My kid just ran some 800s today and he supposedly only averaged 173 steps per minute. Should I be concerned or is Strava and Garmin data fairly inaccurate?
Should be very accurate assuming the watch is on your wrist.
An accelerometer measures how quickly the device accelerates. Each step you take is one arm swing. Arm goes forward, back, forward, back. As your arm switches directions the accelerometer will hit 0. If you plot the magnitude of acceleration it will be sinusoidal. A fast fourier transform is taken to approximate the cycle rate, which corresponds to steps per minute.
I'm just going by the standard rule that 180 is average. I'm just thinking those extra seven steps a minute that are missing could add up to a lot of distance over a race.
I bought a Garmin Fenix 7 in February. The manual says that the accelerometer takes time to improve its accuracy. The manual says that the accuracy will improve the more one uses the GPS. Well, it's now mid October and my watch still routinely undercounts my steps. I know this because when I use the Garmin chest strap, it records my steps at 10-20 (and even more, if I'm going fast) steps per minute more than if I use just the watch without the chest strap. I know that the chest strap is the correct one, because it accords with my average cadence before I changed watches. I have to concede that it may be a specific issue with my watch, and it wasn't the case with any previous Garmin watches of mine (which appeared to record cadence pretty accurately without the need for a chest strap), but I thought I should mention it.
My kid just ran some 800s today and he supposedly only averaged 173 steps per minute. Should I be concerned or is Strava and Garmin data fairly inaccurate?
Don't be that dad. If they're having fun, just let the kid run.
After testing five different smart watches over the past couple of months, I've determined that they do an impressive number of things, but most of them badly.
I've gotten altitude changes of 20 feet on a track, pace dropping to zero on a trail run, and HR off by 40bpm. I know the HR was off because I was wearing two watches... one with a chest strap and the other was a smartwatch I was testing.
If you want to know pace, the best way is to do a continuous video for 10-30 seconds or so and count the number of footstrikes. There is a Chrome extension that will let you slow down videos that makes it easier.
Bottom line: I wouldn't make any training decisions off smartwatch data without confirming it first.
My kid just ran some 800s today and he supposedly only averaged 173 steps per minute. Should I be concerned or is Strava and Garmin data fairly inaccurate?
Don't be that dad. If they're having fun, just let the kid run.
After testing five different smart watches over the past couple of months, I've determined that they do an impressive number of things, but most of them badly.
I've gotten altitude changes of 20 feet on a track, pace dropping to zero on a trail run, and HR off by 40bpm. I know the HR was off because I was wearing two watches... one with a chest strap and the other was a smartwatch I was testing.
If you want to know pace, the best way is to do a continuous video for 10-30 seconds or so and count the number of footstrikes. There is a Chrome extension that will let you slow down videos that makes it easier.
Bottom line: I wouldn't make any training decisions off smartwatch data without confirming it first.
180 is definitely not average. 180 is a common number people tend to shoot for but 173 is certainly not bad. The real question is how was the workout? I've seen people with 160 strides per minute run fast times that are taller and cover more ground. I'd rather have a higher cadence as there seems to be less chance of slowing down drastically when tired but a really high cadence for some runners is something that just can't be held for very long or without all out sprinting.
I'm just going by the standard rule that 180 is average. I'm just thinking those extra seven steps a minute that are missing could add up to a lot of distance over a race.
That's something to work on- leg turn over. I think a lot of people aren't turning their legs over like they should be.
And you're right- you can show him how much difference 7 steps would be- how long is each stride?
How much further could he go in the same time with 180 steps?
Then- do drills and work on flexibility.
It might also be as simple as shortening his stride- is he over striding?
180 is definitely not average. 180 is a common number people tend to shoot for but 173 is certainly not bad. The real question is how was the workout? I've seen people with 160 strides per minute run fast times that are taller and cover more ground. I'd rather have a higher cadence as there seems to be less chance of slowing down drastically when tired but a really high cadence for some runners is something that just can't be held for very long or without all out sprinting.
The workout was 6 x 800 with 60 seconds rest between intervals. 2 mile warmup/1 mile cooldown. Ran all of them in 2:30-2:31.
He does have a long powerful stride. It just didn't seem like he was turning over well at all, especially on the bends. He's 15 years old and this workout wasn't an improvement on the same workout he ran two years ago about a month before nationals.
I can usually tell pretty quickly if he's "on" during a workout or race. I didn't get that impression. I'm concerned since it's mid-October and the serious racing is going to begin in a few weeks.
180 spm isn't some mythical gold standard. The science behind it is flimsy. Everyone is built differently and has different optimal stride rates/lengths. More steps per minute doesn't magically give you speed - you have to compensate by taking shorter strides, and the result may or may not be faster or any better for your son.
Your son needs a coach. Let the coach do his job.
Your son needs a dad. Stick to your job. If your son is feeling off in a workout and isn't having a great season, you can help by showing support, sympathy and confidence. Or you can compound the problem and create new ones by expressing frustration and disappointment.
After testing five different smart watches over the past couple of months, I've determined that they do an impressive number of things, but most of them badly.
I've gotten altitude changes of 20 feet on a track, pace dropping to zero on a trail run, and HR off by 40bpm. I know the HR was off because I was wearing two watches... one with a chest strap and the other was a smartwatch I was testing.
If you want to know pace, the best way is to do a continuous video for 10-30 seconds or so and count the number of footstrikes. There is a Chrome extension that will let you slow down videos that makes it easier.
Bottom line: I wouldn't make any training decisions off smartwatch data without confirming it first.
Measuring cadence is straightfoward because it only requires an accelerometer. Elevation is complicated because it relies on a GPS receiver which is inaccurate because it's so small. HR is also complicated because the wrist isn't an ideal place for optical HR readings.
It's actually BECAUSE cadence is so easy to measure that it became so overrated in running media. There's nothing wrong with taking 173 steps per minute... Please don't screw with your son's technique based on the 180 cadence myth/early 2000s industry propaganda.
180 spm isn't some mythical gold standard. The science behind it is flimsy. Everyone is built differently and has different optimal stride rates/lengths. More steps per minute doesn't magically give you speed - you have to compensate by taking shorter strides, and the result may or may not be faster or any better for your son.
Your son needs a coach. Let the coach do his job.
Your son needs a dad. Stick to your job. If your son is feeling off in a workout and isn't having a great season, you can help by showing support, sympathy and confidence. Or you can compound the problem and create new ones by expressing frustration and disappointment.
I've been coaching him for eight years. I think we're doing fine. Five national championships and nine time All-American seems like a decent result so far.
As far as cross country coaches at the local school - one doesn't coach weekends and the other is a football coach with an 0-7 football head coaching record that thinks CrossFit training is cross country training. I'm not letting my kid near that. They have one kid at 19 minutes and everyone else is 23+ minutes.
I've gotten altitude changes of 20 feet on a track, pace dropping to zero on a trail run, and HR off by 40bpm. I know the HR was off because I was wearing two watches... one with a chest strap and the other was a smartwatch I was testing.
Elevation is complicated because it relies on a GPS receiver which is inaccurate because it's so small.
Elevation is typically the least accurate data you get from a watch, unless is has a built-in altimeter. Most apps/sites like Garmin and Strava use known elevation maps to make corrections and/or interpolations. However, lots of elevation data is sparse (30m grid), so you will see variations due to lack of granularity. It's a tradeoff for faster processing, etc.
I find the measurement is less reliable in situations like this. It's an average, and with a standing start you're starting from 0. If it's a stat you really care about I would count steps for 30s once he's up to speed.
180 is definitely not average. 180 is a common number people tend to shoot for but 173 is certainly not bad. The real question is how was the workout? I've seen people with 160 strides per minute run fast times that are taller and cover more ground. I'd rather have a higher cadence as there seems to be less chance of slowing down drastically when tired but a really high cadence for some runners is something that just can't be held for very long or without all out sprinting.
The workout was 6 x 800 with 60 seconds rest between intervals. 2 mile warmup/1 mile cooldown. Ran all of them in 2:30-2:31.
He does have a long powerful stride. It just didn't seem like he was turning over well at all, especially on the bends. He's 15 years old and this workout wasn't an improvement on the same workout he ran two years ago about a month before nationals.
I can usually tell pretty quickly if he's "on" during a workout or race. I didn't get that impression. I'm concerned since it's mid-October and the serious racing is going to begin in a few weeks.
Does he do better on downhills? I supposedly "overstride" but I've found it gives me an advantage on downhills. The steeper and more technical the better.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.