Global Triathlon Network yes- that said, I'm intrigued, but skeptical. Whereas a pedal stroke is a fixed range of motion, stride length can vary considerably. In addition, if running power takes into account movement in multiple dimensions, I'd be interested in effect of less economical running (e.g. higher vertical movement) on power measures
I’ve been running with power using a Garmin 935 and the HRM tri for the last 6 months or so and absolutely love it. I still use HR, cadence, and ground contact balance, but the power is really useful to keep me on track on ills and other times my HR is unusually high or low
The Stryd footpod does provide additional information such as distance and pace which is not based on GPS. I find it much more accurate and consistent over GPS especially on off-road routes.
I have been using Stryd for a few years, since it was a kickstarter and through both hardware versions. It provides good feedback to see actual effort in a workout. It also gives you a better estimation on your projected time to effort for a race. Instead of 800 repeats to estimate, you can see what power to pace you need and if that is sustainable for the distance. Also helps to even your race out with hills and surges for longer events. I have been happy with Stryd and consider it a valuable tool to get the most out of my training and race.
Been using Stryd for a few months, so still in the “exploration” phase of the new data, but I love the objectivity of the data and the usefulness of it for pacing on hillier routes when doing efforts
I've been doing my running session with power a couple of months now. I think is something really cool, especially if you hit a hill... keeps you in your zone and helps you avoid peaking too early in the race.
Have used Stryd for a year and dabbled using the Garmin Run Power when it first came out. At the end, it’s just a tool to help us measure our running. It doesn’t make you faster by itself because you still have to do the work. What it does do is show you a metric that if you understand, can make you train smarter. Sadly I’ve seen people go get an expensive power meter and not take the time to learn how to use it to influence their training.
Mark looks better clean shaven!! Power for running, not very sure as of now.. but maybe in a couple of years once the devices are smaller and /or integrated. It would be better to have an insole (connected) that shows the heatmap of impact - is it heel, midfoot, forefoot, etc, the pronation and the incidental injury possibility! The cadence, impact, wattage, also the wind, temperature, GPS (elevation, gain, etc), and all of that.. built with some algorithm to help us arrive at advanced metrics.. would help!
Using stryd for some time now and I'm pretty happy with the device. Not saying you need it but its really interesting and provides cool data to analyse and play around with and its not only power but also leg spring stiffness (LSS) and form power which allow to check progress. I realized that I'm a little lacking in the LSS and tried to improve it and it seems to help me improve my running form (especially on faster runs). I also use a W' Balance data field on my garmin (W' Bal calculated by Golden Cheetah) which is a great tool for pacing when above FTP/CP and for interval sessions.
Ok....the devices don’t measure torque....but predict it based on maths. Running ‘power’ devices are subject to lots of error....and don’t have the same benefits to cycling devices. I know quite a few early adopters too...and they suggest surface makes a big difference. Mr T....far from being rudimentary, RPE is probably the most advanced metric there is. It is responsive to fatigue, environmental conditions, intensity etc etc.....IMHO if you learn to listen to your body, its the best metric out there. Other metrics are; however, helpful post-hoc.
Andy Kirkland for sure, I couldn’t agree more. Rudimentary might have been overstating it, but it’s still somewhat basic and potentially inaccurate if you’re not in tune with your body. Like I say, I’m yet to be convinced on power. I too am a big advocate of RPE and the other metrics, but I’m intrigued by power
Great for hilly courses! But agree, the surface you are running on it’s not taken into account, therefore also not measured, whereby a session on sand will give you lower power (as lower pace for the same RPE), which is incorrect. The other thing I discovered is that when running on treadmill they don’t detect the incline, so again incorrect. The same goes for changing in cadence etc: I have discovered that the accuracy of the measurement is far less than the impact the different variables could have (although I noticed some trends like higher cadence, same speed, lower RPE, slightly lower power). Curious to know if that is the same you are experiencing
I've been using Stryd for 2-3 months now, can't go back to HR and pace when it comes to pace my races. I've progressed leaps and bounds when it comes to this even though I just barely knew my zones. Just do the 3/6 laps test and boom, you get useful zones and your FTP. For races with hills they're a must.
I am using since Nov last year the Stryd Powermeter and I am really satisfied with the data I’m getting out of it. Specially when it is important to take the easy days easy and the ha d days harder...
The difference between bike power and running power is that on the bike you constantly have a heads up display of how you’re performing; either on your bike computer or whatever trainer app you use. With running it isn’t as natural to be constantly checking your watch. I think it would need something like smart sunglasses with a HUD for it to really catch on.
Power on the watch isn't different as pace on the watch. If you were looking at that metric every few minutes, then power would not work any different. Dcrainmaker.com had a review about glasses that could project metrics on the glass, found it usable for cycling but got motion sick whilst running
There's a Facebook page called Palladino Power Project where running coach Steve Palladino shares lots of valuable information and research about his use of power to coach running.
As a long time runner I don't see a need, but I would like it for my treadmill. My treadmill always seems like its harder for the same pace than it is anywhere else.
Question to everybody familiar with running by power: I run 2/4 a week with my 18 month old son in a stroller (or whatever that is called) so there a lot of resistance. Like running up a hill, but I dont. Does the Powermeter take that into account and still function right? Because I have no real way of pacing those runs (Speed does not work) other than heart rate, which fluctuates als we all know. Anybody?
Bernd, that's a hard one but sadly I don't think there is a way that a power metre could pick up that resistance so I'd recommend making the most of HR measurements.
I have been using Garmin heart rate strip as my power meter for couple of months. I can’t see it is beneficial to our training programme but anyway it is a fantastic pacing tool. I use power to pace climbs and it works so well. But running power is not the same as cycling power, you can never analyse your training in the same way. You are not simply doing work to move forward but also bouncing and swinging arms. So what I do think valuable is measuring your power at certain pace after certain period of training. But power data to me is just tool for pacing and reviewing improvement in technique, it doesn’t contribute to my training programme. I have ever finished two marathons and I built my training sessions by heart rate zones for the first marathon and then used power zones for the second one. I ran 3:34 for the first one and 3:44 for the second one which is somehow hilly. Those power training session we heard from cycling like sweetspot, micro burst, over gear work and so on did not give exactly the same training effect in running, especially aerobic base session. Improving your FTP is not the only way to make a faster runner. Running economy and aerobic capacity are also important while I think using heart rate in aerobic base training is easier to keep me in aerobic zone. So I would recommend using both heart rate and power data in your training but look at your HR zone first when you are building mileage. But speedwork and track session, power is a better measuring tool. It is much more responsive than HR.
very good video personally it's indeed interesting to measure my running with power and not only time and heart-rate I love the simplicity of running - but still it's a nice add-on if you're preparing for a competition still as it's new it immediately raised suspicions regarding accuracy - how does it work? does it really measure what I am doing? and so on really nice that the video not just "presents" something, but raises questions behind it (not saying it's bad but just looking deeper into it) so far: interesting - but remains to be seen how good it gets
I think bikepower is more usefull as a training metric than running power because bike speed is more influence by other factors. Such as wind, gradient, an rolling resistance. Wherease running speed is much less influenced by external factors. This means running speed or pace is a more direct result off your power.
I agree that there is less effect from weather etc as you are moving at slower speeds but if you're anything like me then hills will dramatically slow you down.
I started to use my new Polar Vantage V and learning a lot about running with power, but one question keeps coming back to me: How does the power I get from running (avg 310W in my green runs) compare to the power on the bike (Aerobe 160W, Anaerobe 210W), which is substantially lower? Hope you guys have some insight on this? Love the GTN tubes, always nice to watch them during the indoor rides
Marcel Veldhuizen depending on your body and your background your two powers could be the same of different. Best is to get it tested. And remember, if you run after you have been biking then your run zones will also be shifted ...
Since I'm running with a Stryd footpod, I was able to compare sessions with and without on the Vantage V... I noticed that the power measured on the wrist (Vantage V) is considerably higher than the ones measured with the Stryd footpod. But then again if you did your FTP test with one method and stick to that it is all relative to that measurement I huess.
Currently, I consider them a gadget. I have experience with Garmin (comes with Running Dynamics) and Stryd (which is what my coach likes to use). They actually gave me pretty differing numbers. I personally really like running (or cycling) by feel. And I know from experience that I can maintain an extremely tight pace (variance under a second on 1 km split times; which surprised me at first but then humans are pretty decent at maintaining tempo, you just need to add a consistent stride). It's funny. It can feel like I'm slowing down as I get tired, but I'm actually not. If I have a running watch, I can check and reassure myself. But it adds an interesting element to racing; the mental aspect. Not knowing whether you're on target or not. If you can push harder or not. You might be able to perform better with data (post a better time), but I think being good includes mastering this element. Being at one with yourself, so to speak. Data makes it kind of boring; you're like a robot. Same goes for cycling. Where is the fun when people know whether they can go faster or not? Isn't it more fun when you can screw with them and trick them into blowing up? Dropping them like a sack of potatoes. :-) To me, mastering my mind and body is a worthy challenge. I use data to calibrate myself. To gain confidence in my ability to judge efforts, times, speeds, etc. Now some ranting: :-) Work output? Seriously? Power is the rate at which you perform work. In other words, how fast you're working. These devices do not measure power. At all. In a lab, they can measure forces exerted on a treadmill, they can analyze your breathing (measure CO2, the product of hydrocarbon oxidation - in other words, energy use and hence performed work), but that's not what's happening here. They estimate based on other quantities. Relying on correlation. Unlike a typical cycling power meter that actually calculates power (it directly measures forces at particular points in the drive train). There is nothing super fast about those chips. Otherwise, they couldn't be powered by tiny cells. You don't need much processing power. Nor sampling rate (how many steps per second do you take?). It's all about modelling and figuring out the calculations. There is no such thing as 100 % accuracy. Seriously. Do you still believe in fairy tales? And, as I said, these things don't even measure power. How can something measure power accurately when it doesn't measure power at all? Semantics, I know. The problem with using such a power meter to judge your technique is that it doesn't actually measure power. You're relying on their modelling. That they tried all of it in a lab with different people getting consistent results so they could reflect it in their algorithms. Not to mention the complication of adaptation. There is just no way to know how well you fit in their model. I don't fancy changing form based on such a "measurement".
Loved the video. I have been thinking of entering this tech for a while now. So it was great to hear your thoughts. I was wondering what Marks and maybe other people experience with power meters are. You did say that the data did seem to fall with in the same range but is there one you prefer. ie foot pod vs watch. The watch seems like super tech and the ability of not losing it as easily is a plus. But being on your wrist and not your foot would seem strange when cycling is it not strange when running?
If you are wearing a watch anyway and not needing an extra device I think it makes sense. Obviously as we touched on running power is measured in such a different way to cycling power.
Using Stryd since more than a year. I think I would lose my watch easier than the stryd ... kidding, but it goes to say that it is very well secured (and despite that, not impeding the freedom of the movement). So go for what you prefer ... no limits!
My performance is 5k 30.2 finish running time very deserving knee pain and breathing problems I am not runer.now I'm starting place help how to run and warm-up
How do they calculate running into a headwind? Pretty sure my Garmin watch +HR run or Dynamics pod just pulls the data from a weather website which it gets wrong most of the time.
The newest Styrd has a wind meter in it. But you are right that wind is a pretty serious issue that a lot of running power meters do have a hard time accounting.
I'm not convinced by running power meters. Are they actually measuring power, or just estimating based on your pace and elevation? I can't work out how they take into account a head/tail wind, or underfoot surfaces, so it surely can't be consistent at all. Am I missing something?
They are estimating it. The only way they have to account for wind is by looking up wind data in weather reports, so it will either be averaged out or ignored. It's not like cycling where you can directly measure the power being put out. I find running power is an interesting thing to look at after the fact as a rough indication, but I don't trust it and wouldn't train to it.
Stupid Beard only garmins Run Power app takes Wind into account through weather data, but then adjusts the whole workout instead of precisely knowing when you hit headwind of course. Only real benefit from running power is if you run hills a lot, because then you can adjust your pace very precisely. If you live in flat areas there is near to no difference to using pace imo
All these measure how you are running and might be able help you to improve after learning some things about yourself. Running with these matrics dont make u a better runner overnight, its about what you do with these data.
Anyone have experience, can one use running power to measure power from jumping straight up? Would love to incorporate that into those explosive sessions. Thanks! :) #Polar #PolarVantageV #RunningPower #Training #Sports #PolarRunning
