PowerCal just takes your HR to estimate your power output and suffers from all the pitfalls of using a HRM.

I'd like to see a power meter for running, but for now, RPE and pace is all you need.

I don't know if this is possible - yet, but it would be very interesting to use one.

I once lost about 30 lbs in weight and obviously my times over usual training routes improved dramatically, but I have no idea if my power improved or remained constant and I only got faster due to getting lighter.

I assume a running power meter would have some major technical issuers to overcome.

discussed a bit here quite a while ago

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2811243

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2086866

I'm not sure how necessary it is or how it would be any more accurate than normalize graded pace using GPS data. You run economy would still cause variation I think. Though measuring run parameters like ground contact tiem and stride length, might be able to accurately adjust it. But again, pace works pretty well.

My question would be, what value is it? You should be running with minimal variability anyway. Because the run is last, leg fatigue is the primary limiter and because you get less cooling compared to the bike, overheating is a 2nd. I don;t see how it would help you pace more accurately than regular pace and watching heart rate variation when there's a change in grade (not a specific HR, that's too variable).

Again, the reason power in important on a bicycle, is because HR is too slow to respond and speed/pace is to variable. That's not as much the case running.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

AFAICT: HRV, not "just HR".

Not sure if would provide anything that Normalized Graded Pace can't provide but then there is this (and yes I backed it) http://www.runscribe.com/

---

Rodney
TrainingPeaks | Altra Running | RAD Roller
http://www.goinglong.ca

Wouldn't a running power meter be a perfect example of solving a problem that doesn't really exist?

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

out of idle curiosity, just three weeks ago I applied a two-part first order model to hr as a function of power in some garmin files and it was shocking how good the relationship was.

It was pretty much straight out of engineering controls class.

Say HRtotal = HRbaseline + HRoxy + HRheat

Total heart rate = some baseline number for heart rate, whatever your heart rate is sitting on your bike and not pedaling.
+ the heart rate required to flow oxygen to the working muscle cells.
+ the heart rate required to move blood into the surface cells to be cooled - I say due to heat but can be thought of as all the heart rate drift rolled into one.

Then do a differential mass or energy balance on the sections as needed

for example for HRoxy

tau1 * dHRoxy(t) / dt = [k1* power(t)] - HRoxy(t)

to make it discrete then

tau1 * [HRoxy(t) - HRoxy(t-1)] = k1 * power(t-1)] - HRoxy(t-1)


repeat with the HRheat and solve the constants and you get pretty good results. The one I have the r^2 goes from 16% with a simple linear fit to 68% with the first order kinetics.

so in this way you can eliminate different baseline heart rates from the system, the idea that some days heart rate is higher than others even before you start and also eliminate monotonic HR drift either up from heat or dehydration or down from having a previous swim effort.

And that doesn't take into account pure time delays in the system. I need to rework it with pure time delays. Though looking at things I don't think there is much ore of a completely pure time delay, just looking at other systems.

All that to say, with a first order plus dead time model tuned over a few dozen users, or a few hundred users, you can probably get relatively decent power estimates from hr alone.

Not sure how one would calibrate the power though.

In the end though, not sure why one would want this. To me if HR is good enough, it's good enough. Just use HR to train with rather than translating it back to power.

Running power meter, isn't that what the rpm insoles do?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

this.

stop watch and gradient adjusted pace really takes care of most of it. sure there are wind effects, but those are relatively negligible compared to the wind effects in cycling

I am with you 9 times out of 10. This case is the exception, where an athlete has lost weight and improved running times. One might wonder if he did enough training to actually improve physical markers, or if the gain he saw was just because he dont have to carry around all the extra flab. If it is the first, great, carry on. If it is the second, results will be stagnant and something needs to change since BW cant go down forever.

---

Endurance coach | Physiotherapist (primary care) | Bikefitter | Swede

exactly, in term of running, pace doesn't lie!

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

If or when a running power meter becomes available would Andrew Coggan's FTP, TSS, NP etc apply to running, or would a system based on another mathematical model be needed?

I think stages are already working on a prototype ;)

Why?

What would you use it for?

---

#######
My Blog

People said that about cycling power meters when they first came out.

Cycling is more suited to power monitoring than running I would agree but there are still many useful things you could do with power data.

I have running data going back 30 years. I found weight affected my running speed with my fastest times occurring when at my lightest. And no course I run is entirely flat, I find even very slight undulations affect my pace. I can't accurately compare my runs over the years because the surfaces and route profiles are different as I have moved around the country over the years and I enjoy running over different routes rather than the same routes or round a track.

I would use the power data for tracking training volume and intensity just as you can with a cycle power meter.

You don't need a running power meter, but then you don't need a cycling power meter but a lot of people use them.

Would it change how I train or improve my performance? Probably not but it would be very interesting to compare running power to cycling power and score training sessions.

My heart rate doesn't match my pace and bringing in RPE doesn't clear things up. It would be nice to know to be able to grade my run on factors not dependent on heart rate and pace.

I can't hit a pace or I feel beaten down after a run is it because I worked harder than I thought? What is the effect of running in snow or against wind?

Since I haven't bought a power meter for my bike obviously it is not a tremendous concern, but then again I like running a whole lot more.

The more I think about it maybe I need something that grades my physical preparedness. If an average day for me is 100 and I wake up grading a 75 should I skip the run and do yoga? OTOH if I grade 125 should I push the pace and distance on my scheduled run? Over time you would be able to see what factors influence your grading -- sleep, nutrition, previous days activities, etc.

---

Swim - Bike - Run the rest is just clothing changes.

OK then...not just a stopwatch...but a stopwatch and a scale ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Can you buy one for each foot though and get bilateral pedal power?

I think your missing the point. In cycling, power is more important, because HR responds too slow and speed also responds too slow and it too variable based on outside factors like aerodynamics, wind and rolling resistance.

In running , there is an element of run economy, that pace won't capture and HR is too variable to fully capture, this is true. But I'd be amazed if there was a repeatable way to examine your stride metrics,adjusted for your weight, and come up somehow with a numberical value with any accuracy better than a HRM or pace. In cycling, the measurement of power is very easy, and the instrumentation has existed for decades, and is just only no compact and affordable enough to be widely used.

You would still have some challenge of accurately measuring elevation change and wind when examining stride metrics.

It would be easier to take pace and normalize it for grade, HR drift or variability as well as using stride metrics and work backwards. You'd need to use the equivalent of WKO to analyse a large pool of your runing data and do some tests at different paces when rested for benchmarks. In that way, you could develop some sort of number relative to threshold that take economy, grade, etc. into account. I guess you could factor in weight and roughly estimate power output.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

Well I was kind of replying to the Stages joke.. but uh ... yeah.... this is awkward. Good points!

... and I would give my left arm for a swimming power meter..... wah waa.

 

I am currently using an algorithm that includes stride length, stride rate and terrain to calculate power.

If you are running on a flat road ... it's pretty easy to keep constant power... if you have undulating terrain, even with a constant stride rate... sometimes, you over stride going up hills and also around corners ... and this kills your legs towards the second half of the run in an Ironman. I can currently calculate this AFTER the run... and analyse the data... a little too late when you have already stuffed up the run... thus the current data provided in either the Garmin or Polar just give you HR, SR, Speed distance etc... I am trying to see if the PowerCal using HR would be an alternative to having power on the go....

---

I live to TRI

sort of agreed here, gait variability and differing biomechanical effeciency essentially makes normalizing run biomechanics very very very difficult. in cycling, everyone is doing more or less the same repeated motion- so this is measurable. lots of people have slight leg length discrepancy, some run heelstriking, some run with a midfoot strike, etc- so all this of course affects how much 'power' you output.

I would argue too that it's not needed. I came from a cross country background and all you need, really, is a stopwatch. most run training is done in a controlled loop- a track or a known race course.a 400m track is a 400m track. far less variability to deal with- especially traffic/wind, and what have you. not so in cycling. Good runners know what pacing they can churn out per km and will adjust for terrain and go from there- and most of the time its pretty close. Good runners also know from experience how far out they can 'kick'- no need for a running powermeter to tell you that.

GPS watches are probably the most expensive training tool a top level runner needs, and even then many get by without them. most of my high level running friends don't even use heart rate- they use it, sure, but it's not a main metric. time is what counts.

so based on these two things- the difficulties in making something that actually works and can tell the differences between different humans- as well as the lack of need or demand for one- probably means it wont take off.