Nike+iPod Only for Fitness Runners

Loved the article; great job collecting and disseminating the data. I, too, have the Nike+iPod kit, and am a fitness runner, so take this for what you will.

I have one main qualm with the kit, stopping a run is entirely too difficult. You should be able to simply press one button to stop the workout (or even press the fast-forward button to being a new lap), but instead you have to navigate a menu to do what you want. That makes no sense when you're on a run.

My personal experience with the accuracy has been different. I never calibrated the kit (I figured if I had problems with it I'd do it later), and have have had ~95% accuracy in 35 runs. I've definitely noticed that the pace affects the measured distance, as well as the length of the stride, but even with these factors I've had good overall accuracy.

I'm happy with the product as it is, but I have pretty different goals. In any case, I hope you find a tool that helps you!

-Daniel

Adam

Like yourself I am both a fitness and computer enthusiast. However I tested and calibrated the Nike + iPod with both a Marware pouch on a normal set of running shoes and on a set of Nike + iPod shoes. The results were quite different.

While embedded inside the proper Nike shoes, the results were exceedingly accurate before calibration (a bit more than 1% out) and even more so afterwards (a bit less than 1%) - for both walking and running. However after taking the Nike sensor out and placing it in a Marware pouch and attaching it to the top of another pair of runners the distance measured was over 25% out. It would appear that the placement in a genuine Nike + iPod shoe compared to above the shoe in a pouch dramatically effects the sensitivity of measurement of the sensor and/or it's transmission to the iPod.

Not wishing to calibrate the sensor every time I change shoes I simply run with it in the Nike shoes and am very happy with the accuracy and results.

You really should have tested the recommended configuration. And I reckon you are pretty fussy about shoe and model selection. Unless you are being sponsored by someone and have to use their products, pretty much all of the name brand manufacturers make a shoe somewhere in their range that will suit almost anyone.

Regards Mike

Like yourself I am both a fitness and computer enthusiast. However I tested and calibrated the Nike + iPod with both a Marware pouch on a normal set of running shoes and on a set of Nike + iPod shoes. The results were quite different.

Fascinating...

While embedded inside the proper Nike shoes, the results were exceedingly accurate before calibration (a bit more than 1% out) and even more so afterwards (a bit less than 1%) - for both walking and running. However after taking the Nike sensor out and placing it in a Marware pouch and attaching it to the top of another pair of runners the distance measured was over 25% out. It would appear that the placement in a genuine Nike + iPod shoe compared to above the shoe in a pouch dramatically effects the sensitivity of measurement of the sensor and/or it's transmission to the iPod.

Did you try calibrating the sensor after switching it to the Marware pouch? I could easily see it being somewhat different in the two locations, though it would seem as though calibration should solve that.

I've also now heard from a Marware competitor who claims their pouch works better because it's more firmly attached.

Not wishing to calibrate the sensor every time I change shoes I simply run with it in the Nike shoes and am very happy with the accuracy and results.

How do you work around the physical awkwardness of controlling the iPod while running? And the problem of it not including a lap counter?

You really should have tested the recommended configuration. And I reckon you are pretty fussy about shoe and model selection.

Yeah, I've had some bad experiences with Nike shoes in the past, so I won't wear them.

Unless you are being sponsored by someone and have to use their products,

I'm nowhere near that good. :-) I can win the occasional 5K and trail race, but there are at least 5 or 6 local runners who are faster than I am, and that's not even counting the members of the local college teams.

pretty much all of the name brand manufacturers make a shoe somewhere in their range that will suit almost anyone.

In theory, yes, though my experience has been that different manufacturers have rather different feels to their shoes. I'm wearing Mizuno Wave Inspires now, and have had decent luck with Asics (though the last pair was too narrow in the forefoot) and Saucony in the past. It's bad enough that the manufacturers keep making models obsolete; at least there's some consistency when you stay in the same manufacturer's models.

cheers... -Adam

-- #3 in MDJ Power 25! .............. http://db.tidbits.com/article/8594 Also in MacTech 25! .............. http://db.tidbits.com/article/8603 _____________________________________________________________________ Adam C. Engst: I publish TidBITS, write books, and make sure the acetidbits.com right people know each other in the Mac industry. Me: http://www.tidbits.com/adam/ TidBITS: http://www.tidbits.com/

Adam

I'm not a runner, but my brief brushes with transducer engineering in the past would suggest that you are likely to get problems and inconsistent results unless the accelerometer (if such it is) is very firmly coupled with the shoe. If not, all sorts of secondary signals could be generated, and as we are probably not talking about state of the art signal processing technology here, these are likely to result in incorrect readings. This is on top of errors introduced by variation in stride length over varying ground which I'm familiar with from trying to calibrate pedometers for long-distance walking.

I see that the description of this device on the Apple Store says 'Insert the wireless sensor inside the custom, built-in pocket beneath the insole of your Nike+ shoe.' I would guess that merely tacking the sensor to the outside of the shoe would not give the same results. It would be interesting to see the results of your trial with an old pair of shoes.

Best wishes

--
Steve

Another possible source of inaccuracy is the iPod's clock. I've been
jogging on a treadmill this winter, and over the course of a 30
minute run the Nike+iPod clock will be 10-20 seconds slower than the
treadmill's. Of course it might be the treadmill's clock that's fast.

The iPod will also show me going 10-20% farther, and I figure the
treadmill should know exactly how far its belt has moved, but the
iPod numbers are definitely more flattering :).
--
Jim Matthews
Fetch Softworks
http://fetchsoftworks.com

At 12:15 PM -0700 3/12/07, Dr Andrew Pearce wrote:
>As you said, the iPod kit looks like a reasonable investment in
>principle and certainly has its place, but a buyer should be aware of
>its potential shortcomings. I'd guess that if you calibrate the unit
>properly, check calibration often and (importantly) can run like a
>metronome, then all should be well.

Indeed - and in fact, I'll bet most fitness-only runners do run at
the same pace most of the time, and probably don't run serious hills
more than necessary. And of course, the real fact of the matter is
that fitness runners probably don't care if the accuracy is off by a
few percent, whereas someone trying to compare paces between two
all-out 5K races might care quite a lot.

At 12:20 PM -0700 3/12/07, Daniel Larsen wrote:
>I have one main qualm with the kit, stopping a run is entirely too
>difficult. You should be able to simply press one button to stop the
>workout (or even press the fast-forward button to being a new lap),
>but instead you have to navigate a menu to do what you want. That
>makes no sense when you're on a run.

That's absolutely true - the controls are just awkward. In some
respects, this isn't anyone's fault; an interface design that works
for a sleek little music player won't necessarily work for someone
who's attempting to press buttons while running.

Garmin has a feature in at least the Forerunner 201 where it stops
recording time when you stop moving. Because the satellite locks
aren't very good, the feature doesn't work very well, but it's the
kind of thing I'd love to see be developed better. If I could set a
pace below which no distance should be recorded, the device could not
only capture only my running, but it could automatically do some laps
(with a little lack of accuracy, because it takes some time to slow
down after crossing the finish line in a hard sprint interval).

cheers... -Adam

>> I have one main qualm with the kit, stopping a run is entirely too
>> difficult. You should be able to simply press one button...
>
> That's absolutely true - the controls are just awkward. ...
>
> Garmin has a feature in at least the Forerunner 201 where it stops
> recording time when you stop moving...

The iPhone should be able to process all of this much better? AND send
it to your Mac for a readout as you get home.

George

Jim Matthews wrote:
> Another possible source of inaccuracy is the iPod's clock. ...
>
> The iPod will also show me going 10-20% farther, ...but the
> iPod numbers are definitely more flattering :).

When I started my first job in a farm based chemistry lab: the first
thing I learned was that biological systems are hard to get accurate;
but not quite so hard to get consistent. Once you have done a very
large number of measurements you may have a better idea of what is going
on: IF you get useful perspectives on it.

Drawing graphs of the results of training will show if there are any
discernible trends and how consistent performance is. If you would
prefer statistics: do it that way; makes it easier to lie, possibly
easier to find any truths, too. How much flattery can you stand in one
week!

If someone has instrumentation ~ why not try a variety of forces on the
sensors used. Do they measure acceleration; pressure; relative
directions of anything? Is the measurement simple on / off or stepped,
and so on. Are signals dependent on the state of the battery charge?

George

At 9:49 AM -0700 3/13/07, Steve Rickaby wrote:
>I'm not a runner, but my brief brushes with transducer engineering
>in the past would suggest that you are likely to get problems and
>inconsistent results unless the accelerometer (if such it is) is
>very firmly coupled with the shoe.

That does seem to be a significant moral of the story, and not
something that's widely spoken of in relation to this. Of course,
Apple wouldn't, since they assume you're using the shoe.


At 9:49 AM -0700 3/13/07, Jim Matthews wrote:
>Another possible source of inaccuracy is the iPod's clock. I've been
>jogging on a treadmill this winter, and over the course of a 30
>minute run the Nike+iPod clock will be 10-20 seconds slower than the
>treadmill's. Of course it might be the treadmill's clock that's fast.
>
>The iPod will also show me going 10-20% farther, and I figure the
>treadmill should know exactly how far its belt has moved, but the
>iPod numbers are definitely more flattering :).

That's really interesting that you say this, Jim, since I've had my
doubts about the iPod's clock too, though I haven't been able to
catch it. It's often in slight disagreement with my Garmin Forerunner
201, though I can't easily start and stop them at exactly the same
time, given that I have only two hands.


At 11:28 AM -0700 3/14/07, George Wade wrote:
>>>I have one main qualm with the kit, stopping a run is entirely too
>>>difficult. You should be able to simply press one button...
>>
>>That's absolutely true - the controls are just awkward. ...
>>
>>Garmin has a feature in at least the Forerunner 201 where it stops
>>recording time when you stop moving...
>
>The iPhone should be able to process all of this much better? AND send
>it to your Mac for a readout as you get home.

I'll be shocked, absolutely shocked, if there's a Nike+iPod option
for the iPhone. I just can't see Apple doing it, at least right off.
And I can't see people using it for that - $500-$600 is just too
expensive of a device to have exposed to a workout.

cheers... -Adam

Hi Adam,

I liked your piece on the Nike + iPod. In the end I think your conclusions are similar to mine when I tested the Garmin 201: it is certainly a neat little gadget that adds interest to some of those long runs. But it has real limitations, especially down here in the woods and up and down my Cornish hills. It doesn't handle changes of pace very well, and for any serious interval training you would be be better off with a stopwatch. For something more sedate, you are probably working on your mind as much as on your body. Enjoying the scenery will give you more of a lift than knowing a little more accurately how far you have run!

Paul

> I'll be shocked, absolutely shocked, if there's a Nike+iPod option
> for the iPhone. I just can't see Apple doing it, at least right off.
> And I can't see people using it for that - $500-$600 is just too
> expensive of a device to have exposed to a workout.

Adam...

You'd be surprised at people paying too much for a gadget based on nothing
other than cool factor?

You HAVE heard of the Sharper Image, right? :-P

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

At 11:28 AM -0700 3/14/07, George Wade wrote:
>The iPhone should be able to process all of this much better? AND send
>it to your Mac for a readout as you get home.

Are you supposing that the iPhone will have GPS? Is that confirmed?

--

=Alex Hoffman
Leadership Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

On Mar 15, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Adam C. Engst wrote:

> I'll be shocked, absolutely shocked, if there's a Nike+iPod option
> for the iPhone. I just can't see Apple doing it, at least right off.
> And I can't see people using it for that - $500-$600 is just too
> expensive of a device to have exposed to a workout.

Ah, but with Apple's patent application for the digital lanyard, who
knows what might be happening. ;-)

   --John

My purpose in putting forward the possibilities of interfacing with the
iPhone was to "Absolutely Shock" some of us into thinking of really new
concepts in computing without the necessity for a Military or
Pharmaceutical Patent Research 'order of magnitude' budget.

This is de Bono provocation THINK; not Sharper Image CEO style
'imagery.'

Alexander Hoffman wrote:
> At 11:28 AM -0700 3/14/07, George Wade wrote:
>> The iPhone should be able to process all of this much better? AND send
>> it to your Mac for a readout as you get home.
> Are you supposing that the iPhone will have GPS? Is that confirmed?

Gpsy installed on the iPhone and the GPS receiver --> USB might be enough?


George

As an active orienteer, my gait and stride length can vary dramatically: I may do orienteering (think: running through rough hilly terrain, i.e. no paths), do ordinary jogging or have intervals sessions on the track. What surprises me most is the inaccurate results when during fast interval sessions (or downhill in the Tidbits article). If it were an accelerometer, it should be able to note the difference, but the results resemble those of an ordinary step counter.

My solution has been to incrementally calibrate until the overall average is reasonable. I sometimes measure out the path on Google Maps to see how accurate it is. By the way, you can now do this directly on the NikePlus web site (a beta feature): Community > Map IT.

Two software bugs have troubled me:

(1) Once I had 52 workouts logged, my iPod kept crashing. It was funny to watch: reboot - use it for 30 seconds - crash - autoreboot - (and so on). The problem was that you could not turn it off; the software wanted to load all logged runs first. You could go into Nike+iPod > History and see it count up to 52 where it crashed. It keept crashing - rebooting until the battery was empty. (What annoyed me most was that I was on a training holiday without my Mac to reset the iPod, missing a weeks worth of training data). Your mileage may (indeed) vary - it may not always happen at "52" runs.

(2) Back at home, I reset the unit, deleted my workout history (not the totals) and ever since, I have to listen to Paula Ratcliffe after every single workout (telling me that I have completed another 500km).