grabbing onto the handlebars.
And if I want to get all cosmic and deep on you, that same sense of "cheating" probably extends into other areas of our lives, where we miss having an authentic experience because we're so wrapped up in what technology might be able to add to the party.
But since this is a blog about running, I won't get all deep and cosmic. And will end by reminding you that your Nike Plus toy will come in handy one day when you're kind of unmotivated and it's just the thing to get you back outside.
Thought I had de-toaded the old Blogger account.
If it weren't so darn big, the Garmin Forerunner would be the way to go - GPS = accurate distance, time, altitude, etc. The new one is somewhat smaller than previous versions...
At the risk of being a tech geek, it is a fun toy, which to the previous commenter's point may be important from time to time.
http://tinyurl.com/35cmyy
I think running is just less techy than biking, which already has all the gears and stuff. I give Nike credit: it has motivated a lot of non-runners to become (and stay) runners.
BM, the nike plus CAN be an accurate pedometer, you just need to recalibrate it. the simplest way is to go to a track and run 4 laps, etc.
I don't want to get to technical about it, but the chips are designed to fit into a specific position on the shoe that inhibits movement and allows it to measure the pause between heel strike and toe off. So the system is very dependent on being locked into a particular location through the pronation process and moving it inhibits ability to make that measurement. It's also pretty dependent on being calibrated to a runner's particular foot strike and typically comes out of the box calibrated for an 8 minute pace. So if you're not really using the shoes, and not calibrating, it's not really accurate to say that technology is letting you down - in truth you're letting the technology down by not allowing it to perform as it was intended to. Just my take.
pie1: thanks for the comment. Nike should probably put it its instructions that it's not accurate if you run faster than 8 minutes per mile. I can't find that warning. I get what you're saying about the sensor. In truth, the Nike+ isn't super-accurate within the shoe, at least according to Nike's digital agency R/GA. The head of its mobile practice told me the system relies on an accelerometer, which isn't going to be completely accurate.
As for calibration, I'd love to, but I don't know how. I have the SportBand, which doesn't have all the features of the iPod version. I'm not alone in finding it inaccurate: http://runningfromthereaper.blogspot.com/2008/05/nike-sportband-update-calibration.html
That runner had this to say, after finding SportBand registered his 6-mile run as 5.6 or 5.5: This seems to be a fairly major flaw in the Nike+ Sportband, as if you want to do some serious training over some reasonable distances, having around a 10% discrepancy (for me) is not really much use. Who wants to lose 1 mile in 10?
One more note, ple1: I love the Nike Runner Station. It saves me during long runs in the winters.
Brian, just for the sake of disclosure I'm the director of Nike's RUN NYC program. I just want that out there so it's not like I'm hidng the fact I work for Nike.
Out of the box it's 90% accurate and set for 8 minute pace but it's designed so that every runner can make it work for their particular cadence by calibrating it.
Really easy to do. Go to a track or any measured distance. Run it. Plug the receiver in and when the program pops up click the "I" button then the calibration tab. Then you can change the distance of your last run to match what it really was.
What you're really doing is changing the equation that the device uses to measure distance. It does use an accelerometer (one axis accelerometer if you want to get technical,) and that's basically measuring the split second pause your foot goes through as you go through the pronation process.
It uses those as book marks and uses it to measure the amount of time between those two points. Then it runs that through and equation and comes out with: if an average runner's foot took X amount of time between those pauses that means that it traveled Y distance.
So calibrating it changes the Y in the equation, which is what your particular stride is.
But you're right, it's never going to be 100% accurate. And if "to the foot" accuracy is what you're after a $60 device isn't the answer. But my calibrated band is about 94% accurate (steals about .01 miles per 1/4 on the track), and that's close enough for what I need it for.
So I guess I'll be seeing you at the Station tomorrow at 6PM for the run? If so I'll mark off a mile for you so you can calibrate on the run.
Ple1,
Thanks for taking the time to explain that. I might do a follow-up post after I try calibrating. In my full disclosure, I write about digital advertising, so I look at this from an interesting lens. Is Nike overpromising? Why not say, "Look, for $60, you're not going to get accuracy." A lot of companies overpromise. I guess Nike didn't promise me accuracy, but I kind of expect it. What is acceptable? It seems, for you, 6% is OK. I could live w that, but I'm guessing it'll end up closer to 10 percent. It fits with my overall feeling that Nike is really just after the casual runners and non-runners wanting motivation. That's awesome, and simply smart from a business sense, but something like this won't appeal to experienced runners unless its accuracy is improved. My two cents.
I hope to check out one of the runs sometime. Again, I think Runner Station is incredible. I've used it in a presentation about "the future of advertising" as the exact way companies need to build connections with consumers through useful services.
1. I think it's great that a rep from Nike came to your blog to explain the product and to offer up advice on how to calibrate it.
2. I hope ple1's next step is to let the powers that be at Nike know that that information should be more readily available to consumers- probably right there in the box, as Brian suggested.
3. An "accelerometer" sounds like something the Joker or the Riddler would use to try and destroy Gotham City.
Post a Comment