I live in the east cost of Florida… where the highest elevation is the second floor of my house.
So, I have no elevation to worry about. We have wind… but like you said, the meter is probably not great.
I have no issue with most of what you say. I get the use cases and maybe if I lived on an area where I had more elevation changes I would unserstand better.
Now, my only issue:
There is a HUGE difference between a cycling PM and a running PM.
cycling PM you are measuring a force applied to certain part of the drivetrain of a bike to measure work.
This is something that can be measure and calibrated. You could probably find a motor that can run 250 watts somehow use it on a bike with PM and more than likely it will tell you somewhere close to 250w. There is some calculations done on PM but most of them is to determine power loss due to place the PM is located. The measure of your power at the wheel will be different of the power at the pedals. The manufacturer put some numbers to account for loses. But for the most part the numbers are VERY close among power meters. You use 2 different pm and more than likely the number will be VERY similar. The fact that you can reverse engineer power to speed on a bike (on perfect situations - no wind, no elevation gained) should tell you something about how accurate are they - in other words, you can probably calculate how fast you you ride on a perfect situation if your power is 250w and you weight 150 pounds and your loaded bike weight 20 pounds.
Now, running power… what exactly are you measuring?
At the end, someone decided to apply a formula that uses pace, elevation, wind, maybe temperature and who knows what else.
You are not measuring anything. You are using numbers to come up with a correlating value. The numbers will be VERY personal. Your 250w will means nothing to me. There is no work just correlation of values. This correlation might be useful for people, but not for me right now and not for the current price.
When you ride at 250w, and I ride at 250 w it means that BOTH of us are riding at the same power (speed might be different because of external factors). If you run at 250w and I run at 250w it means nothing because our powers can’t be compared
I know all what you’re saying, but the core of the issue remains this: What difference does it make? What does it gain you? What’s the use? Why does this matter? That’s the key question, and it still isn’t answered. I gave the example of connecting the real engine for a reason: it’s obvious we don’t do this, so the comparison of the same wattage isn’t actually useful for anything.
When you ride at 250w, and I ride at 250 w it means that BOTH of us are riding at the same power (speed might be different because of external factors).
The very last part of the sentence is exactly the problem. Even if we both have the same power, it doesn’t mean anything in terms of actual performance we’ll put out, so what use is it that I know my power is the same as yours?
We don’t have the same physical build, we don’t have the same bike, we don’t have the same bike position, we don’t have the same weight. The wattage might be the same but this information serves no useful purpose.
The closest thing that I’ve thought of would be that something like BestBikeSplit needs power to predict race performance. But in reality, Stryd has their version of that for running races, simply made to work for their power scale. So the difference is that it wouldn’t be possible to make a vendor neutral (as BestBikeSplit is) version of it. Is that a HUGE difference that should drive these kind of discussions? IMHO no.
To drive the point home further: when we talk about FTP, the next thing to mention is usually W/kg or W/CdA. Because we understand that Watts by itself doesn’t reflect performance or where one sits on the scale of reasonable abilities or training possibilities. It’s just not a very useful thing to compare by itself.
(And what does the actual Stryd hardware measure? It’s W/kg…then multiplied by the user configured weight to get the displayed Watts)
I think my biggest issue, now that i thinking about the whole thing, its the name used.
Call it running chimichanga. Make up a new word. But calling it running power, when is NOT power, is a huge mistake. Its an correlation of metrics. But is not power.
Power = Work/Time
Work = Force / Displacement
You can’t measure work while running using a pod. You just cant. It is impossible. You are not gathering FORCE anywhere. On a bike you are. At best you are approximating the force they think it takes to beat the wind and elevation using unreliable at best sensors (at least the wind sensor). I guess you one can come up with a formula of measuring all of it… but you are only as good as the sensors.
Running power creators tried to piggy back on the use of cycling power. But this creates a conflict that is not helpful. The metric might be useful but again…is not power
This is the exact same thing JavaScript creators did when Java was created. They have nothing in common but to people who don’t know better, they might be related.
I have no problem with the use of a running PM. I just think the technology is not there yet. And based on low adoption ratio of companies and users, one might be incline to think it will take more time to convince users about the benefits. It will take some major accomplishments of an atom at the tip of running/triathlon world while using it to really sell it to the general population. And that has not happen yet.
The tech is still pretty new (7 -8 years) so there is still time for it to evolve.
The Stryd is a set of accelerometers (with a barometer for elevation and an anemometer for wind, but you get the idea) and you know the total mass because the user has to input it when configuring the pod.
The inaccuracy is probably there because moving a leg doesn’t move the total mass, so you need to model how much moved? But it’s not like the power measure is a physical impossibility.
I was basically with you, but then i saw the research supports that the algorithms calculating power from accelerometers is accurate and reliable enough. So it’s rational to call it power, Watts, even though it doesn’t use a strain gauge like a power meter.
What is yet unclear to me is if power really describes running well enough to be a better measure than the other more easily usable metrics out there. It’s a clear candidate to replace HR and pace, and if it does how much of a difference it will make to training.
sure.
Plus different body will have different resistance. Placement of sensors matter. Lets not forget about heat and how much it affects the pace (probably more than cyclin in g)
Does the sensor accounts for cadence? (just curious)
I think running power is eerily similar to virtual cycling power. That’s is something else that fails to get my attention. Mostly because it doesn’t work for me (remember flat Florida)
I think that currently my sentiment (plus the fact that I live on a flat as pancake area).
Heat itself doesn’t affect power values nor pace. It may affect what you can sustain, but that’s not the power meters’ problem . The Stryd does measure cadence - it measures the displacement of the pod in 3D with the accelerometers.
The entire team is still on it and hasn’t been pulled. They are working hard and making progress.
I can’t say exactly when it will launch but I can say that almost any major project we do will take longer than 4 weeks. Sometimes much longer depending on the scope.
This shouldn’t be a really long project though. I’ll post when we get to the stage to start getting some external beta testers in there.
Do you need to take “anything outside of what Stryd or Garmin defines”?
I have a Stryd I think your point doesn’t make sense so I’d like you to explain it. If you are meaning that the power data from a Stryd v any other running PM is not consistent enough…does it matter? The only way I would see this matter is if Zwift used the power for races - they don’t so it doesn’t make any difference right now.
My power data is standardised against ME. I don’t need it to correlate to anyone elses. I have a running FTP which I use to calculate my own zones and TSS. So what if my stryd running power is 10% higher than yours?? As long as it is consistently 10% higher that is all that matters…consistency.
Having running power data in TR, for me is a no brainer. The company already has algorithms for cycling power and wouldn’t take much to add running power. Yes it is very niche but cycling power meters were niche once upon a time.
There are many services out there that utilise running power (Training Peaks, intervals.icu, final surge and even Strava!!!). To not incorporate running power would be akin to getting dropped. Being competitive is about being innovative and keeping pace with the competition. It may be that a very small minority of users have access to Stryd, but why not implement something that would be fairly straightforward given they already have the infrastructure, would be a backwards step.
A strain gauge is one way to estimate power. Another is using an accelerometer. All they do is calculate estimated power using an algorithm.
Virtual power uses neither and so it is mad to compare accelerometers to virtual power.
In terms of the value of running power, it all depends on your location and the type of running you do. I live in a very hilly area and I do a lot of trail running. Pace is a pointless metric as the elevation and gradient are not consistent. What is useful is running power and how it calculates TSS into the same way that cycling does. I can link the two together to get an overall fitness/fatigue measure.
I get that owners of things get very upset when other people criticize their toys. I get it.
In order to running power be a wide spread tool you need to have a use case. And although i see the technology is getting there i just buy int it yet.
As established before and you said, you get power that is related to you. If you want that data to be adopted you need data that is calculated the same and means the same thing across the board, or on all individuals and all devices.
For the most part, if i put 300w on my bike i can put 300w on mostly any bike and that can measure.
In any case. It just not for me. There is not much more to gain from the running power that i can’t get from all the other metrics i already have. It’s just a correlation of them all… Which is ok… But again… Just not for me and probably not mature enough or adopted enough for TR to move it up in priority.
Let’s keep this discussion about the technology. I want to raise points to do with wider advantages and pitfalls. I think we can agree to disagree on the personal benefits of running power without taking this discussion onto the playground.
Who exactly is waiting for the data to be adopted? I keep harping on about the other services that have adopted running power.
Granted none of the power meters correlate, probably because they all use different technologies and yes that is the biggest downfall. However unless you are swapping between power meters, this does not really matter. The only other place where it would matter was if Zwift used the power data which they don’t.
Perhaps it is that TrainerRoad are not “mature enough” to adopt it given that nearly every other online training alalysis tool has adopted it. After all TR are years behind other online services for adopting multisport support. They may have a PhD in cycling, but they are still in pre school for running.
So , those of you who do have some sort of running power device… Have you switched to doing workouts based entirely on power?
That was the big paradigm shift for me in cycling, thanks to TR - I now follow the power level indication (changing cadence if required) and keep an eye on HR. I’d be interested to know if having running power available during workouts is such a revelation. If it is then run power integration may well be inevitable for all training platforms.
But as I said above (and to keep this on topic), I really feel that run workouts should be created with a choice of HR/RPE/Pace as well, in the same way that TR currently provides outdoor bike workouts based on RPE or power.
So what were you saying about “taking this discussion onto the playground”?
IN any case.
People are passionate about things they like.
You and the other person who are dying on the hill of defending run power are passionate about the technology. Sadly, you guys are a minority. There are much bigger fish to fry here. You might not like it, but its the truth.
Who and to give you what exactly. The fact that we dont have every single pro runner or triathlete and every single age grouper using run power should be telling of where the technology stand and how useful people think it is.
I don’t think this is true. Just go to @dcrainmaker page and check any of bike related review related to power meters. Most of the good power meter correlate very well. That how you can tell a power meter is accurate or not.
I take with a ginormous grain of salt any review that has affiliated links. I dont care about what they say about their independent review. If you take a product and give promo codes, you are advertising a product. Again @dcrainmaker is one of the best in the business because his practices.
Let keep it related to technology. Run power is not even close to have the same impact as cycling power did. Cycling power is not a correlation of things. Its an accurate representation of the actual power it takes to move a bike.
Running power is about 7 or 8 years old. The fact that there is only one big player in the realm should tell you what other people and companies think about where this is going. I am not sold on it.
Cycling power is the training standard right now. Let me know when running power becomes the training standard. When most elite athletes start using power figures to describe their workouts. Once that happens, then that means that the tech have the respect it needs. Right now, thats not the case. And only hardcore fans are defending its merits.
Ironic. I just popped in and couldn’t help but think of the irony. As I understand it, in the early days TR popularized virtual power, something that is related to your trainer, and isn’t real power. And there are still TR articles that would dissuade athletes from using heart rate as it is claimed to be too variable to be useful (mine is useful ). No clue how TR prescribes runs, and I don’t run so no idea of use cases. Just saying that on the surface, this line of reasoning seems ironic.
. The Stryd does measure cadence - it measures the displacement of the pod in 3D with the accelerometers.
). No clue how TR prescribes runs, and I don’t run so no idea of use cases. Just saying that on the surface, this line of reasoning seems ironic.