I ran .25 and it ws reported as .25. That means that had I gone a whole mile, it would have reported .88. Had I gone 10 miles it would have reported 8.8 miles.
So that definitely under-reporting the mileage... unless I'm not understanding you.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macrumors Nike+ February Challenges
- Thread starter Mr. Anderson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I ran .25 and it ws reported as .25. That means that had I gone a whole mile, it would have reported .88. Had I gone 10 miles it would have reported 8.8 miles.
So that definitely under-reporting the mileage... unless I'm not understanding you.
I ran .25 and it ws reported as .25. That means that had I gone a whole mile, it would have reported .88. Had I gone 10 miles it would have reported 8.8 miles.
So that definitely under-reporting the mileage... unless I'm not understanding you.
i guess we're not understanding each other. if you run .25, and it reports .25, then you're good to go
you said earlier that you ran .22, and it reported .25?
Oh, oops, I misspoke in the post you just quoted. I ran .25 and it got reported as .22. So it under-reported. Originally, I did say that my "lap" (400m) got reported as .22, and that is what I meant.
Now, however, my runs seem to be over-reported - I run a mile and it gets reported as 1.1.
Either way is bad - I just want accuracy! (I wish Nike had used GPS for this, but maybe that would have been too complicated to do with an ipod)
Oh, oops, I misspoke in the post you just quoted. I ran .25 and it got reported as .22. So it under-reported. Originally, I did say that my "lap" (400m) got reported as .22, and that is what I meant.
Now, however, my runs seem to be over-reported - I run a mile and it gets reported as 1.1.
oh ok, i gotcha.
yeah, GPS would probably be too much.
ok. question for the treadmill nike+ nano users... are your results anywhere near accurate?? i ran on a treadmill a few weeks ago after having calibrated and run outside a bunch. the treadmill said i went about 1.1 miles for every 1 mile on the nano. not a huge deal at the time cause the treadmill run was an exception. but now that it's ****ING freezing, i expect to use the treadmill more often. so last night i go to run and accept that i should calibrate on the treadmill. so i set the treadmill to 5mph, and run for 3 minutes to calibrate .25 miles. (yes, i'm slow). anyways, afterwards i run at 6 mph (10min/mi) and the nano is reading about 10:30/mi... then when i bump it down to walk some at around 15min/mi, the nano reads 13-14min/mi.... i realize it's all about your stride and you run differently on a treadmill, etc, but it just seems that there's no way to accurately use the nano on a treadmill unless you always use a constant speed. though perhaps if you calibrate at your median pace, your over/under might average out to nearly accurate. hah. i can set the treadmill at 10 min/mi pace, and run two different styles (long, bounding strides vs. quick, short ones) and get wildly different paces according to the nano....
so. what's the secret? or is the secret that it's just not accurate....?
so. what's the secret? or is the secret that it's just not accurate....?
yeah, it depends on your stide. that's how it measures your speed and distance. if i go galloping around, it'll say i went faster and farther than i normally would......but too much galloping isn't good for you.....
First Week Stats are up - good job everybody
Second place in the distance challenge is heating up Although since I'm returning to the frozen north next week, I think I'll be dropping down out of first.
We need more runners in the 5k, though. So sign up!
D
Second place in the distance challenge is heating up
Although since I'm returning to the frozen north next week, I think I'll be dropping down out of first.We need more runners in the 5k, though. So sign up!
D
well true, but even just running different paces on the treadmill (after calibrating at a particular pace) seem to cause huge differences in the sensor. which is fine if that's just the way it is, but i know that a lot of people here use a treadmill primarily so i wondered what their method is.
I notice that at an even pace on the treadmill I lose anywhere from .3 to .6 per mile. If I move the speed around I lose more - it is a sacrfice we make when it is too cold outside, but just think of how much better the same distance will feel when you get back outside...
I notice that at an even pace on the treadmill I lose anywhere from .3 to .6 per mile. If I move the speed around I lose more - it is a sacrfice we make when it is too cold outside, but just think of how much better the same distance will feel when you get back outside...
fair enough, i'll just suck it up then. you're right about the mental edge of running outside and feeling like shorter though!
too much inconsistency to take these challenges too seriously, but still motivating nonetheless!
I've done maybe 10 or so runs on the treadmill, though the last few times I've completely covered the treadmill display because I didn't want to know how far I had gone. In the early experience, I found that the distance was pretty accurate- within .03 miles per mile (I only ran a around 1.6 miles at a time at that point)...accurate enough for me not to care...and that was without calibrating the Nike+ sensor for anything- treadmill or outdoors.
To be honest with you, I don't know that I find the treadmill to be the most accurate thing in the world, either. While it is just measuring the amount of tread that rolls under my feet, how I interact with that tread can vary wildly depending on my stride. Heck, I could jump straight up and it would "measure" me as running a few feet.
Since my ultimate goal is just to get back into shape, drop a few pounds, and enjoy the highs that come with running, the distance isn't the end all/be all of my runs. I do have a goal of 400 miles this year, but I don't expect to make it or miss it by a small enough margin to be affected by any inaccuracy. In short, the pros outweigh the cons for the nike+. (Not saying at all that you disagree.)
To be honest with you, I don't know that I find the treadmill to be the most accurate thing in the world, either. While it is just measuring the amount of tread that rolls under my feet, how I interact with that tread can vary wildly depending on my stride. Heck, I could jump straight up and it would "measure" me as running a few feet.
Since my ultimate goal is just to get back into shape, drop a few pounds, and enjoy the highs that come with running, the distance isn't the end all/be all of my runs. I do have a goal of 400 miles this year, but I don't expect to make it or miss it by a small enough margin to be affected by any inaccuracy. In short, the pros outweigh the cons for the nike+. (Not saying at all that you disagree.)
very good points. and i actually thought about the treadmill's inaccuracies before i tried it with the nano. i mean, the fact that i can run differently on a constant treadmill speed and get a different pace with the nano, that says something about how it's different and not very accurate measuring your actual speed on a treadmill. for instance. i can run outside for a few miles at around a 10 min/mi pace fairly comfortably. but that setting on the treadmill really tires me out. i have a feeling that something about my stride is not as well suited to the treadmill method of ground moving underneath you, rather than propelling yourself forward. but what do i know. hah
as for the second point. i agree completely. it's just hard for me not to want to get every hundredth of a mile credit for my runs when they're generally such a struggle for me! hah.
Hahahaha. I understand! I had a disappointing workout the other day, and every hundredth would have made me feel a little bit better.
I've read before somewhere, that running on a treadmill is slightly easier than a typical ground course, and so, to get a more accurate feel, you're supposed to set the treadmill at a 1% incline. I have no idea if that's true or not...and it's been so dang cold that I haven't run outside in awhile to know which is easier.
It's drizzly and gloomy here in Sonoma County, and I don't have a treadmill. The only thing getting me outside to run today in the rain is this challenge.
Thanks a lot, Nike+
Thanks a lot, Nike+
IMO neither a treadmill nor the nike+ is terribly accurate. So trying to get two inaccurate devices to be inaccurate to the same degree may be rather difficult!
IMO neither a treadmill nor the nike+ is terribly accurate. So trying to get two inaccurate devices to be inaccurate to the same degree may be rather difficult!
bon point!
although in my experiences, after a calibration outside, the nike+ was decently accurate.
IMO neither a treadmill nor the nike+ is terribly accurate. So trying to get two inaccurate devices to be inaccurate to the same degree may be rather difficult!
Two wrongs don't make a right?
You just have to figure that it is the same for everyone so in that way it is fair...
It's drizzly and gloomy here in Sonoma County, and I don't have a treadmill. The only thing getting me outside to run today in the rain is this challenge.
Thanks a lot, Nike+
<waves hand in air> no, really take a rest - you deserve it.
^ - this is known as using the 'force' to psychologically affect a competitor...
That plus the fact that you are not dealing with multiple bone-chilling weeks at a time - just you wait until spring and all of us Northern states competitors get outside on a more frequent basis...or something...
did it work?