<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I like my Nike+ SportBand</title>
	<atom:link href="http://martinjy.com/2008/09/22/i-like-my-nike-sportband/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://martinjy.com/2008/09/22/i-like-my-nike-sportband/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://martinjy.com/2008/09/22/i-like-my-nike-sportband/#comment-518</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:45:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://martinjy.com/?p=414#comment-518</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I assumed as you were training for a half marathon, you&#8217;d be running on roads. Running through dunes and tracks&#8230; fair enough - not too easy to track using online mapping.</p>
<p>But I&#8217;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&#8217;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!</p>
<p>Rob.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marty</title>
		<link>http://martinjy.com/2008/09/22/i-like-my-nike-sportband/#comment-516</link>
		<dc:creator>Marty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://martinjy.com/?p=414#comment-516</guid>
		<description>"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).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It’s very easy to work out how far it is from point A to point B (especially using something like Google Maps)&#8221;</p>
<p>No it isn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>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&#8217;t covered the 16km I wanted to.</p>
<p>Try mapping that on Google Maps. :-)</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re just running casually you don&#8217;t care about the time or distance (although you might be interested in them), but if you&#8217;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.</p>
<p>So for me it offers value. A GPS would work but you&#8217;d have to carry it. Heart rate and speed changes are only useful if you&#8217;re training for a level of fitness or a time goal (PB).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://martinjy.com/2008/09/22/i-like-my-nike-sportband/#comment-515</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://martinjy.com/?p=414#comment-515</guid>
		<description>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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Firstly, I don&#8217;t run, and I haven&#8217;t used the Nike+. I guess that means I have no background to my comment, but oh well.</p>
<p>I just thought that if all the Nike+ thing does well is measure distance and time, I don&#8217;t see the point. It&#8217;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. </p>
<p>I could see the point if it &#8216;accurately&#8217; showed increased heart rate and speed changes on a hill or at the 10km mark so you can see where you&#8217;re finding it tough. I think a product should add value/functionality to whats already available, so if it doesn&#8217;t reliably do anything other than time and distance maybe that&#8217;s why so many people knock it.</p>
<p>But hey, what do I know?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
