Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Disclosure: I am on the Stryd team.

mauricemaher wrote:
Too many flat lines in the Pace line, not sure how they are measuring, but poor sampling rate. Also I would say inaccurate, how does HR go up in a 3 minute test on the uphill, but still goes up on the down….with out an increase in pace?


I would like to clarify that the power number came from Stryd. The pace and heart rate numbers in this test came from other products.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
A few thoughts...

Combining the above with the fact that runners don't generally have to be able to rapidly change pace the way cyclists do, that they aren't as influenced by environmental conditions (e.g., wind), that they tend to utilize flat surfaces (tracks) for structured training, etc., and I can't see a running power meter having a significant impact on how people actually train and perform.

Honestly, I'm surprised to see you write. Mostly because it really makes no sense.

Wind is just as painful to a runner as it is to a cyclist, run a marathon into a headwind and you'll understand. Similarly, varying terrain is just as much of a factor for runners as it is cyclists. This is especially true for longer formats (i.e. half marathon and beyond) in courses with rolling terrain or worse.

I could see trying to argue it makes it's of little benefit for situations such as windless flat surfaces. But to try and argue that runners aren't impacted by hills or wind comes across a bit...out of place?


-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [dcrainmaker] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dcrainmaker wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
A few thoughts...

Combining the above with the fact that runners don't generally have to be able to rapidly change pace the way cyclists do, that they aren't as influenced by environmental conditions (e.g., wind), that they tend to utilize flat surfaces (tracks) for structured training, etc., and I can't see a running power meter having a significant impact on how people actually train and perform.

Honestly, I'm surprised to see you write. Mostly because it really makes no sense.

Wind is just as painful to a runner as it is to a cyclist, run a marathon into a headwind and you'll understand. Similarly, varying terrain is just as much of a factor for runners as it is cyclists. This is especially true for longer formats (i.e. half marathon and beyond) in courses with rolling terrain or worse.

I could see trying to argue it makes it's of little benefit for situations such as windless flat surfaces. But to try and argue that runners aren't impacted by hills or wind comes across a bit...out of place?

Sorry, but I think that your assertions are incorrect. Runners are clearly not impacted by wind as much as cyclists. (And yes, I say that having run a fair bit while living on a wind-swept barrier island, as well as having to finish a 30 km race under my goal of 2 h flat by running the last 2 mi as hard as I could straight into a block headwind.) Way back in 1971, for example, Pugh tested runners in a climactic chamber and demonstrated that overcoming wind resistance accounted for only 7.5% of energy expenditure when running on the flat at 3.75 m/s and 13% at 4.47 m/s. This is in contrast to cycling, whereas as we all know, overcoming wind resistance accounts for the vast majority of energy expenditure. It therefore follows that it takes a much, MUCH stronger wind to have the same impact on a runner as it does on a cyclist.

As for hills, while the effects of gradient on energy expenditure are the same in runners and cyclists, how many runners do you know are willing to routinely venture up grades so steep that they are reduced to walking, or at best, a very slow jog? Yet, thanks to gearing cyclists regularly ride up such slopes.

Now add in the fact that, in running, true sprinters generally don't race longer distances, and distance runners rarely have to truly sprint, yet cyclists in mass start races regularly have to do both, combined with the fact that a power estimator can't account for differences in runnnig economy, which are far greater between individuals than cycling economy, and the fact that running tracks (where runners typically go when they want to perform structured training) are ubiquitous whereas velodromes are relatively rare, and, well, I just don't see the point (as I told Steve McGregor almost a decade ago when he came up w/ rTSS).
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Feb 3, 15 7:44
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I probably would concede that wind impacts cyclists more than runners, but certainly not that it doesn't impact runners. A 13% change in energy for a mere 10MPH headwind in your example is pretty substantial. I don't know how that maps to impact on potential power and/or finishing times (perhaps it's been studied, perhaps not), but, no doubt there's some impact. Would it be 5% faster? 10% faster? And again, 10MPH isn't all that much actually.

As for hills, I'm not sure why it'd have to be steep enough to walk to matter. Hills of even a few percent have a pretty big impact on a runner (in both directions). To the same end, I'm not sure why we're bringing sprinters in this. As I noted above, this is likely more valid for long distance runners. But, if we decide to pull in the concept of sprinting - it's not terribly different in a world class marathon where pros will pickup and vary the pace, effectively aiming to drop someone. Whether or not that person could sustain said X pace on Y terrain with Z wind gets to the core of power would be about, or rather, is about today already in cycling. The same power that's widely used in the professional cycling.

Finally, I know you keep going back to runners going to tracks to do structured training. But I'd wager the majority of long-distance runners don't actually. Just like the majority of cyclists don't train in velodromes. They train out on open roads and trails.


-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I too am surprised by this response.

I agree that typically, running is more steady state, but that still doesn't mean that GPS and HR data provide a better picture on output than this device might provide.

If I'm running a 50k ultra, off road, I will routinely be faced with deciding to walk vs. run on a steep grade to maintain a steady output, which will result in the best finish time. Reducing variability is equally important in running as cycling. So is quantifying training load over a variety of terrain.

I also disagree that all quality work will be done on a track. Why would it? Is all quality work for cycling done on a trainer, track or perfectly flat roads? No, but a power meter allows you to be more precise in your training despite varying conditions and compare one effort to another.

I would argue that since there is almost always less cooling airflow, heat and humidity have a larger impact on running than cycling.

Cycling is impacted more by wind yes, but to say there's no impact in running isn't accurate either, unless you have data to quantify it as such, but the combination or wind, terrain and changes in mechanics due to fatigue, can be vary large and unpredictable.

Add to that, in cycling, while inertia is less when climbing, the overall mechanics do not change dramatically unless you shift from seated to standing. In running, your mechanics change based on grade, both uphill and especially downhill and based on surface conditions.

I'm a little disappointing you'r not more interested in this device. I know you focus is on cycling. But combining whats been learned about cycling to run performance I think would be a great opportunity and the ability to reach a large audience (think more funding for research).


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [motoguy128] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For my athletes, one of the most useful test I would like to perform would be comparing pace to output on a track and identify the efficiency of the athlete at different paces, cadence, different shoes, weather conditions. You could use a database like WKO+ to then more accurately determine threshold pace and predict race performance based on evaluating a combination of HR, Pace, etc.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrew Coggan wrote:
dcrainmaker wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
A few thoughts...

Combining the above with the fact that runners don't generally have to be able to rapidly change pace the way cyclists do, that they aren't as influenced by environmental conditions (e.g., wind), that they tend to utilize flat surfaces (tracks) for structured training, etc., and I can't see a running power meter having a significant impact on how people actually train and perform.

Honestly, I'm surprised to see you write. Mostly because it really makes no sense.

Wind is just as painful to a runner as it is to a cyclist, run a marathon into a headwind and you'll understand. Similarly, varying terrain is just as much of a factor for runners as it is cyclists. This is especially true for longer formats (i.e. half marathon and beyond) in courses with rolling terrain or worse.

I could see trying to argue it makes it's of little benefit for situations such as windless flat surfaces. But to try and argue that runners aren't impacted by hills or wind comes across a bit...out of place?

Sorry, but I think that your assertions are incorrect. Runners are clearly not impacted by wind as much as cyclists. (And yes, I say that having run a fair bit while living on a wind-swept barrier island, as well as having to finish a 30 km race under my goal of 2 h flat by running the last 2 mi as hard as I could straight into a block headwind.) Way back in 1971, for example, Pugh tested runners in a climactic chamber and demonstrated that overcoming wind resistance accounted for only 7.5% of energy expenditure when running on the flat at 3.75 m/s and 13% at 4.47 m/s. This is in contrast to cycling, whereas as we all know, overcoming wind resistance accounts for the vast majority of energy expenditure. It therefore follows that it takes a much, MUCH stronger wind to have the same impact on a runner as it does on a cyclist.

As for hills, while the effects of gradient on energy expenditure are the same in runners and cyclists, how many runners do you know are willing to routinely venture up grades so steep that they are reduced to walking, or at best, a very slow jog? Yet, thanks to gearing cyclists regularly ride up such slopes.

Now add in the fact that, in running, true sprinters generally don't race longer distances, and distance runners rarely have to truly sprint, yet cyclists in mass start races regularly have to do both, combined with the fact that a power estimator can't account for differences in runnnig economy, which are far greater between individuals than cycling economy, and the fact that running tracks (where runners typically go when they want to perform structured training) are ubiquitous whereas velodromes are relatively rare, and, well, I just don't see the point (as I told Steve McGregor almost a decade ago when he came up w/ rTSS).

It would be very easy for Andrew Coggan to jump on the running power meter band waggon and I'm sure if he did his ideas would be embraced just as enthusiastically by runners and running coaches as is the case in cycling.

The fact that he holds this opinion may be surprising but it does show he isn't interested in making easy money.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [motoguy128] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
motoguy128 wrote:
If I'm running a 50k ultra, off road, I will routinely be faced with deciding to walk vs. run on a steep grade to maintain a steady output, which will result in the best finish time.

Edge case.

motoguy128 wrote:
Reducing variability is equally important in running as cycling.

Running is inherently less variable than cycling. After all, if you're not running, you're walking, and you certainly can't coast.

motoguy128 wrote:
So is quantifying training load over a variety of terrain.

The limitations to quantifying training load and leveraging that information does not lie in the device - being able to accurately measure (not estimate) running power won't help you there.

motoguy128 wrote:
I also disagree that all quality work will be done on a track. Why would it?

All, no, but most, yes. Heck, we used to drive ~1 h one-way from Galveston to run on a high school track (as the one on the island wasn't open to the publci...grrr).

motoguy128 wrote:
Is all quality work for cycling done on a trainer, track or perfectly flat roads? No, but a power meter allows you to be more precise in your training despite varying conditions and compare one effort to another.

That's an argument why cyclists benefit from powermeters, not runners.

motoguy128 wrote:
I would argue that since there is almost always less cooling airflow, heat and humidity have a larger impact on running than cycling.

So? If it does, you'll run slower, which a watch will tell you...no powermeter required.

motoguy128 wrote:
Cycling is impacted more by wind yes, but to say there's no impact in running isn't accurate either, unless you have data to quantify it as such, but the combination or wind, terrain and changes in mechanics due to fatigue, can be vary large and unpredictable.

Runners are clearly affected far LESS by wind than cyclists. As for fatigue, etc., causing you to slow down, that's something a watch can already tell you.

motoguy128 wrote:
Add to that, in cycling, while inertia is less when climbing, the overall mechanics do not change dramatically unless you shift from seated to standing. In running, your mechanics change based on grade, both uphill and especially downhill and based on surface conditions.

...which is 1) why runners tend to avoid really steep slopes, and 2) why estimating metabolic demands from running speed and grade and expressing it as a power is fraught with difficulties.

motoguy128 wrote:
I'm a little disappointing you'r not more interested in this device. I know you focus is on cycling. But combining whats been learned about cycling to run performance I think would be a great opportunity and the ability to reach a large audience (think more funding for research).

Yes, I'm a cyclist, such that my personal interest in such a device is nil. That said, if my prediction proves wrong so be it...it's not that I want devices like the Stryde to fail to have a significant impact, it's just that I don't forsee that they will.

As for your comments about research funding, you clearly don't understand what I do for a living, or where money for research can actually be found.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [motoguy128] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
motoguy128 wrote:
For my athletes, one of the most useful test I would like to perform would be comparing pace to output on a track and identify the efficiency of the athlete at different paces, cadence, different shoes, weather conditions.

That would require a portable metabolic system (which have been available for >100 y), not a running powermeter.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [dcrainmaker] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dcrainmaker wrote:
I probably would concede that wind impacts cyclists more than runners, but certainly not that it doesn't impact runners. A 13% change in energy for a mere 10MPH headwind in your example is pretty substantial. I don't know how that maps to impact on potential power and/or finishing times (perhaps it's been studied, perhaps not), but, no doubt there's some impact. Would it be 5% faster? 10% faster? And again, 10MPH isn't all that much actually.

Actually, 10 mph at ground level is a quite strong wind, strong enough to nearly double or halve the speed of a cyclist riding on level ground if it were directly behind or ahead. A runner, OTOH, would speed up or slow down by only ~10%, or about 1/10th as much as a cyclist.

dcrainmaker wrote:
As for hills, I'm not sure why it'd have to be steep enough to walk to matter. Hills of even a few percent have a pretty big impact on a runner (in both directions).

Roughly speaking, while running a 1% change (increase) in grade increases metabolic cost by 4%. So, not a huge amount, but certainly enough to result in slower times in hilly races (e.g., Boston) and faster times in those that are net downhill (e.g., Austin marathon). But, runners already have perceived exertion to rely on for pacing purposes, and when training already know not to compare their pace in hilly runs with that in flat runs. IOW, the question is, in what way would knowing (estimating) your power while running in the hills represent new, highly valuable, "actionable intelligence"?

dcrainmaker wrote:
To the same end, I'm not sure why we're bringing sprinters in this. As I noted above, this is likely more valid for long distance runners.

Because it is the far-ranging demands of cycling that, in part, make measuring actual power in that sport so valuable. But for distance runners? Not so much...

dcrainmaker wrote:
But, if we decide to pull in the concept of sprinting - it's not terribly different in a world class marathon where pros will pickup and vary the pace, effectively aiming to drop someone.

Even in athletics, the variations in pace pale in comparison to the demands of, e.g., a criterium.

dcrainmaker wrote:
Finally, I know you keep going back to runners going to tracks to do structured training. But I'd wager the majority of long-distance runners don't actually.

That's not been my experience, but even if you assume it is true, what it says is that simply going out and pounding the pavement that starts at your front door with a watch on your wrist must already be "close enough" that people don't see any benefit from standardizing conditions/training to a greater degree. In turn, that implies that measuring power isn't going to have a significant impact either.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [SwimGreg3] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SwimGreg3 wrote:
Mike, I think your statement that power meters "ignore wind" threw me off. I think I now understand what you mean: that wind speed need not be known to calculate power.

I had initially assumed that a runner's acceleration vector in time would be unchanged by wind, and therefore unmeasurable by an accelerometer. However, I neglected to consider the period of a runner's gait in which they are not in contact with the ground. In stronger winds, the magnitude of accelerations and declerations required maintain a constant speed would be greater than in weaker wind. Therefore, perhaps it is possible to obtain accurate power measures using only a COM accelerometer.

I think your ignoring that the important measurement is just like a power meter, it's the force vector and frequency, then subtracted all deaccleration after the positive acceleration stops. The net balance between the two would be your forward momentum. But that's based on my basic college level physics... I'm probably missing something there. But by making the statement, I can virtually guarantee an expert will reply to correct me, in very short order.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think for me, the key point that Dr. Coggan makes is that what "actionable intelligence" is there with a running power meter that pace cannot give you? I totally understand why a cycling power meter does provide this actionable intelligence. As of yet in this discussion, no one has demonstrated how that works for running. It seems there is conjecture and hypothesis, but no actual data and analysis to support its use.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [goodboyr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
goodboyr wrote:
I think for me, the key point that Dr. Coggan makes is that what "actionable intelligence" is there with a running power meter that pace cannot give you? I totally understand why a cycling power meter does provide this actionable intelligence. As of yet in this discussion, no one has demonstrated how that works for running. It seems there is conjecture and hypothesis, but no actual data and analysis to support its use.


You're putting the cart before the horse. Until there is a truly accurate running powermeter, people won't spend a ton of time trying to devise useful metrics for it other than using rough cycling analogies.

I 100% guarantee that if someone indeed developed a running powermeter that was every bit as accurate and precise as cycling powermeters, it would be a complete game changer at all levels for training and racing, just as it was for cycling. And you'd surely see some new and very useful metrics be developed.

It's true that running is somewhat less affected by conditions such as hills and wind, but the notion that you can use GPS/HR calculations to get performance data with the same robustness as a cycling powermeter is a joke. It's literally as bad (if not worse) than using an ibike and saying it's really robust (it's not.)
Last edited by: lightheir: Feb 3, 15 9:09
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you go on the stryd website log, they show a plot of speed and "stryd power" superimposed. As an example, if I was to use the stryd power instead of the pace to determine optimum running pace, I would slow down too much. It appears that there are some artifacts of how the "power" is calculated, and the devil is in the details. At steady state its no different than pace, but at the start and at the interval transition, it looks like its overestimating the number. which would cause me to slow down for no reason, if I was using that value to run at a steady power....

http://blog.stryd.com/...ower-and-heart-rate/
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [goodboyr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
goodboyr wrote:
I think for me, the key point that Dr. Coggan makes is that what "actionable intelligence" is there with a running power meter that pace cannot give you? I totally understand why a cycling power meter does provide this actionable intelligence. As of yet in this discussion, no one has demonstrated how that works for running. It seems there is conjecture and hypothesis, but no actual data and analysis to support its use.

What can a stopwatch or GPS not do:
1) Determining pace in increments less than 15-20 seconds is difficult. Especially uphill, down hill, or with wind.
2) Determine output when your mechanics have changed due to fatigue or because your going uphill or downhill. It also assumes you output is linear with pace. It's most likely not for most people.

Are the 2 scenarios above important for training or racing?

I would prefer that the units used were Intensity Factor, not Power. It's only an accelerator, not a strain gauge so it cannot measure power or force. It can measure acceleration and calculate power based on the weight of the subject. That will be one limitation of the device I could see... calibration based on weight. Unless I'm missing something here.

More specifically, it can measure a net average velocity vector and the overall economy of motion. Those are 2 items that GPS cannot accurately determine. The argument could be if the variability of those, is enough to matter.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [goodboyr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
goodboyr wrote:
If you go on the stryd website log, they show a plot of speed and "stryd power" superimposed. As an example, if I was to use the stryd power instead of the pace to determine optimum running pace, I would slow down too much. It appears that there are some artifacts of how the "power" is calculated, and the devil is in the details. At steady state its no different than pace, but at the start and at the interval transition, it looks like its overestimating the number. which would cause me to slow down for no reason, if I was using that value to run at a steady power....

http://blog.stryd.com/...ower-and-heart-rate/

I'm not arguing that there are likely limitations in the stryd that make it suboptimal for ideal use.

But what I was arguing that if you had a run powermeter that was as good as a bike powermeter, it would change the game.

I think it's too early to tell at this point if Stryd is it, but I have my doubts just given that it's a computational algorithm rather than a real measurement (like a strain gauge.)
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lightheir wrote:
goodboyr wrote:
If you go on the stryd website log, they show a plot of speed and "stryd power" superimposed. As an example, if I was to use the stryd power instead of the pace to determine optimum running pace, I would slow down too much. It appears that there are some artifacts of how the "power" is calculated, and the devil is in the details. At steady state its no different than pace, but at the start and at the interval transition, it looks like its overestimating the number. which would cause me to slow down for no reason, if I was using that value to run at a steady power....

http://blog.stryd.com/...ower-and-heart-rate/

I'm not arguing that there are likely limitations in the stryd that make it suboptimal for ideal use.

But what I was arguing that if you had a run powermeter that was as good as a bike powermeter, it would change the game.

I think it's too early to tell at this point if Stryd is it, but I have my doubts just given that it's a computational algorithm rather than a real measurement (like a strain gauge.)

Running power meters will catch on. People like gadgets.

The point Andrew Coggan is making is that even if they do work, they won't improve the way people train.

They will certainly waste a lot of people's time.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I totally disagree with your notion that WORKING run powermeters will not change the way people train. The will absolutely change the way people train if they are committed to the power numbers, same as it changed cycling. And it will improve the way people train, to have accurate power numbers, rather than the constant guesstimations that we are currently doing whenever we do hill repeats or any outdoor course with elevation changes.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Unless you can back up your certainty with some actual numerical or factual examples, I remain unconvinced.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [goodboyr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
goodboyr wrote:
Unless you can back up your certainty with some actual numerical or factual examples, I remain unconvinced.

All the evidence I need is how it affected cycling, both at amateur and pro levels.

If you presented people with a not-so-good powermeter like the 'i-bike', you'd make all the same old arguments you make, but they wouldn't be valid with a good, accurate PM.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I guess we will have to wait. We both agree that whatever the case, Stryd isn't the one that will prove or disprove this.
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [goodboyr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here's examples.

I want to do hill repeats at threshold pace. Currently, I run based on guessing my RPE, breathing rate, etc.

I want to compare repeats efforts I did last month to today, but I've lost 4lbs since then. How much of the improvement is from weight or fitness?

I'm trying to measure improvements in run economy from today vs. 3 months ago. Right now I need to use HR or use a treadmill in a test lab.

I'm out for a run on a trail wooded off road rugged, hilly trail. I want to hold a steady effort around 65%.

I'm doing a 50 mi Ultra. I don't want to exceed 80% up any hills. I want to measure fatigue and hydration by output compared to pace and HR respectively.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [motoguy128] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
motoguy128 wrote:
Here's examples.

I want to do hill repeats at threshold pace. Currently, I run based on guessing my RPE, breathing rate, etc.

I want to compare repeats efforts I did last month to today, but I've lost 4lbs since then. How much of the improvement is from weight or fitness?

I'm trying to measure improvements in run economy from today vs. 3 months ago. Right now I need to use HR or use a treadmill in a test lab.

I'm out for a run on a trail wooded off road rugged, hilly trail. I want to hold a steady effort around 65%.

I'm doing a 50 mi Ultra. I don't want to exceed 80% up any hills. I want to measure fatigue and hydration by output compared to pace and HR respectively.


Why?

How would any of those things you listed make training more effective?
Is there any evidence not exceeding 80% (of what?) or holding a steady effort of 65% ( of what? ) improves training or performance?

What actionable intelligence would a running power meter give you?

Edit: I've been thinking about this and I can see uses for accurate power data running.

The treadmills at my gym show power in watts. I doubt it is accurate but it seems consistent. They have a card system where you insert your card and it account for weight, speed and slope.

Yesterday After a 5000m row, I did 30 minutes on the treadmill. Due to a knee injury I can't run so I set the slope to 10% to 15% and walk at 3mph to 4mph. This gets the watts up to a over 300 watts.

Now I can see that if these wattage numners are accurate I would been able to compare walks or runs at different times at different slopes on different machines in different gyms. I would be able to track training. Now I could just use pace and take note of the slope but watts gives me a single number so I can see the difference between various speeds and slopes over time.

If I were to run outdoors over variable terrain and if the power were accurate so I can make direct comparisons I can see they being able to compare the wattage at different speeds and gradients would be of use.

But I can always track fitness by doing a run on the flat. I can see having power would really change the way I train but I can see it being useful.

I was surprised how much the power on the treadmill varied. Up the slope and the human mind tends to maintain the speed until it gets feed back that the effort has increased and then moderates pace. I was surprised by how the wattage jumps up when you up the slope.

As for tracking training, would power be any better than heart rate? If and its a big if, if the power were accurate it could be useful.

I like the minimalism of running, I don't want to get my running (or fast walking) to become all numners and software, but surely all the arguments for using it cycling are valid for running even if runners are not so affected by wind and drag?

So I think I'm changing my mind having considered the arguments. But only if the power data is accurate.

But running is about pace not power. Does an increase in power always mean an increase in pace? What if your form goes bollox and you are putting out more power but just stamping up and down more and not increasing pace?

I don't know. More opinions required. More info required.
Last edited by: Trev: Feb 4, 15 3:11
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Treadmill in my gym shows power in watts.
Did an easy 25 minutes at 10kph level or 1% slope. Was doing 220/230 watts. I'm 14st 7lbs.

No idea if that is accurate. Yesterday I was getting approx 200 watts for 3mph up 15% gradient which works out at 182 watts, using the formula below,

Weight in lbs x 2 x mph x gradient%

So it looks like an overestimate.



But if I did have an accurate running power meter I could compare indoor runs at various gradients to outdoor runs over undulating ground. On different treadmills in different gyms, could compare power over different hills, could compare runs at different weights enabling me to see if the increased pace is due to weight loss alone or increased power as well, compare runs into the wind to runs with the wind.

I know the wattage differences won't be as great as in cyclimg but surely it would be useful to make those sorts of comparisons?

But does power work with running? Does more power necessarily = more speed? What if the wattage increases but form breaks down and more watts results in no increase in speed? In that case watts could prove to be rather misleading.

On a bike more power must = more speed unless you change position and create more drag but is running the same?

Then you would have to weigh up the hassle factor, the time spent making sure the data is accurate etc etc.

I don't need a running power meter, I dont think I would enjoy running as much with one, but if I was coaching someone I can see uses.

The more I think about it the more I'm astounded Andrew Coggan does not see the point of one... Unless he knows that power does not necessarily translate into more speed and would be too misleading to be of benefit?
Last edited by: Trev: Feb 4, 15 6:34
Quote Reply
Re: DCRainmaker preview of Stryd running power meter [dcrainmaker] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dcrainmaker wrote:
Andrew Coggan wrote:
A few thoughts...

Combining the above with the fact that runners don't generally have to be able to rapidly change pace the way cyclists do, that they aren't as influenced by environmental conditions (e.g., wind), that they tend to utilize flat surfaces (tracks) for structured training, etc., and I can't see a running power meter having a significant impact on how people actually train and perform.


Honestly, I'm surprised to see you write. Mostly because it really makes no sense.

I'm not surprised and I agree with Coggan. Cyclists regularly remark at how they witness tremendous variability in average speed for the same power output because of the strong effect from wind. The Stryd looks to be an interesting data point but I suspect for many runners it will correlate so strongly with their time piece that it won't add much value. The one case where it may be useful is to aid pacing over longer runs on unfamiliar terrain, but I think most endurance runners already know when they are running a sustainable vs unsustainable pace. This device could help them abide by the plan better.
Quote Reply

Prev Next