8,153
edits
Changes
From Fellrnr.com, Running tips
no edit summary
* The basic package only gives you one anklet, so you don't get any balance information, but you could buy a second anklet.
* The Sensoria requires you to run with your phone, which I think is a major annoyance. While many folks are happy doing this, I find a smart phone rather cumbersome and I'd much rather have the information displayed on the watch.
* In addition to the broken [[Foot Strike]] information, the Sensoria also gives Ground Contact Time and some impact information post-run. The impact is on a scale of 1 to 10, but is not in g's (gravities). The reported Ground Contact Time by Sensoria is quite a bit higher than any of it should be. (See Ground Contact Time testing below.)* Sensoria state that the other systemsanklet is "splashproof" and it should be fine in the rain. Personally, this would make me cautious about using it in heavy downpours.
=Gallery=
{| class="wikitable"
|}
=Test runs=
My first test consisted of nine runs; three with [[Minimax]] [[Hoka Clifton]]s, three with more minimally cushioned [[Saucony Endorphin]], and three with the near barefoot [[Merrell Vapor Glove]]. The first of each sequence was with my normal rear [[Foot Strike]], the second was with forefoot only landing without my heel ever making contact with the ground, and the third was forefoot landing with the heel briefly touching down. I compared the Sensoria with the [[RunScribe]] and the Garmin [[Running Dynamics]], and in the RunScribe graphs below, yellow is Ground Contact Time and blue is Foot Strike. As you can see from the table below, run scribe is reporting a Foot Strike number that is appropriate for how I was running. However, the Sensoria is reporting that time heel striking even when I'm running on my forefoot. The discrepancy between the Ground Contact Time results for the Sensoria, [[RunScribe]], and Garmin [[Running Dynamics]] laid me to do some verification tests later using high-speed video. This testing led me to believe that the Garmin was giving the most accurate results.
{| class="wikitable"
! Shoe
[[File:RS_Tracer_ForefootOnly.jpg|none|thumb|500px|The [[RunScribe]] data reflects the true Foot Strike pattern.]]
[[MilestonePod]] showed 100% forefoot, Ground Contact Time of 278ms, while [[Running Dynamics]] showed Ground Contact Time of 239ms. The [[Moov Now]] reported 7.7g impact, the [[RunScribe]] 10.0, and [[MilestonePod]] gave the rate of impact as low. However, the impact figures are measured in different ways and in different positions, so it's hard to meaningfully compare them.
=Ground Contact Time Testing=
I tested Ground Contact Time by comparing multiple devices against a gold standard of high-speed video on a treadmill. I took the average of a number of strides filmed over a 10 minute period, while aiming to run as steadily as possible. As you can see the Sensoria system is wildly inaccurate, and this reflects the general trend I've seen in my other runs.
{| class="wikitable"
! Device
! Ground Contact Time (ms)
! Cadence
|-
| High Speed Video
| 256
|
|-
| Sensoria
| 344 (+88)
| 175 (fluctuating wildly)
|-
| Garmin [[Running Dynamics]]
| 254 (-2)
| 176
|-
| [[MilestonePod]]
| 253 (-3)
| 177
|-
| [[Moov Now]]
|
| 178
|}
Second test using the [[RunScribe]] system as well:
{| class="wikitable"
! Device
! Ground Contact Time (ms)
! Cadence
|-
| High Speed Video
| 255
|
|-
| Sensoria
| 339 (+84)
| 178
|-
| Garmin [[Running Dynamics]]
| 251 (+4)
| 177
|-
| [[MilestonePod]]
| 253 (-2)
| 177
|-
| [[RunScribe]]
| 299 (+44)
| 178
|}
Here's an example of the Sensoria cadence data, which reflects the wild fluctuations I saw displayed. <br/>
[[File:Sensoria Cadence.jpg|none|thumb|500px|Sensoria cadence data]]
