I'm not as fit as I thought I was

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by rnangie, Oct 3, 2016.

  1. rnangie macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    #1
    I bought my gold aluminum 38mm watch on Saturday. I seriously love this watch. I ran my usual route today, which I thought was 3 miles according to my old AW. I do it in about 28 minutes which is not too bad for a 56 year old retired Marine female (that's the minimum passing time for a young male Marine). It appears that my old watch was way off and my usual route is only 2.5 miles. I realize the disparity is likely my fault as I never bothered to run with my phone to calibrate the watch (I don't like running with a phone). I just assumed that my watch would be calibrated well enough on my usual hikes when I have my phone with me.
     
  2. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #2
    Only GPS can really come close and without proper calibration it was just using average stride length to calculate the distance.

    Guessing you bought a Series 2 with GPS too.

    Looks like it is time to reach way down and take it up a notch.;)
     
  3. Ruja macrumors regular

    Ruja

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #3
    That's a really good time, believe me :)

    About your topic, I guess it's series either 0 or 1, isn't it? Because the series 2 has a gps and it doesn't need to be calibrated before using it. And if it's either o or 1 series, I don't know how many time needs to work properly without carrying the iPhone, but I thought it'd take just a few ...
     
  4. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #4
    Hikes, as in walking? Then it wouldn't be calibrated for runs, as your stride would be different while running and walking.
     
  5. Ruja macrumors regular

    Ruja

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #5
    I didn't know that. Definitely, just in my opinion, I don't think to carry the watch without the iPhone is a good idea for this kind of things unless it's series 2.
     
  6. rnangie thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    #6
    Yes, I bought the series 2. I really didn't need a new watch but I justified the purchase because my daughter was happy to take my old one off my hands : ) It makes sense that calibrating the AW while walking would be different than running due to stride lengths. i didn't consider that.
     
  7. Ruja macrumors regular

    Ruja

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #7
    That's a great reason... hahaha, to me, whatever one is justified for doing something like that so, don't blame you :)

    Really? Are you telling us that it's necessary to be calibrated the AW even if it's the series 2???
     
  8. nicho macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #8
    That's not what OP said at all :/
     
  9. Ruja macrumors regular

    Ruja

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #9
    At least, I didn't notice at all
     
  10. nicho macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #10
    to clarify, OP is clearly still talking about her experiences with her 1st gen watch when she's talking about the calibration...
     
  11. matrix07 macrumors 601

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
  12. Julien, Oct 4, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2016

    Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #12
    Running pace is relative and there is no 'normal'. Many 'in shape' new runners try to start out at around a 10 minute mile (6mph) or 6:15 minute Kilometers (9.6kph). Also while an individual can improve their running pace with training (increasing fitness level) and technical skills it will still be within the scope of there abilities. In the running world on 'old' 8 minute miles (7.5mph) or 5 minute kilometer (12kph) 'rule' is sometimes cited as the difference between running and jogging.
     
  13. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #13
    Huh, it never occurred to me that there was a difference between running and jogging. How long would it take to complete a marathon if you jogged the entire way? Could you come in under the time limit? Is there a significant speed difference between jogging and fast walking?
     
  14. nicho macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #14
    some very simple maths suggests 3 ½ hours or more would be classed as "jogging"
     
  15. Julien, Oct 4, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2016

    Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #15
    Time is easy to calculate. If running a marathon at an average of 8:30 miles which would be 'technically' a fast jog you would finish in 3:42:42. A 10 minute mile average would be good for 4:22:00

    Also the difference in walking and jogging is not necessarily speed but gate. In walking you MUST maintain ground contact 100% of the time. So an olympic speed walker can 'walk' faster than many people can run or jog. The fastest speed walker is about 6:30 mile which is faster than most people can run.
     
  16. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #16
    Thanks. I'm horrible at math and hasn't had enough coffee yet. :p
     
  17. exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #17
    Wiki defines "jogging" as a 10 minute pace. For anyone who has run a marathon at an 8:30 pace, that is booking it. It is definitely running.
     
  18. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #18
  19. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #19
    Thanks for the info, I thought speed walkers could be fast but didn't realize they could be THAT fast.

    So are there any health benefit associated with jogging/running that you don't get from speed walking?
     
  20. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #20
    Yes, first the average person is NOT a competitive speed walker but just a person walking fast.

    Walking is very efficient since you keep one foot on the ground all the time. Running is very inefficient since you jump over space with every step. Running requires quite a bit more effort to cover the same distance. So you get far more cardio benefit from it. Also the 'pounding' strengthens your tendons, ligaments, muscles and bones.
     
  21. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #21
    It's a bit strange to think that the more "inefficient" means of movement gets us from one place to another faster.

    But thanks, I see why running is good exercise.
     
  22. exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #22
    I think the opposite is true. Or this statement need further qualification. I believe that running is more efficient than walking at speeds above around 2 meters per second. 2 m/s is not very fast.

    The mistake in the reasoning above is confusing energy consumed per time with energy consumed per distance. Or not qualifying the efficiency stats many with a speed.
     
  23. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #23
    Efficiency refers to the amount of effort/energy to cover a distance and not the speed. An analogy is a Corvette can cover a ¼ mile much faster than a Chevy Spark. However the Spark will use far less fuel and is more efficient.
     
  24. exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #24
    But it needs to be fully qualified.

    A brisk walk at 15 min/mile is likely more efficient than running at that speed. However...
    A speed walk at 10 min/mile is likely less efficient than running at that speed.

    Generally, at a pace where you could either run or walk (tough to slow jog at 15 min/mile), running is probably more efficient. At very slow speeds, walking is more efficient.

    Walking efficiency degrades exponentially with speed.
     
  25. Julien, Oct 4, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2016

    Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #25
    Yes if you walk at least 6mph (10 minute mile) or higher it would start becoming less effect than running at that speed, so technically you are correct. However I doubt there is anyone reading this that can walk an under 10 minute (complete) mile so it doesn't really apply. However here is a chart to qualify it.;)


    My point was more in comparing a typical 4mph brisk/fast walk to a moderate 6 or 7mph run over the same distance traveled.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page