pedometers, do they really work? (Read 688 times)

All a pedometer does is count how many steps you take. If you know how far you travel with each step on average, then you can get a "close enough" type number. If you want something more accurate but only marginally more costly, you can get a foot pod type device like the Nike+ or the Garmin Forerunner 50 which basically does the same thing but can figure out different stride lengths based on how fast you are going. (You have to train them first on a track, but that's easy enough to do.) If you really want to know the most accurate routes and don't want to take the time to wheel measure, a GPS watch like a Forerunner 250/350/450 will run you between $150-$500 depending upon model/accessories/deals. Take a look at the maps in the area that you are going to be running, though. Here in Maine, we have some aerial photography available that makes picking out routes in open areas at least pretty easy.

When I move back to pittsburgh for school in the fall, I need to come up with good run routes. There are so many side streets that I don't know if it would be easier to run with a pedometer for a bit to figure my distances? I think it might be too hard to use the mapper thing here since I want to run in the park and on trails, and plus I have no idea where I would even start running in oakland. I hate running in the city, give me my country roads any day. But I know pedometers are mainly for walkers, but is there one that is meant for runners ,and that is somewhat accurate? Thanks!

Hi. I can only comment on what I use and am happy with. I have been using Polar RS800 with S3 footpod (accelerometer-based speed and distance meter) for a year now. After calibration my device is consistently accurate to within plus/minus 0.5-1% of the actual distance regardless of the terrain (forest trails, dirt-paths, asphalt, concrete), shoes, and speed even though all these things do affect its accuracy to a degree that is irrelevant for me. The only cases where I found larger deviation (up to ca. 3%) from the actual values were snow/ice covered paths, the running tracks covered with a rubber-like material, and when walking instead of running. But even for these conditions I could improve accuracy by using separate calibration values for these specific conditions (which I don't bother to). 0.5-1% accuracy is more than good enough for me. I am not saying a footpod-based system is better than a GPS-based system (both systems have their own weaknesses) and there are probably some footpod devices available that are not as good as the one that comes with the RS800. but the main reasons why I picked up the RS800 instead of the Forerunner 305 at the time when I was shopping for a new monitor were: - The RS800 shape and size are those of a wrist watch (not ugly at all) and can be used as such; - It is truly water resistant (you can swim with it and allegedly it can be used for heart rate monitoring while swimming); - Its battery autonomy of the wrist unit is more than a year, several orders of magnitude above that of a 305 (the batteries in my footpod last for more than 50 hours of active use - the manual is declaring >30 hours); - For distance measurement (when calibrated!) it is about as accurate as a GPS unit, sometimes better (on very zig-zag routes); - It is much much better in measuring the instantaneous speed/pace than any GPS unit (important if you train by the speed/pace) plus it provides instantaneous information about the cadence and stride length (no GPS can do that). - Elevation profile is more precisely measured with the pressure sensor (RS800) than with GPS (305). The only two annoyances with RS800 that I could find at the time with respect to Forerunners a la 305 and 405 : - Footpod can only measure speed/pace and distance for running. There is however a GPS pod compatible with RS800 available for other sports (but with no track mapping!). There is a rumor though about a new multisport RS800-something coming out this fall that will enable track mapping a la Garmin too. - You have to be careful that you fix the footpod always to the same location on your shoe (this is critical for high accuracy of speed/pace and distance measurement). The advantages listed above far outweighed the drawbacks in my case. So, if I were in your shoes right now, I would go with the Garmin 305 or 405 only if track-mapping and multi-sport use were crucial for me. In all other cases I would go with the Polar again. I hope this helps.