I'm not sure anyone understands running power including the manufacturers, the difference in power between stryd and Garmin shows it's a waste of money at this stage.

The difference in the numbers between the manufacturers is a little disconcerting. I have been running with stryd all year and I found that using run power as a secondary metric to HR at Ironman Chatt was actually kind of helpful. I used my data to set a power cap not to be exceeded even on the climbs.

I thought it helped me run a more consistent race. So for me there is some utility in it.

---

https://www.strava.com/athletes/773280
http://imroycer81.blogspot.com/
teamemj.com
everymanjack.com

I feel like Strava's GAP formula matches my perceived exertion pretty well. I feel like if there was a real-time calculation for that, it would get the job done.

All you would need is pace/incline. Who cares how many "watts" you are running at. I want to run at X:XX pace and it seems lit it would be pretty easy to give that data even without a footpod.

But that wind thing is tricky..

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

Agreed, pace normalized to as many other relevant factors as possible (definitely incline, but ideally also temperature, wind, etc.) would seem to be what's most useful.

I use grade-adjusted pace on my 920.

Got it from garmin iq

I still am intrested in running power though

I'd be curious to try to understand why running power appeals, what does it offer that improves on grade-adjusted pace (ideally also adjusted for other things, e.g. wind, temperature, etc.)? It seems like running power, whatever that is, would go up if you ran inefficiently and go down if you ran more efficiently, wouldn't that incentivize bad form? But I suppose I don't actually understand what running power actually is.

Stryd reports form power separately separately from productive power. This means that it would give you insights to bad form and inefficiencies. It is pretty cool.

The idea is that you can do structured training to power, and then race to power the same way you do it for biking. It is probably like GAP 3.0. It is another available metric, and it is fun.

I understand what you are saying but I think I would go about it like I do on my bike. The least power for the most speed.

I would like to try it out to see if the hype is really there. I however, am unwilling to pay the big price just to try it though.

Hi All,

Angus here. (Disclaimer: I am with Stryd)


Stryd is a more approachable normalized, graded pace in some ways. Our goal is to provide runners a single target they can follow on race day for success. This greatly simplifies race planning and delivers what we call "the ultimate racing experience".


Stryd measures your power and performance via metabolic costs. Our technology has been verified through university and laboratory studies. Please find one of these studies here: https://hetgeheimvanhardlopen.nl/...-14-test-runners.pdf


We agree. Power data is just a number at the end of the day. Your success is based on what you do with your wattage. We built our platform to help runners discover new insights on training and recovery to peak for race day. Then, we give them a power number to follow so they can get a new PR by avoiding the "wall" on race day. This is the "ultimate racing experience" we strive to deliver to athletes.

If you are interested to see how Stryd helps runners, please check out our Watts That Won series at https://blog.stryd.com/

Please ask me any questions on your mind!

"I would like to try it out to see if the hype is really there. I however, am unwilling to pay the big price just to try it though. "

Looks like all you need is an HRM strap or the new Running Dynamics Pod. Not sure how much that would cost (too lazy to look) but I assume way less than the $199 that Stryd is offering.

I've been using a stryd for 2 weeks now. Right now for me, the biggest benefit is the accuracy of distance/pace compared to GPS or a standard footpod. I didn't even have to calibrate the stryd. No more dead spots or lagging of pace when running outside. I'm now using the stryd as my pace/distance calculator on all of my runs (treadmill and outside). GPS is still turned on but it's not being used for pace/distance.

What I don't know is if the running dynamics pod will double as a footpod like the stryd or if you still need to use the standard garmin footpod.

---

blog

Unfortunately I have a 920xt and not the 735/935 or Fenix 5 models that the pod is compatible with :(

I know nothing about the Garmin power pod, but my Stryd has been a phenomenal tool that has helped me continue to improve my run for the past year. It is consistent and has been a great training and racing tool. Very strange the Garmin reports such high numbers.

You seem to be overlooking the somewhat significant requirement of one of Garmin's brand new watches.

I can't afford to upgrade my power meter, bike computer and watch every single year so I'm going to stick this one on the backburner.

How could the Stryd possibly be more accurate for distance than GPS? GPS isn't great an instantaneous pace, so cadence from a footpod can be more accurate there. But over any actual distance, your stride length would have to be insanely consistent for a device that lacked GPS to accurately capture the distance covered. Or am I missing something?

Read this...

http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Stryd

edit: and this.... http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy

---

blog

The mega benefit to me is instantaneous pace. There is an option in the Garmin watch to show real-time pace from the foot pod rather than GPS. (It still uses GPS for all other distance measures.) With that setting and a Stryd, real-time pace is freakin' awesome. I would get a Stryd again just for this improvement alone.

Yeah, I've thought about getting a footpod just for better instantaneous pace. I suppose a Garmin footpod or Stryd are basically interchangeable for that purpose, since all that's being measured is cadence.

Huh, "My testing has shown that the Stryd is stunningly accurate in its measurement of distance... far more accurate than any GPS device I've tested." How could a footpod with accelerometers in it possibly be more accurate that GPS over long distances, i.e. many miles? That kind of blows my mind. Heck, my mind would be blown if the footpod even managed to get close to GPS results, but apparently it's far superior.

Yeah, I have read that guy's reviews and his analyses, and I think something is seriously wrong with his protocol. A lot of his results simply make no sense. For example, he has most GPS watches at relatively low precision, but I have hundreds of miles on multiple watches that prove the opposite. And, he used to show the Apple Watch (it is gone now from his chart) as both precise and true. Again, I have dozens of activities that prove otherwise. He still has the iPhone 5 on the chart as relatively true and precise; that is crap. My Garmin devices have a standard deviation of about 0.02 miles on a 5.07 mile route. An Apple product (watch or iPhone) has a SD of around 0.1 miles on the same route. There is something very wrong with how he is capturing and analyzing data.
I am not sure... it is probably worth a question to Stryd. The Stryd is capable of delivering instantaneous pace to the watch that is derived directly from the accelerometer, not just cadence. So, if the watch displays that instantaneous pace, rather than its own calculation based on cadence, then the Stryd would be better.

Cadence can be provided just from the accelerometers in the watch. Pace is cadence and stride length dependent so Stryd / footpod are bringing other things to the table other than just cadence.

Oh, I totally understand why the Stryd would be better at instantaneous pace.

But the idea that it's better at precisely measuring the distance of a ~20-mile run kind of blows my mind.

I'm quite pissed that they are not bringing this into the Fenix 3 Sapphire; watch was fucking expensive and the only reason they aren't doing it is because the didn't update the Connect IQ platform on it.

There is no way. The poster also notes "dead spots" unless running through the Canyons of Utah, there are not dead spots with GPS. Even now with accelerometers and GLONASS, places like NYC and Chicago are not a problem. I am with you, cannot understand that premise.