Home|About|Races|Magazine|Events|Blogroll|Press|Contact|Browse Content
Leaderboard Ad

Garmin vs Nike+: A Test of Accuracy

[ OBSERVATION ]

NOV. 3, SATURDAY. This was the first time I used my Garmin on a long run. Our goal with Annie, my running buddy, was 15 km around Ayala Alabang. We agreed on taking our usual 12 km route and just let our feet carry us an additional 3 km anywhere from that point. Boy, were we in for a surprise.

At the 12 km mark (according to Nike+ in the past), the Garmin recorded a distance of 9.5 km. “9.5?!” Annie shrieked in disbelief. I was likewise stunned at the awfully large discrepancy. At the very least, I was expecting to hit over 10 km by then.

Which gadget was telling the truth? Had I been logging less kilometers than I actually ran for the past 5 months? Should I have followed Nike’s directions and calibrated the kit before using it? All these questions were floating about in my mind as Annie and I plodded on with an unxepected 5.5 more kilometers to run.

[ TEST ]

NOV. 10, SATURDAY. At the risk of looking like Inspector Gadget, I wore both the Garmin and Nike+ on my next long run last Saturday.  Our goal this time was 18 km.  Again, we ran the same initial 12 km route then ran halfway through that same route making our way back to the starting point.

At the onset, both gadgets recorded the same distance.  At least, that’s how it was at 2 km.  But, as we increased our distance, the discrepancy increased as well.

For the pace, there was a significant 30 second difference too; the Nike+ giving me a faster pace than the Garmin.

At the same 12 km mark (based on the Nike+ in the past), the Garmin, much to my delight, registered the exact distance as the past week’s run: 9.5 km.  I pretty much knew which gadget was more accurate at that point.  And, sadly, our once favorite 12 km route needed an immediate name downgrade to “10 km route.”

[ RESULTS ]

Here are the actual data from both the Garmin Forerunner 305 and uncalibrated Nike+:

GARMIN: Time 2:01:15/ Distance 18.2 km/ Ave pace 6:4/ Calories 1028
NIKE+: Time 2:00:08/ Distance 20.5 km/ Ave pace 5:5/ Calories 1148

I get goosebumps thinking of what could have happened had I used the Nike+ to train for my upcoming marathon.  I would’ve been led to believe that I trained at my maximum 32 km when it might have been only 30 km or less.  Scary isn’t it?

* Note: At 8 km, I accidentally ended the Nike+ workout when we paused for a water break.  I started a new workout and added data from both workouts.

[ PREDICTION ]

I predict my Garmin Forerunner 305 will be my new best friend.

I predict my Nike+ will gather dust at home.

I predict I’ll get death threats from Nike+ fanatics who are running 2 kms less than they actually are.  (Please don’t kill the messenger.)

Posted on 11.12.07 to 04 Gear & Product Reviews. Tags: , , , . Subscribe to follow comments on this post. 44 comments. Add your thoughts or trackback from your own site.

«
»

44 Responses to “Garmin vs Nike+: A Test of Accuracy”

  1. As i told you before the Garmin is very accurate. sometimes its Too accurate that its scary cause if you run the same route day after day and compare the Km reading the distance is always the same sometimes -+1meter difference only. I had a Nike TDX shoe pod ( that gadget you strap on the lace of your shoe ) and it would register i did a 16km but in reality i only did 14km after using the Garmin. Talking about pace naman with the Nike it registerd i was running 4.30/km but in the Garmin i was doing 5.10-+/km. like you my world came crumbling down when it hit me that for the 27 years that ive been running my accumilated mileage was less than what ive logged all this years. Well i guess its never to late to face reality.
    I cant wait to try my garmin on the Yakult 10mile race on dec. 9 !!! have fun ” Good Bye Nike + Hello Garmin. my new Girl friend !! :-)

    patrick concepcion said on Nov 12 07 at 1:00 PM Reply

  2. hi br, great review, should be a good guide for those planning to get themselves a monitor.

    roadrat said on Nov 12 07 at 1:12 PM Reply

  3. same review as other runners say. can’t fool a GPS unit right?! hehehehe happy running miss jaymie! careful with the LSDs. always remeber to rest and recup properly. :)

    ben chan said on Nov 12 07 at 9:34 PM Reply

  4. Hey did I read right that the Nike wasn’t calibrated? Did you go back and calibrate it before the head to head test? Could be the source of the big discrepancy I’m thinking.

    rick430 said on Nov 13 07 at 3:26 AM Reply

    • I calibrated my Nike+ for .25 miles and saw a discrepancy of over a mile when distances stretched beyond 8 miles. I am seriously considering switching to a Forerunner 405.

      mj_wim said on May 18 09 at 1:47 PM Reply

  5. So funny that you used them at the same time. But hey – well worth it. This is a great review. Maybe if I get a polar rs200 you can try that against your garmin too (you dont mind being inspector gadget for another run, right). hehe. i prefer something i can wear indoors.

    Tina said on Nov 13 07 at 8:28 AM Reply

  6. Patrick, 27 years! here i am annoyed over the 5 months I wasted tracking the wrong distance :P

    Roadrat, thanks. Hope it helps runners who were as confused about these gadgets as i was.

    Ben, yes I will. This garmin helps me keep my pace :)

    Rick, yup I was too lazy to calibrate. I’m sure that contributed to the discrepancy that’s why I put it out there to be fair to Nike.

    Tina, sure if you don’t mind lending it to me! hahaha.

    bullrunner said on Nov 13 07 at 9:30 AM Reply

  7. Hi Jaymie,
    Great review on the Garmin and Nike+ Thanks! but it would be fair to the Nike+ if you had it calibrated and re-tested for accuracy. While your in the topic of Gadget Testing if its not too much of a bother to you, like what Ms Tina said regarding her Polar i wont mind lending my Sunnto T3 for your next run just for comparison. But does that mean you’ll be wearing two chest straps as well??
    Armand

    Armand said on Nov 13 07 at 10:52 PM Reply

  8. unrelated pero sabihin ko na rin, hehe. we have a garmin GPS system which we use to navigate the interstate jungles of america, and we’ve compared it with the other gps systems our friends use. our conclusion, the accuracy of garmin is incredible, so i’m not surprised if your garmin performs wonderfully. our garmin GPS is our bestfriend, too. :)

    Meeya said on Nov 14 07 at 2:42 AM Reply

  9. Hey Jaymie,

    Iba talaga ang garmin. Btw how far is the outer or inner lane of bonifacio highstreet? (The route you ran in the Mizuno run club to test your garmin?) I’m gonna test how accurate my Suunto footpod is and I’m making your GPS unit as the standard.

    Thanks.

    taki said on Nov 15 07 at 3:00 PM Reply

  10. Funny!I was laughing while reading your review! I read similar review in Runners World Mag about these gadgets. anyway, I cant offer much help, I go by feel and depend less on measured mileage just so I dont lose the enjoyment and fun especially during those long runs. cheers!

    beth siojo said on Nov 17 07 at 6:26 PM Reply

  11. Very good review. Makes me want to buy one. Can you e-mail me details (e.g. price, where best to buy etc.)? Christmas is coming up. I might have some extra cash. Thanks and keep on posting.

    Kalbo said on Nov 20 07 at 5:07 AM Reply

  12. Hello. The consistency you are seeing with the Garmin is not accuracy, but precision. Precision is related to the repeatability of your measurements. Accuracy on the other hand, is about how near your measurements are with the actual values. Calibration increases accuracy, not precision.

    Garmin GPS measures distances via sattelite, so it measures the distance you ran horizontally.

    Meanwhile Nike+ measures the distance thru each acceleration of your foot for each step. So it actually measures the distance your foot travels, and it isn’t always in a straight line, especially if you’re a slow runner.

    Theoretically, the Nike+ should be more accurate as long as you calibrate it. Its precision is not constant. I believe you would get more precise measurement if you’re faster, because of more efficient stride.

    nathaniel said on Apr 11 08 at 9:58 AM Reply

  13. C’mon folks, don’t forget to consider what you paid for the Nike+ vs. any GPS device. “You get what you pay for” certainly rings true. I’ve used my Nike+ for the last two years to log over 2500 miles (with only one trip to the Apple store to exchange under warranty -dead battery).
    Nike+ is about 1/10th the price of a Forerunner 305 so expectations of equal performance are unrealistic. I was able to successfully record my last marathon using my Nike+. The measured distance was 27.1 miles -less than a mile off after 26; not bad I’d say.

    Today, I ordered the 305 to help take my training to a higher level. I can’t wait to start rolling up miles with it!!! I am anxious to run some of my usual routes and see how the two compare.

    runBLrun said on Apr 27 08 at 9:39 AM Reply

  14. hello, i just bought a new nike+ sportband, and it’s very accurate.
    you will need to calibrate it to make it comparable with gps.

    nathan said on May 24 08 at 6:17 PM Reply

  15. This comparison is useless…..without the calibration, there is no point.

    dumbass said on Jun 15 08 at 9:50 AM Reply

  16. Hi! I was able to test my nike+ sportsband on an actual nike+ shoe (air pegasus+). Measuring from google earth, my test route should be around 4.6k and to my great surprise i logged 4.48km. Fairly good considering that i haven’t calibrated my system yet.

    I used to run with the nike+ system before on a non-nike+ shoe. The route that I ran was 4k but often registers 5k on my system.

    What I plan to do now is run the UP acad oval using the pure nike+ system and see if I can get the expected mileage. After that I’ll run distance and use a non-nike+ shoe and a switcheasy combo.

    I can’t and won’t buy a garmin right now since my polar is working perfectly for me. :)

    Kokoy said on Aug 25 08 at 10:04 PM Reply

  17. achtung garmin! consider tbr as an endorser.

    mikey said on Sep 23 08 at 7:46 AM Reply

  18. Too funny because, I measure the distance of my route base on the odometer reading of my car, Im planning to buy a garmin too, can you please inform me where to buy it here? and if its gps also has some deadspots? thanks

    Ian said on Sep 24 08 at 10:34 AM Reply

  19. CONGRATULATIONS for this winning post! –TechScribe

    Gloria Karlos said on Sep 29 08 at 9:24 PM Reply

  20. Hi Jaymie! This is a great post! Congratulations!!! Is there a place here in Metro Manila where I can purchase the Garmin Forerunner 305 or 405? Thanks and keep up the great work!

    Jay said on Oct 20 08 at 8:19 AM Reply

  21. This is quite interesting…I just got back to running and am curious bout these gadgets; the Garmin and Nike? What site may I visit to know more about them?

    Bod bless BR..your site is such a treasure!

    I have a story to tell…I submitted it to Milo but I guess their criteria is different…but it doesn’t matter…it’s to honor my Dad.

    If okay…may I email you the story? It got published in The Freeman Cebu last week. Would appreciate advise where I can email you.

    God bless!

    Delmond said on Dec 28 08 at 7:28 PM Reply

  22. Hi! Good day! Congrats for winning the 2008 Philippine Blog Awards.

    I am Gwyn, a student from the University of the Philippines – Diliman. I, together with my partner, Roxanne Flora, is writing a thesis on blogging ethics.

    We chose the winners of the 2008 PBA as the respondents for our thesis. Can we ask for your help by being one of the online interviewees? We hope to hear from you soon.Thank you so much.

    Respectfully yours,

    Gwyn Ann Marie S. Ebol

    Gwyn Ann Ebol said on Jan 07 09 at 9:06 PM Reply

  23. Are you sure you calibrated the Nike+ properly?

    Justine said on Feb 17 09 at 7:52 AM Reply

  24. Hi there! I ran the Condura using Forerunner 305 but when I sync it with my computer, it registered March 21, 2009 instead of March 22, 2009. Do you have a quick answer on how to change the date?

    Thank you and more power!

    Allan Jocson said on Mar 31 09 at 6:12 PM Reply

  25. This sentence in your original post really hit home: “I get goosebumps thinking of what could have happened had I used the Nike+ to train for my upcoming marathon. I would’ve been led to believe that I trained at my maximum 32 km when it might have been only 30 km or less. Scary isn’t it?”

    YES, SCARY! That exact thing happened to me! I relied on Nike+ in training for the L.A. Marathon and it was a minute off per mile; it told me I was training at 9 min miles when I was really 10, due to the same problem you describe. During the marathon I stupidly tried to keep the 9 min pace though I knew at mile 1 I hadn’t trained for it. I crashed at mile 16 and limped/ran/walked to the finish. Don’t rely on Nike!

    Dan Ojeda said on Jun 15 09 at 9:43 AM Reply

  26. I find that if I run at a steady, consistent pace, the Nike+ is pretty accurate. If I’m running intervals, the Nike+ is way off.

    Karen said on Jul 02 09 at 5:03 AM Reply

  27. You can’t tell the difference in an 8:00 mile and 10:20 mile? Trash the gadgets and learn how to pace yourself. Use a $30 stopwatch.

    Matt said on Jul 24 09 at 1:57 AM Reply

  28. thank you for your sentiments.

    sandrine007 said on Dec 26 09 at 11:07 PM Reply

  29. Hi Jaymie, thanks for conducting this experiment. Finally, some hard facts to stress the importance of calibrating your nike+ before use! Nike+ is roughly 92% accurate out of the box, but it goes up to 98% after calibration. If you need any help calibrating it, I’d be glad to help you out. Besides, don’t you think the higher mileage and lower pace is just an awesome motivational tool to psyche yourself up and achieve those hypothetical PRs? Haha!

    Jerwin said on Jul 06 10 at 5:43 PM Reply

  30. Thanks TBR!

    This seals the deal. Will really have a Garmin Forerunner for a First GPS watch.

    Thanks!

    Neb said on Jan 23 12 at 6:08 PM Reply

Leave a Reply

Return to Top