All interesting, and valid points. Largely aligns with my thinking about the “potential”. But the bit above is wrong. Training Peaks definitely allows you to set both cycling power zone and run power zones. There’s an entirely separate settings section for run power FTP for that exact reason…
it may let you set them it TP but it doesnt use them in WK04.
Fair enough. I don’t use WKO. But all TSS values etc are separately calculated in TP for running and cycling.
Calculations are done within WK04 not TP and WK04 will often report lower TSS for a session, in swim for example due to rest used as part of the time and its not unusual for the figures to be different to what TP reports. For coaching i use WK04 to analyse data as TP isn’t anywhere near as good for that. TP takes in the data though (you must have it for WK04 to work). All the zones etc are set in WK04 for use there but you can only have one power figure which is used for all power calcs. People get around this by having separate bike and run accounts. Seems WK05 may have this option now but its a big outlay for limited benefit for me.
I’m with @GRamsay on this. I just don’t see the value, although I love data and have an intrinsic desire to have one. With regards to what @stenard said regarding devices like powerpod and powercal and the like, is that comparison valid? How are running power meters calibrated?
TBH the reason I wouldn’t be interested yet is I tend to use RPE for most of my running except for longer intervals and longer races (HM and mara) just to make sure I am not overcooking it. Then I use pace as the main measure but HR and RPE to see if I feel I can maintain that. Not sure power would add to that yet. When I had a powereter on my bike I used that in the same way as pace when running. RPE while riding, look at it occasionally to see how RPE and power match up, look at it afterwards.
In the future, if they’re shown to be accurate, I would be more tempted as I just love playing with data but would mostly be retrospective.
As we’re discussing TP/WKO4 and TSS. I find rTSS rubbish, it crates VAM and ascent that just doesn’t exist on the Garmin output. I end up with an inconsistently elevated TSS.
Yeah, no idea why the TSS default for running is rTSS. If ever my stryd battery dies, I’ll always select hrTSS as the secondary option. hrTSS broadly lines up with TSS from the stryd in most cases, whereas rTSS is just excessively different values.
all pretty meaningless stuff unless you know your form and efficiency…
based on what exactly?
Based on the other metrics, how much power isn’t being used to move you forward. As said it’s all new tech and apart from a couple of books there is very little known about it yet. That’s why its interesting to look at the data. It would be good to get a squad of athletes all training with it to get a decent amount of data to see how much use it will be but it’s still only a small sample size even with 20 or 30 regularly training athletes. Reason I don’t think it will take off is running is simple, put your trainers on and run, whereas cycling is always attracting data driven types so the market for stryd is triathletes and that’s big but never going to become mainstream or a must have like bike power has almost become
but it doesn’t know how much power is moving you forward
Clearly they believe they know using complex algorithms and accelerometers
I reject DCRs position on this, and agree with you. I’m actually interested to know the power I’m generating, not inferred stats even if they are supposedly as useful.
As to whether either are useful, I don’t find pace a useful gauge of training effort at all because I’m never on flat ground and I carry at least 10kgs of unnecessary insulation. Graded average pace helps a bit, but is a patch for not having an actual measure of the force you’re putting out.
I suspect that I simply don’t run enough to see massive gains, but like a PM I would expect it to help me train more efficiently and minimise injury.
And I would reject your view on this. Do you dig into all the technical aspects of your power meter when you buy it, and understand exactly how it works? I seriously doubt it. You trust the output numbers because other clever people have validated them for precision and accuracy.
As far as I’m concerned, the same is true for non-direct force power meters. If DCR, and others, can do all their detailed analyses on the power pod to say it is precise and accurate, I would be prepared to trust that judgement.
He hasn’t yet said that for running power meters, but the fact he has been able to demonstrate that for some non-direct force cycling power meters says to me your position is flawed, and a dated way of thinking.
I dont think cynicism is dated yet. You’re comparing apples and oranges by saying that indirect bike PMs are close to direct so run PMs can be the same. I’m not a dinosaur, I’ve worked in IT for 20 years but I do not see the proof nor the need and all DCR is putting out is opinions.
Then they would be guessing…
I did enough to assure myself I understood what I was getting and what I wasn’t.
Unfortunately most people think they can compare their FTPs with accuracy, because I did my research I know that they can’t. For example.
This trust placed in online reviewers is exactly why they must be criticised. It’s fine to offload the thinking to someone else, just don’t expect them to be right all the time.
Much like bike PMs which don’t know the actual distsnce to work out the algorithm but work it out it with accelerometers.
I’m split in its use but the dismissal whilst defending similar devices for bikes because they measure force using a varying number of strain gauges at different position on a bike rather than by using accelerometers to measure various items to work out the force. Also we all know how varying the data is from bikes. Massive differences in figures, any shimano crank based system is severely flawed due to the poor drive side measurements and stages just takes a number and doubles it. Power2Max (and srm I believe) just use algorithms to work out the force on the non drive side
So as a tool arent they all just “guessing”
But that’s the point. You’re therefore putting your entire credibility in the device based the sole face it measures something tangible. That’s no different from someone generations ago refusing to believe that a crypto currency could be a real thing simple because they can’t hold a physical coin.
Don’t get me wrong, I did pretty much the same as you when buying my own cycling power meters. It’s why I own direct force spider based meters, and not left only or other such types. But that’s just a case of going in with eyes open to what you are buying. A left only device has limitations, but if you understand and accept those, it doesn’t mean the data it is producing is any less “real”. It just has some caveats.
Ultimately Stryd is actually measuring something tangible. Spatial geometry. The laws of physics give you a pretty solid starting point to determine that if you know accurately how something is moving, then you can infer the forces required to achieve that movement.
It’s an interesting point, but I see there being a step change between calculating something and directly measuring it. Either one can be flawed, but the latter is starting at the best place and can move on from there. If you’re starting with estimation then you might save yourself a lot of money by using other methods of estimation…GAP for example.
And I’m not arguing that running PMs are useless, I’m saying that I’d want a decide that measures power…if it doesn’t exist yet, that’s fine.
Slightly O/T, anyone got their IQ2 powermeter yet? 
Personally i think GAP is terrible.
Now i’m not educated enough on this topic to offer great insight into this popcorn thread. But there are many, many imperfect solutions trying to reach what is probably an impossible position. They’re all great (well some are) aids, but it does still come down to the person interpreting and using them. If you can’t interpret or utilise the data, regardless of its efficacy, it’s worthless anyway.
