Mon
Sep 22
10:00pm
I like my Nike+ SportBand
I can’t find too many positive posts about the Nike+ SportBand on the web, so I’m here to tell you that I like mine.
Sure, every now and again it thinks I’m running some sort of fast/slow/fast/fast/slow tempo on my runs (although it’s been better since I calibrated it), but it still gets the distance and time right, so if all you’re after is a simple distance/time recorder and some motivation to keep running, it’s ideal.
You could buy a fancy Garmin thing with the optional shoe pod, but you’d be spending at least twice as much of your hard-earned on it. There are other distance recorders out there, but they’re pricey too. I’m not a serious runner and I don’t want to spend too much cash on running gear. The SportBand’s cheap and it works OK, so I don’t see why there are so many knockers out there. Is it a Nike hate thing?
Mine’s fine, I trust it to record my distances and speed as accurately as can be expected from an AUD$70 device, and I’d recommend it as a good motivational tool to recreational runners who don’t already own a Nano or 2G Touch (’cos they should buy the SportKit).
So there.
Firstly, I don’t run, and I haven’t used the Nike+. I guess that means I have no background to my comment, but oh well.
I just thought that if all the Nike+ thing does well is measure distance and time, I don’t see the point. It’s very easy to work out how far it is from point A to point B (especially using something like Google Maps) and just time yourself using your watch/stop watch.
I could see the point if it ‘accurately’ showed increased heart rate and speed changes on a hill or at the 10km mark so you can see where you’re finding it tough. I think a product should add value/functionality to whats already available, so if it doesn’t reliably do anything other than time and distance maybe that’s why so many people knock it.
But hey, what do I know?
Comment by Rob — September 23, 2008 @ 7:52 am
“It’s very easy to work out how far it is from point A to point B (especially using something like Google Maps)”
No it isn’t.
On Sunday I ran from the Ocean Grove surf club towards Barwon Heads via the track in the dunes, across the bridge, along the river track to the Sheepwash, back down Sheepwash Road to the Barwon Heads Golf Club, along the beach track to 13th Beach Road, along the path back to the bridge, down the track that winds through the ti-tree next to the river towards the Ocean Grove golf club, then back to the OG surf club via some loops and back roads because I hadn’t covered the 16km I wanted to.
Try mapping that on Google Maps. :-)
If you’re just running casually you don’t care about the time or distance (although you might be interested in them), but if you’re training to achieve a distance (like I am), you run to time or distance goals, or both. Sometimes I just want to run for an hour, other times, like Sunday, I want to run a set distance.
So for me it offers value. A GPS would work but you’d have to carry it. Heart rate and speed changes are only useful if you’re training for a level of fitness or a time goal (PB).
Comment by Marty — September 23, 2008 @ 10:07 am
I assumed as you were training for a half marathon, you’d be running on roads. Running through dunes and tracks… fair enough - not too easy to track using online mapping.
But I’d presume (rightly or wrongly) that 16kms with sections of sand and dunes would not give an accurate representation of your ability to run 16kms on a road. Unless of course, the official route includes some hills and you’re trying to replicate that on the flat by running in sand. Surely though, considering you live on a hill, a hill would be more accurate!
Rob.
Comment by Rob — September 24, 2008 @ 10:45 pm