Validating the Adidas miCoach and Nike+ Sport Kit for estimating pace, distance, and energy expenditure during over-ground exercise

Justin Paul Porta, University of Texas at El Paso

Abstract

There is currently no known published research validating the Adidas miCoach or Nike+ Sport Kit personal training systems for outdoor, over-ground walking and running. To validate these devices for estimating pace (min.km-1), distance (km) and energy expenditure (EE) (kcal·min-1) during outdoor over-ground walking and running for two different sensor configurations, 6 male and 8 female participants with moderate endurance training (Mean ± SE Age: 28.21 ± 2.27 y; Body Mass: 60.93 ± 2.97 kg; Height: 167.43 ± 2.09 cm; Percent Body Fat: 14.93 ± 1.94% (N=16); and VO2max: 54.44 ± 1.47 mL·kg-1·min -1) completed this study. The protocol consisted of walking at 53.6, 80.4 and 107.2 m·min-1 and running at 134.0, 160.8, 187.6 and 214.0 m·min-1 on an outdoor, 400 meter track, while wearing a portable metabolic measurement unit (COSMED K4b2). Each sensor was attached on the right (miCoach) and left (Nike+) shoelaces (LC), as well as the midsole (MC) of the shoe. Estimated pace, distance and EE were compared to values determined by criterion methods (AC). Data were analyzed using a MANOVA (pace, distance) or MANCOVA with repeated measures (energy expenditure) to evaluate significant differences. For the miCoach, each subsequent stage elicited a significant change in estimated pace for both the LC and MC (p≤0.001) except between 53.6 and 80.4 m·min -1, and 107.2 and 134.0 m·min-1 at the MC. The miCoach LC and MC also demonstrated a significant change for distance (p=0.019) and EE (p=0.032) with each subsequent speed. For the Nike+, each subsequent stage elicited a significant change in estimated values for pace (p=0.001), distance (p< 0.001), and EE (p<0.001). The miCoach LC and MC pace were significantly different from each other at 80.4 m·min-1> (p=0.021). There were no other significant differences seen between miCoach LC and MC, or between Nike+ LC and MC for pace; likewise, there were no significant differences between the miCoach LC and MC or Nike+ LC and MC for distance. The miCoach LC and MC EE were significantly different from each other at walking speeds of 53.6 and 80.4 m·min-1> (p≤0.012). There were no other significant differences seen between the miCoach LC and MC, or between the Nike+ LC and MC for EE. For practical purposes, miCoach seems to be useful; however, the Nike+ seems to fall short of the manufacturers' claims. The inability of both the miCoach and Nike+ to correctly estimate pace, distance and EE across the entire range of speeds indicates that these do not appear to be valid assessment instruments for outdoor research purposes.

Subject Area

Kinesiology

Recommended Citation

Porta, Justin Paul, "Validating the Adidas miCoach and Nike+ Sport Kit for estimating pace, distance, and energy expenditure during over-ground exercise" (2013). ETD Collection for University of Texas, El Paso. AAI1551241.
https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/dissertations/AAI1551241

Share

COinS