In which the author’s already tenuous grasp of reality is put under further strain.
My attitude to running technology is conflicted: ideologically I like the idea of running with as few encumbrances as possible - just getting out there and not worrying; but I also like toys.
The only tool I have consistently used is a heart rate monitor, which I principally use to manage my effort on slow runs. Adding speed and distance has been great for keeping records and has cut the time spent on Google maps working out distances, but I have never used the extra information on the run (as everything is about effort level). My engagement with speed and distance has therefore been at the lowest level, I bought a Garmin 50 very cheaply on Amazon, but it has been just fine. Importantly I have never worried about its accuracy. I measured it at the beginning, was happy and have trusted it ever since. This means it has never occupied much of my brain: all I have to do is put on the hrm and watch, which is second nature, and I am out the door.
As I said I like to run with as few complications as possible
That has now changed as the Adidas micoach has introduced a degree of confusion. When I first got it I ran with both it and the Garmin to compare the distance measurement and as I reported the micoach registered a shorter distance. No problem I thought, it is just a matter of adjustment and all I need is a calibration run at the track.
Yesterday I managed to organise myself and run the test (Hemel has a nice track but its opening hours are quite limited). Garmin on one foot, micoach on the other, over three runs (1600m, and 2x800m).
The Garmin was pretty good, 1.67, 0.825, 0.829km (especially as because of some cones I mostly ran in lane 2). The micoach was however way out: 1.88, 0.94, 0.99km. A longer distance!
Today I went for another normal run with both sensors for a further test and again the micoach showed a shorted distance. This is too confusing.
The only explanations I can think of are that either my running style was slightly different on the track and the micoach was more sensitive to the change, or on my normal runs, over longer distances, the micoach suffered some signal interference.
But I am puzzled as I now have something that records distance as both longer and shorter. Truly it must be a quantum device.
Showing posts with label Speed/Distance Monitor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Speed/Distance Monitor. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Thursday, March 26, 2009
On Choosing a Speed, Distance, Heart Rate Monitor
One of the disadvantages of a Polar HRM is that you cannot replace the battery yourself. So when mine started to die I took it as a sign to buy a new piece of kit and try a HRM with speed and distance. A simple idea I though but oh dear how it led to a prolonged bout of mental dithering! My mind filled up with stupid as I looked at all the options. It would have been much better if I had just said to myself ‘I need a new Polar’ or ‘’I’ll just get a Garmin’; bought it and then thought no more about it. But no!
The Difficulty of Choosing
I lined up all the usual suspects: Garmin, who seemed to have nailed GPS training; Polar, who are untouchable for heart rate training; Timex, who make the neatest watch and have a modular approach that looks like a good idea; and Suunto, who also seem to make good, nice looking training tools. The problem was they all had different strengths and weaknesses and I couldn’t work out what I really wanted. I changed my mind so often that at different times I decided each one was the one and almost placed an order.
Even the fundamental choice between GPS and footpod, was not clear once I had been convinced that the footpods were accurate. (At first I was a bit sceptical because I thought they would be affected by inconsistencies in my running style and variations in my gait. But all the reviews said they were accurate and I was further reassured when I read the whte paper from Dynastream, the company who developed the technology, which explains how they measure the acceleration through each stride, compute the foot angles and then calculate speed and distance.)
If I had no preference for GPS or footpod, what chance did I have in choosing between the different features? There are an awful lot of them and each model had a different mix. Anyway how would I know if something was really useful if I had never used it before? Aarggh thee was too much confusion. I needed to look toThe paradox of Choice to explain explains my pain. Its central thesis is:
Was It A Good Choice?
Yes
The footpod is light, fixes easily into the laces and feels so unobtrusive that, when running, I completely forget it is there – a relief because I had been worried that I would always be aware of it and react like the princess to the pea. The advantage of the footpod is that if you leave it on the shoe, you only have to tie up your laces and you are ready to go. There is no waiting for a signal.
Its accuracy it is certainly good enough for my needs. I have checked a few runs against Gmap Pedometer and they are within 1% each other and when I have repeated routes they have recorded the same distance. I can thus be happy with the information it gives me.
There is not much to say about the heart rate monitor except that it seems to work. The readings are in line with those from my Polar so I assume they are accurate. The strap is a strap but comfortable enough. A major plus is that so far I have not noticed any phantom readings so the watch is very good at blocking interference.
The watch display is a weakness. You can only see two types of information at a time, which is a shame because 3 would be better. if I could see heart rate, speed and elapsed time I would be happy for most of the run. As it is to check the information you need you have to cycle through the displays by pushing a button. You get used to this but it is a bit fiddly
Downloading the information to the computer is easy as the wireless USB works well and the software presents the information well so that I can easily track my progress. However I find it a bit rigid. There seems no way of adding information from other (non Garmin)sessions and it doesn’t export in a csv format for use in a spreadsheet.
But these gripes are minor compared to the pleasure I having something that is easy to use gives me graphs to study.
Overall the Garmin 50 works as it is meant to. I can now forget about it and just get on with running - but of course with the fun of extra information. I am very pleased.
The Difficulty of Choosing
I lined up all the usual suspects: Garmin, who seemed to have nailed GPS training; Polar, who are untouchable for heart rate training; Timex, who make the neatest watch and have a modular approach that looks like a good idea; and Suunto, who also seem to make good, nice looking training tools. The problem was they all had different strengths and weaknesses and I couldn’t work out what I really wanted. I changed my mind so often that at different times I decided each one was the one and almost placed an order.
Even the fundamental choice between GPS and footpod, was not clear once I had been convinced that the footpods were accurate. (At first I was a bit sceptical because I thought they would be affected by inconsistencies in my running style and variations in my gait. But all the reviews said they were accurate and I was further reassured when I read the whte paper from Dynastream, the company who developed the technology, which explains how they measure the acceleration through each stride, compute the foot angles and then calculate speed and distance.)
If I had no preference for GPS or footpod, what chance did I have in choosing between the different features? There are an awful lot of them and each model had a different mix. Anyway how would I know if something was really useful if I had never used it before? Aarggh thee was too much confusion. I needed to look toThe paradox of Choice to explain explains my pain. Its central thesis is:
“When people have no choice life is almost unbearable . As the number of available choices increases, as it has in our consumer culture, the autonomy,control, and liberation this variety brings are powerful and positive. But as the number of choices keeps growing, negative aspects of having a multitude of options begin to appear. As the number of choices grows further, the negatives escalate until we become overloaded. At this point choice no longer liberates but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannize”I realised my error. I was trying to find the perfect speed/distance/ heart-rate monitor and that was silly. I was only looking for a tool and all I really needed was something that was good enough. Instead of looking at every possible feature and thinking ‘how neat is that!’ I needed to think only about what I really needed. As I am not a finely tuned athlete with an intricate training schedule these are fairly basic and every single model was more than good enough. So price becomes a factor and the cheapest by far was the Garmin 50 (i.e. the one with a footpod) and so that is what I bought. It cost £80, including the data transfer stick, which is quite remarkable. I bought it on Amazon and for some strange reason, at the time, it was cheaper to buy two units, one watch and hrm, the other watch and footpod, than the pack with watch, hrm and footpod. As a result I now have a spare watch. 21st century commerce can be really weird.
Was It A Good Choice?
Yes
The footpod is light, fixes easily into the laces and feels so unobtrusive that, when running, I completely forget it is there – a relief because I had been worried that I would always be aware of it and react like the princess to the pea. The advantage of the footpod is that if you leave it on the shoe, you only have to tie up your laces and you are ready to go. There is no waiting for a signal.
Its accuracy it is certainly good enough for my needs. I have checked a few runs against Gmap Pedometer and they are within 1% each other and when I have repeated routes they have recorded the same distance. I can thus be happy with the information it gives me.
There is not much to say about the heart rate monitor except that it seems to work. The readings are in line with those from my Polar so I assume they are accurate. The strap is a strap but comfortable enough. A major plus is that so far I have not noticed any phantom readings so the watch is very good at blocking interference.
The watch display is a weakness. You can only see two types of information at a time, which is a shame because 3 would be better. if I could see heart rate, speed and elapsed time I would be happy for most of the run. As it is to check the information you need you have to cycle through the displays by pushing a button. You get used to this but it is a bit fiddly
Downloading the information to the computer is easy as the wireless USB works well and the software presents the information well so that I can easily track my progress. However I find it a bit rigid. There seems no way of adding information from other (non Garmin)sessions and it doesn’t export in a csv format for use in a spreadsheet.
But these gripes are minor compared to the pleasure I having something that is easy to use gives me graphs to study.
Overall the Garmin 50 works as it is meant to. I can now forget about it and just get on with running - but of course with the fun of extra information. I am very pleased.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
How Old?
How do you notice you are getting older?
It could be the increasing creakiness of the body and the way that aches and pains mysteriously appear. You go for a fairly standard run, everything is OK and then sometime afterwards there is a pain in your foot or leg. How did that happen? You have no idea as there was no warning on the run and nothing unusual to link it to. It is difficult to know if it is a minor inconvenience or something more serious. It is all very well trying to listen to your body but as I get older I increasingly find I haven’t a clue as to what it is saying. It’s as if it has started talking in a different dialect
Yes definitely those aches and pains come more frequently, randomly and stick around longer. In general recovery takes longer so you have to be more flexible in your scheduling. It is not that you necessarily cut back on the number of your session but that you must pay attention to how you feel and adapt your session accordingly. A piece of advice I read said you should run one mile to warm up and then decide how hard the session should be. If you feel like you are running through treacle then cut it short and don’t feel bad. This advice works for everything except the long run which requires more time, equipment and drinks. You have to plan your long run and then do it regardless.
But having to adapt your schedule is the same at every stage of your life: studying, working, socialising, and children affect the training of everybody apart from professional athletes. So adapting for age is nothing special. Neither is adapting to your level of performance as speed becomes harder. Whatever your age or level of fitness you are always pushing against your own limitations. Those limitations might expand with increasing fitness or contract but you run according to your capabilities at the time. Ageing makes no difference to your perception of effort and the basic classes are still slow, steady, and threshold.
When running I do not think of age. Running makes me feel more alive. It helps me connect with my surroundings and the seasons. That is all and that is enough. However I run at a relative exertion level and mostly do not know my speed.
That last sentence should now read ‘did not know my speed’ as I have bought a speed and distance monitor and can now see how fast I am running. Oh dear! I can now see that my internal judgement of how fast I run at different levels of effort is, to put it mildly, optimistic. Bugger! There goes another comforting illusion and I now have to readjust.
So in answer to my initial question the answer is – objective measurement. It does for you every time.
It could be the increasing creakiness of the body and the way that aches and pains mysteriously appear. You go for a fairly standard run, everything is OK and then sometime afterwards there is a pain in your foot or leg. How did that happen? You have no idea as there was no warning on the run and nothing unusual to link it to. It is difficult to know if it is a minor inconvenience or something more serious. It is all very well trying to listen to your body but as I get older I increasingly find I haven’t a clue as to what it is saying. It’s as if it has started talking in a different dialect
Yes definitely those aches and pains come more frequently, randomly and stick around longer. In general recovery takes longer so you have to be more flexible in your scheduling. It is not that you necessarily cut back on the number of your session but that you must pay attention to how you feel and adapt your session accordingly. A piece of advice I read said you should run one mile to warm up and then decide how hard the session should be. If you feel like you are running through treacle then cut it short and don’t feel bad. This advice works for everything except the long run which requires more time, equipment and drinks. You have to plan your long run and then do it regardless.
But having to adapt your schedule is the same at every stage of your life: studying, working, socialising, and children affect the training of everybody apart from professional athletes. So adapting for age is nothing special. Neither is adapting to your level of performance as speed becomes harder. Whatever your age or level of fitness you are always pushing against your own limitations. Those limitations might expand with increasing fitness or contract but you run according to your capabilities at the time. Ageing makes no difference to your perception of effort and the basic classes are still slow, steady, and threshold.
When running I do not think of age. Running makes me feel more alive. It helps me connect with my surroundings and the seasons. That is all and that is enough. However I run at a relative exertion level and mostly do not know my speed.
That last sentence should now read ‘did not know my speed’ as I have bought a speed and distance monitor and can now see how fast I am running. Oh dear! I can now see that my internal judgement of how fast I run at different levels of effort is, to put it mildly, optimistic. Bugger! There goes another comforting illusion and I now have to readjust.
So in answer to my initial question the answer is – objective measurement. It does for you every time.
Monday, January 19, 2009
How Far?
Numbers can be very harsh. There is no room for negotiation or special pleading. It is what it is.
Traditionally I have never worried too much about mileage and mainly measured by time and heart rate and have a rough idea of the length of most of my routes. That is not good enough if I want to increase my E number as I have to know my mileage on my longer runs. In the absence of anything else, the Gmap Pedometer is really good but I use it after a run, to measure where I have been. I like to set out with only a vague plan of where I am going, with the option of making changes – either shortening or extending, trying somewhere new or even adding a hill (I can imagine all the serious athletes with their strict schedules shaking their heads with pity at someone who always builds in latitude).
This week’s longer run was a good example: all I knew was that I wanted to run about 11 miles so that I could start to raise my E Number above 10 but I did not know whether I was going to do an out and back along the canal or loop back over a ridge. As I felt quite strong when I reached Berkhamsted I thought a bit of hill work would be OK and so went up to the Common and enjoyed a section running through the trees. All in all it was a good day. Except …
Except that when I measured the distance it was 10.96 miles. Only 0.04 short of 11 but by the rules it still counts as a 10 mile run. Damn, if I had known I could have easily run the extra couple of hundred yards.
A speed/distance device would have sorted me out and I am thinking about buying one. The trouble is I cannot decide what I want: footpod or GPS, Garmin, Polar, Suunto or Timex. It is all so damn confusing. In the grand scheme of things it probably does not matter - choose one, for whatever reason, and go with it. They all have different strengths and weaknesses but will all do a job. However I can be paralysed by choice and spend ages wallying around thinking: Do I need more than the cheapest option i.e. the Garmin 50? I like the Timex as a sports watch and would also wear it all day. The Suunto display is really neat and it looks good but I think Polar have heart rate information really well sorted. There is no functional reason to prefer the more expensive Garmin 405 over the 305 but the 305 does look a bit of a lump. Etc, etc, etc.
So there you have it – the numbers might be clear and absolute but how you arrive at those numbers is far from straightforward.
Traditionally I have never worried too much about mileage and mainly measured by time and heart rate and have a rough idea of the length of most of my routes. That is not good enough if I want to increase my E number as I have to know my mileage on my longer runs. In the absence of anything else, the Gmap Pedometer is really good but I use it after a run, to measure where I have been. I like to set out with only a vague plan of where I am going, with the option of making changes – either shortening or extending, trying somewhere new or even adding a hill (I can imagine all the serious athletes with their strict schedules shaking their heads with pity at someone who always builds in latitude).
This week’s longer run was a good example: all I knew was that I wanted to run about 11 miles so that I could start to raise my E Number above 10 but I did not know whether I was going to do an out and back along the canal or loop back over a ridge. As I felt quite strong when I reached Berkhamsted I thought a bit of hill work would be OK and so went up to the Common and enjoyed a section running through the trees. All in all it was a good day. Except …
Except that when I measured the distance it was 10.96 miles. Only 0.04 short of 11 but by the rules it still counts as a 10 mile run. Damn, if I had known I could have easily run the extra couple of hundred yards.
A speed/distance device would have sorted me out and I am thinking about buying one. The trouble is I cannot decide what I want: footpod or GPS, Garmin, Polar, Suunto or Timex. It is all so damn confusing. In the grand scheme of things it probably does not matter - choose one, for whatever reason, and go with it. They all have different strengths and weaknesses but will all do a job. However I can be paralysed by choice and spend ages wallying around thinking: Do I need more than the cheapest option i.e. the Garmin 50? I like the Timex as a sports watch and would also wear it all day. The Suunto display is really neat and it looks good but I think Polar have heart rate information really well sorted. There is no functional reason to prefer the more expensive Garmin 405 over the 305 but the 305 does look a bit of a lump. Etc, etc, etc.
So there you have it – the numbers might be clear and absolute but how you arrive at those numbers is far from straightforward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)