I have one (v2). I like it for calculating TSS. It’s better than heart rate or rTSS as far as I’m concerned. I have to be honest, I still don’t really train to power like I do on the bike. I have an awareness of the power numbers at certain points in times, and especially on little inclines I might have a glance to make sure I’m not massively overcooking, but it certainly is different to how I use it for cycling.
The large benefit is the accuracy as a footpod. I’ve noticed this the last two years in the Big Half where there is a long section through the limehouse tunnel. It’s early in the run and I’ve felt large numbers of people massively overcook this bit once they lose GPS signal, whereas with the accurate pace data, I’ve felt I’ve been able to run more consistently.
As GB suggests, the new wind version (if I had it) might well lead me to put more regular reliance on the numbers.
If you have a Garmin HRMRUN / HRMTRI strap and a compatable Garmin watch you can download a running poer app and try it out to see it you would get any benefit out of running power.
I have that setup and can get power readings but haven’t really looked into the data in much detail.
For me, this is of limited use. Although you can enable weather compensation (it downloads the wind forecast) and it can compensate for elevation changes, the main benefit I can see would be power across different surfaces, so you can run at a given power across multi-terrain. This is when judging effort by pace is most ineffective. Does Stryd do this?
I got the v4 Wind one a few days ago. I am hooked on Power on the bike especially on getting faster times on segments.
I can see that it brings the geek out in me to improve my training. I think power for me would make a massive difference than trying to track pace that is obviously influenced by gradient, wind and ground surface etc.
The metrics seem to be more natural for what I like to look at. I cannot image riding a bike based on average speed…
Anyway it is early days, but I am sure it will give me the incentive to run more and pay more attention to what I am doing rather than just doing endless junk miles…
I dont see the benefit of these at all. Lets be clear they are not power meters they are accelerometers with some algorithms. The only way you can measure power in run is with a force plate, which is not possible in the field.
Pace works fine and a correctly determined threshold pace is good for IF and TSS calcs from runs.
Power on a bike is completely different. Its very easy to measure power when you can directly measure the force exerted on a lever (crank).
But does Stryd compensate for terrain? Garmin power specifically does not - although I suspect there is some pace v. HR compensation. So when running from asphalt to gravel to grass, Garmin power does not know how much I am slipping each stride, so thinks a reduction in pace is a reduction in power. HR is the only way to tell if the effort is the same when the surface changes.
I had the original a long time ago when it was an HRM but managed to break it pretty quickly. If it has improved when running on different surfaces then I’d be tempted again although I’m not quite as serious about my numbers currently. When doing long trail / beach runs etc it would be good to know when you are pushing too hard - especially early in an ultra. But mostly not paying enough attention to latest tech currently.
Whilst true, that ultimately is of little relevance. DCR has shown that the powerpod, for example, gives very comparable readings to a direct force power meter when cycling, so how the numbers are created is actually not hugely important.
Moreover, your direct force power meter is just a strain gauge which measures torque, and then “some algorithms” convert that to a power number, using accelerometers.
Stryd have also shown that their numbers are in line with force plate measurements.
Your statement effectively means running power meters will never be a thing. Whilst DCR is still saying they’re probably “not there yet”, he says anyone claiming they won’t be, in the same way people said the same when cycling power meters first came out, is equally deluded.
I dont believe they will. The need for them is not there. In cycling their was a clear requirement to be able to measure output on the go (whereas obviously speed was no use).
Its disingenuous to call them Power Meters when they are not. The definition of a meter is (a device that measures and records the quantity, degree, or rate of something.). They are not measuring it, they are estiamting.
Cycling power meters are directly measuring torque. Certainly some use accelerometers to estimate cadence, but others will also directly measure that. The running power meters (!) are indirectly measuring all variables.
Perhaps that is just splitting hairs. Ultimately I don’t see the need and don’t think they will become as big and a prevalent as cycling PMs.
Happy to preserve this and come back to it in 5 years and see if I was wrong and will buy you a pint if so
" Now before we get too far into this, some will try and argue that this isn’t a ‘power meter’. However, that’s largely a backwards and dated way of thinking. Ultimately one has to realize that every power meter is part hardware and part software algorithms. Whether or not this one uses wind and accelerometers to measure power versus some element of direct force is inconsequential. What matters is whether or not it can do it accurately . The cycling power meter and trainer market is littered with examples of crappy so-called ‘direct force’ power meters, and very functional non-direct force power meters. Some arbitrary distinction no longer matters in accuracy. Either it sucks or it doesn’t. And no, the argument of “it’s at least consistent” doesn’t fly in these parts."
There’s also a bit on one of the recent podcasts where he talks about the almost certain future of a running power meter, in the same way as cycling. I’m not entirely sure I see your point on why one is needed for cycling, but not in running. As the new stryd wind shows, wind and other conditions can dramatically impact the energy exerted when running just the same as it does when cycling.
Did Mo Farah have a Stryd attached to his trainers on Sunday?
I would have thought that pretty much every pro rider uses a power meter so if there was any advantage no matter how small of using one for running all the pro runners would be using one?
It measures all the other “garmin” metrics like vo, stride length etc. The most useful thing ive found is Form Power. Its otherwise known as “the cost of doing work” so wasted power essentially. It typically sits around 1watt per kilo for the average person, so for me Im around 90 watts. now using this as a % or overall power can be useful. you can tinker with form changes and see in real time if form power goes down, so style A FP = 90 and you are running at 270 watts you know its 33%, if you make a change and for similar HR are running at 270 watts but FP goes down to 80 you know you are more efficient, or take the other way you run at 300 watts but FP goes up to 105watts you know you are far less efficient at that effort level so potentially slower even though your are putting in more effort/doing more work. Its such new tech that all these numbers could be very useful when coaches learn how to interpret them…Then again it could be a white elephant. #caveat i got my stryd 2 for free, its been fun looking at numbers and may provide use but to pace using it is next to impossible as it destroys form. A small watch on your wrist and you have to change the arm motion to check it and if you are doing that to actually keep an eye regularly enough it’s potentially going to slow you down. Also WK0 / TP do not use the figures well as it cant set separate power zones for bike and run so you are pretty screwed there, although you can produce some pretty good custom charts in WK04 to see patterns etc.
so for me jury is still out but it could have potential .