Garmin vs. Nike+

Any runner has heard of the toys, maybe has drooled over them, and has even wondered, what's the difference? I was one of these runners. I started out with my beloved Nike+ that the hubs bought me for my birthday last year. I thought it would be a fun, and at $30, relatively cheap, way to keep track of my runs, calculate my pace and distance, and allow me to either rejoice at only having a small distance left to go, or groan at the knowledge that I have a much longer way to go. But then I started questioning its accuracy. I was told it wasn't always the most accurate tool, even after calibration, and after using it consistently for the last year I noticed that it was always a bit off. Some days it would over-estimate my distance, and other days it would under-estimate. This drove me crazy. I just wanted to know that I was running this distance in this amount of time. End of story. I did enjoy using it on the treadmill though, and since I've always heard treadmills are notorious for being inaccurate as well, I figured between the Nike+ and the treadmill screen, I would split the difference and call it good. Most of the time the treadmill was behind what the Nike+ said anyway.

As I began running more and more, and training for races, I began wanting more running toys. The prized jewel for me was the Garmin Forerunner 305. The GPS watch, to me, was the ultimate in accuracy. It would tell me precisely what my distance was, my pace, my splits, things my Nike+ was incapable of. Oh, and it has a wireless heart rate monitor, which I have yet to test, but that added bonus takes it into another universe above the Nike+.

So, now that I have both, I decided today would be the day to test the difference in accuracy, especially for the Nike+. I always used the Nike+ when running races, and most of the time it was off, which led me to believe that either the race distances were incorrect and I wasn't really racing a 5k, or my Nike+ was just not right. Although, when I ran the Germantown Half Marathon, it was pretty darn close, my Nike+ logged me in at 13.03 miles, so it was only about .07 miles off the certified race course.

Today's run was tough, considering I took the summer off and ran once in September and now twice in October, it's been an uphill battle to get back at it. My endurance is in the toilet and I just can't get going like I used to. I'm mad that I allowed myself so much time off, but then again, the heat here was enough to sway anyone from stepping outdoors. But anyway, the point of this post is the difference in the electronics and not me being out of shape. So, the Garmin put me at 2.07 miles in 25:09, with an average pace of 12:09 min/mi; Nike+ put me at 2.03 miles in 25:08, with an average pace of 12:23 min/mi. Soooo, not much difference! Overall, I can't say that the Garmin is better than the Nike+. I like the added features of the Garmin, the elevation, grade, splits, heart rate, laps, GPS, etc. I also like the Garmin's website and training interface better than that of the Nike+. But, if all you're looking for is distance and average pace, and don't want to shell out the $150 for a Garmin, the Nike+ is a much cheaper alternative and pretty good for the money!

Garmin upload, notice all the info it gives you on the left:

Nike+ upload, this is all it will ever give, the little lines behind the graph can be clicked on and you can see your pace throughout the run, but can't see the split: