To quote Charles Howe: "Perceived exertion modulates power, power calibrates perceived exertion."

IOW, I was talking about the usefulness of power vs. other objective measures, I.e., heart rate, estimated pace (e.g., from GPS or footpod), or even accurate spot checks of pace, e.g., mile splits.

I've recently starting using power measurements for running and for back of the pack runners like me, I think it going to turn out to be very useful.
Let me explain. When I am doing low or moderate intensity runs then its pretty easy to just going according to perceived effort, but when I try to do higher intensity runs my perceived effort is sky high and therefore not that useful in gauging how hard I should go. If I use HR the problem is my HR starts out low and when I try to get in in the zone I often overshoot my mark. However when I use power its very easy for me to keep my power at a certain number and keep it there for the duration of the effort. Furthermore, its real easy for me to fine tune my efforts and adjust my efforts my small amounts (e.g. do one interval at 240 watts and another at 250 watts). It also helps me when the terrain is varied. I'm sure if you're an experienced runner you don't need such an aid but if you're a back of the pack runner like me and want to keep things as simple as possible when doing higher intensity workouts then a power meter is the way to go. The other thing I would aid is the technology is relatively cheap if you don't mine running with your phone because then you don't need a compatible watch and the cost of the Styrd is only 200 dollars. Also when determining my running FTP I kept things simple and ran as hard as I could for 30 minutes and use the average power of the last 20 minutes to give me an FTP of 250 (I know I'm weak).
Anyway all this of course is my personal opinion but so far running with power has made running fun for me.
Steve Upshaw

They just released the 2.0 version which is now a pod attached to a single shoe.

Out of curiosity has anyone used this yet in terms of evaluating shoe choice vs power vs speed etc.

IE say multiples of 15 minutes at pure marathon pace (steady state) on a treadmill at 1%?....say as some sort of proxy for running economy?

If the accuracy is close enough I could see this as valuable in the same way that we look at CRR for tires, IE the power to overcome the shoe choice, so to speak.

Thoughts?

Maurice

Do you know what the protocol was when comparing the Stryd to the force plate? Specifically, was it compared on a track, hilly roads, mountainous trails, etc? Did it correlate better on less "complex" terrain and if so, how far off was it on the more complicated terrain?

A force plate is a rigid platform containing multiple strain gages. You can put one in the floor or under the surface of a treadmill have somebody step on it, but you can't, e.g., bury one under sand and measure the ground contact forces under those conditions.

My mistake. I thought it went in the shoe, like an orthotic.