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.