First, did you even bother to read the article I posted? If you did, you apparently missed the fact that the vast majority of the analyses that I described are NOT based on running power. As such, they are equally applicable to and accessible by, e.g., Garmin footpod users.
Second, as I've described it to my wife, I personally wouldn't have invested significant time and energy developing a running powermeter, because the use cases seem somewhat limited.* Now that somebody else has, however, why not try to figure out the best way to use the information provided? I do think, though, that greatest potential lies in the fact that such devices "can make your body a mobile biomechanics laboratory" (to paraphrase SRM, and as pointed out by Steve McGregor). IOW, it's not power alone that intrigues me, it is the whole package.
*I have changed my opinion on a couple of things since starting to work with Stryd: 1) trail running is more popular than I realized, and 2) I underestimated the value of power as a real-time pacing tool, which accounts for changes in elevation and is not prone to the sorts of errors that can limit the utility of footpods and GPS.
Final comment: if you bother to wade back through the original thread, you'll find that I never questioned the accuracy of running power measurements - only the potential impact in the sport. This is the opposite of, e.g. left-side-only cycling powermeters, where accuracy itself is the issue.
ETA one more comment: I am frequently given devices by various companies marketing wearable tech and asked to try them, presumably in hopes that I will get excited about them and help them become popular (and their producers profitable). Of the various offerings, only Stryd intrigued me enough to give things more than a cursory look.** So, while only time will tell whether power will have as big if animpact on running as it has on cycling, I do think it has more potential than other measures.
**I did spend a fair bit of time testing the Moxy, but that was really more of a professional interest, I.e., to see if I could use it in research.
Second, as I've described it to my wife, I personally wouldn't have invested significant time and energy developing a running powermeter, because the use cases seem somewhat limited.* Now that somebody else has, however, why not try to figure out the best way to use the information provided? I do think, though, that greatest potential lies in the fact that such devices "can make your body a mobile biomechanics laboratory" (to paraphrase SRM, and as pointed out by Steve McGregor). IOW, it's not power alone that intrigues me, it is the whole package.
*I have changed my opinion on a couple of things since starting to work with Stryd: 1) trail running is more popular than I realized, and 2) I underestimated the value of power as a real-time pacing tool, which accounts for changes in elevation and is not prone to the sorts of errors that can limit the utility of footpods and GPS.
Final comment: if you bother to wade back through the original thread, you'll find that I never questioned the accuracy of running power measurements - only the potential impact in the sport. This is the opposite of, e.g. left-side-only cycling powermeters, where accuracy itself is the issue.
ETA one more comment: I am frequently given devices by various companies marketing wearable tech and asked to try them, presumably in hopes that I will get excited about them and help them become popular (and their producers profitable). Of the various offerings, only Stryd intrigued me enough to give things more than a cursory look.** So, while only time will tell whether power will have as big if animpact on running as it has on cycling, I do think it has more potential than other measures.
**I did spend a fair bit of time testing the Moxy, but that was really more of a professional interest, I.e., to see if I could use it in research.
Last edited by:
Andrew Coggan: Jul 9, 16 8:17