Janathon 2012 Day 2: Who needs accuracy?

Janathon 2012 Day 2: Walk - 2.54 miles, Time  - 1hr 3min, Weather - Sunny and bright but a little colder

I mentioned yesterday that I am going back to relying on just two measurements: heart rate and time. They are the most accurate information you have. Watches have obviously been around our wrists for ages and we take for granted their astonishing accuracy (so much so that I don't know anybody who is at all astonished). Heart rate monitors have only been general used since 1983 but since that time they have evolved to resist interference and do a good job of precisely counting your heart beats.

GPSs have only been available since 2003 but I would guess that they are now the dominant training tool and people grow to love them. So much so that some people think going out for a run without one is a form of disloyalty - that it cannot be a proper run if it is not validated by a full set of statistics. Some people give them names and bicker as if it is a proper relationship (I am talking about you Travelling Hopefully). But here's the thing - they are not accurate. They have been getting better but they are still not accurate.

It is undoubtably true that they are wonderful and a marvel of modern technology but it is still a mistake to confuse the precision of their results with accuracy.

This article on the subject from the New York Times amused me, especially the idea that people would contact race organisers to tell them they mis-measured their courses. Although I can shake my head and say "silly billies" it must be very tedious for the organisers. 

Now I would not want to use this article as an argument against GPSs - not at all. As I have said before they are a wonder and a marvel. I would however use it as a an argument for showing that we should know the limitations of our tools and how much we can rely on them.

Today's Janathon was a walk in the park - literally. It was however very muddy and the slow pace shows the effect of trying to pick the less watery, slippery path amid a sea of mud.

(The distance measurement is, of course, as it always has been, an approximation)

Adidas micoach

The highlight of my running week was being invited to test the latest piece of running technology from Adidas.

It happened at the Battersea park running track and in itself that was part of the pleasure. I have rarely run on a track and never under flood lights, doing so this time made me feel as if I was engaged in a proper athletic activity (which is not always the case). A slight illusion of course because the session involved running a few laps to get used to the equipment, but nevertheless it felt good. I now know I should use my local track to add variety to my running - a useful lesson

It was also a pleasure to meet a couple of bloggers who appear on the sidebar (Warriorwoman and Big Runner). In addition I had an interesting conversation with Michael Nicol from the The Running School about technique and the changes that can be made. Also we wereall introduced to Andy Vernon, an elite athlete who was just off to the world cross country championships, where he achieved his target of finishing 44th. So congratulations to him.

So irrespective of the kit it was an interesting evening. But I really should be talking about the Adidas micoach.

The Concept
Most existing devices are based on a watch, which has constantly available visual information on your progress, whether that be pace, heart rate, distance, or time. You can choose what you want to look at and it feels quite natural (because most of us are used to wearing watches). In essence they are monitoring devices that can be either acted upon or ignored; but either way it is comforting to know the information is there for a quick check at any time.

They are a tool that can be used intensively or lightly, as part of a highly structured training regime or to make an informal programme more interesting. The runner decides what to do (through reading, a club, or from a coach) and the watch is a useful aid but to get the most out of it you need a certain amount of knowledge.

Adidas have taken a different approach. They reason that most runners are not members of clubs (in England membership is 5%) and will not have easy access to advice and encouragement . For sure there are books, schedules, Runners World and forums but it is still difficult to keep on track and know you are doing the right thing. There is therefore a need for something that supports a training regime and gives real time information on what you should be doing.

Their approach is based on well established principles of heart rate training, where a schedule comprises sessions targeted at different levels of activity, to systematically build both endurance and the CV system. They have a number of pre-set schedules on their website which prescribe these sessions based on your goals (whether you want to prepare for a race or just keep fit) and these are synched into a little micoach pacer, which can then be clipped onto your shorts or an armband. When you are running there is a audio feed which will tell you what you should be doing. If for example you are scheduled for intervals it will give the message "move to the yellow zone for 1 minute" followed by "green zone for 2 minutes", etc. (The heart rate zones are colour coded: blue = v. easy; green = steady; yellow = threshold; red= v. hard).

Other than that you just keep running until you get a new instruction. You can get an update of your progress by pressing a button but as this is a bit more cumbersome than looking at a watch I tend to forget it. At first I found this disconcerting because I am used to quickly glancing at my watch to keep track but on reflection I think Adidas might be onto something:
○ When you are out you don't want to become obsessed with checking
○ You can concentrate on running but know you are doing what you are supposed to
○ An audio instruction for intervals is so much better than a watch that beeps
○ It is better to analyse data after the run; during the run you need only concentrate on how it feels

So although I had previously thought visual information on a watch highly desirable, now I am not so sure. Over the next couple of months I will report back on how I think it works in practice.

The Kit
The footpod and heart rate monitor look as if they are made by Garmin. The footpod is tiny enough to fit into a cavity in both Adidas and Nike+ shoes but also a plastic cradle that can be clipped onto the laces . It amazing how the size of these things have shrunk; it is less than half the size of my Garmin 50 pod.

The pacer unit is the distinctive to Adidas. At first I found the controls fiddly and non intuitive, e.g. the start/pause button is not obvious (I wanted to press the central button, which gives you an information update) but you get used to it and now I think it works fine.

There is however related piece of equipment I would thoroughly recommend. Sennheiser have made some Adidas branded sports headphones that will shortly be available from John Lewis. The best running earphones I have ever used.

The Software
This is the area that has the potential to mark out the micoach as a rich running resource. They already have a good selection of their own training schedules that can be loaded onto a calendar and into your pacer but I think they have a chance to extend this by collecting a library of training programmes from other established coaches. For example I think the micoach is ideally suited to a Jeff Galloway run/walk programme. It would be good to have a range of options from those that emphasis slow distance to those that concentrate more on quality.

As a record of your runs it is seems perfectly competent. I haven't explored it fully but the datalog, graphs and calendar look good.

Accuracy
We were told in the introduction that the footpod is 98% out of the box and would not need calibrating. This is not necessarily true. I have just run a route using both my Garmin and micoach footpods. The Garmin measured it at 10.57km, the Adidas at 9.59. The distance according to Google Maps was 10.13km, which, as that splits the difference, I will take to be the most accurate. A 6% error is not so clever. It will have to be recalibrated (as will the Garmin)

Conclusion
I think this has potential. It has already made me think about the information I need when I am actually running, and whether the habit of regularly looking at my watch is helpful. An audio feed is a good way to give training instructions and is perfect for intervals based on time.

I will start to use it from a couple of months and report back on how I have got on.