Validity of the Nike+Device During Walking and Running

Abstract

We determined the validity of the Nike+^® device for estimating speed, distance, and energy expenditure (EE) during walking and running. Twenty trained individuals performed a maximal oxygen uptake test and underwent anthropometric and body composition testing. Each participant was outfitted with a Nike+^® sensor inserted into the shoe and an Apple iPod nano^®. They performed eight 6-min stages on the treadmill, including level walking at 55, 82, and 107 m·min⁻¹, inclined walking (82 m·min⁻¹) at 5 and 10% grades, and level running at 134, 161, and 188 m·min⁻¹. Speed was measured using a tachometer and EE was measured by indirect calorimetry. Results showed that the Nike+^® device overestimated the speed of level walking at 55 m·min⁻¹ by 20%, underestimated the speed of level walking at 107 m·min⁻¹ by 12%, but closely estimated the speed of level walking at 82 m·min⁻¹, and level running at all speeds (p<0.05). Similar results were found for distance. The Nike+^® device overestimated the EE of level walking by 18–37%, but closely estimated the EE of level running (p<0.05). In conclusion the Nike+^® in-shoe device provided reasonable estimates of speed and distance during level running at the three speeds tested in this study. However, it overestimated EE during level walking and it did not detect the increased cost of inclined locomotion.

Key words

physical activity - motion sensor - energy cost - aerobic requirement - accelerometer

References

• 1 Barnett A, Cerin E. Individual calibration for estimating free-living walking speed using the MTI monitor.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;  38 761-767
• 2 Bassett Jr DR, Howley ET, Thompson DL, King GA, Strath SJ, McLaughlin JE, Parr BB. Validity of inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring gas exchange with a computerized system.  J Appl Physiol. 2001;  91 218-224
• 3 Brage S, Wedderkopp N, Franks PW, Andersen LB, Froberg K. Reexamination of validity and reliability of the CSA monitor in walking and running.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;  35 1447-1454
• 4 Conger SA, Strath SJ, Bassett DR, Jr. Validity and reliability of the FitSense FS-1 Speedometer during walking and running.  Int J Sports Med. 2005;  26 208-213
• 5 Crouter SE, Antczak A, Hudak JR, DellaValle DM, Haas JD. Accuracy and reliability of the ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400 and MedGraphics VO2000 metabolic systems.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;  98 139-151
• 6 Crouter SE, Churilla  JR , Bassett  Jr  DR. Estimating energy expenditure using accelerometers.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;  98 601-612
• 7 Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;  30 777-781
• 8 Haymes EM, Byrnes WC. Walking and running energy expenditure estimated by Caltrac and indirect calorimetry.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;  25 1365-1369
• 9 Karabulut M, Crouter SE, Bassett  Jr  DR. Comparison of two waist-mounted and two ankle-mounted electronic pedometers.  Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005;  95 335-343
• 10 King GA, Torres N, Potter C, Brooks TJ, Coleman KJ. Comparison of activity monitors to estimate energy cost of treadmill exercise.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;  36 1244-1251
• 11 Nichols JF, Morgan CG, Sarkin JA, Sallis JF, Calfas KJ. Validity, reliability, and calibration of the Tritrac accelerometer as a measure of physical activity.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;  31 908-912
• 12 Welk GJ, Almeida J, Morss G. Laboratory calibration and validation of the Biotrainer and Actitrac activity monitors.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;  35 1057-1064
• 13 Weyand PG, Kelly M, Blackadar T, Darley JC, Oliver SR, Ohlenbusch NE, Joffe SW, Hoyt RW. Ambulatory estimates of maximal aerobic power from foot -ground contact times and heart rates in running humans.  J Appl Physiol. 2001;  91 451-458

Correspondence