Thinking about buying a Stryd power meter. What are the pros and cons?

Just run, baby.

It's helpful if you're a newbie who is having trouble with pace and even heart rate in training. If you've been doing it for more than a few years with consistency then it won't tell you anything you shouldn't already know.

I could write you a lengthy novel on this, but let me try and condense.

TLDR:

-Bikes have a logical place that you can place a sensor and actually measure power, while a runner does not.

-Biking involves a single, simple, repetitive movement. A running stride is made up of distinct phases, and there is a ton of variability in form between individuals.

TLDR:

- power for cycling is what pace is for running

I would say the main reason why power meters on the bike are so popular is a different one: speed on a bicycle says nothing about your effort. From one side, a 1 km/h (mph) increase may mean a difference of tens of watts of needed power; on the other side, the gradient of a climb (or descent), wind, changes in rider position, presence of other riders, all have a big impact on speed. All those factors do exist in running, but they are marginal: pace says very much about your training or race result. A 32 km/h (20 mph) training or 40 km/h (25 mph) race average speed say... nothing. It's easy to train and race according to pace in running, taking into account slope, wind and running surface of course; it makes no sense in cycling.

Another factor: running tends to be at a uniform pace. Of course you have intervals in training and last lap sprints in track racing, but generally you try to keep a uniform pace. From this point of view running is like time trial in cycling. The more popular mass start cycling is a constant variation of effort, from powers less than half your anaerobic threshold power to 4 times higher powers: in running terms, from jogging to 40 meter sprints. For this a power meter is invaluable, as variations in speed, heart rate or perceived exertion don't tell the whole story.

Power meters are popular among time trialists too. This is again for a reason not found in running: in time trials aerodynamic drag is fundamental. With a power meter a time trialist can test different positions and try to minimize it.

This said, I wish all the best to Stryd. Nowadays I guess most users are triathletes, or cyclists who also run from time to time, as they are used to training with power concepts and jargon. I guess it might also be useful for people who train often on rolling roads or in very, very windy regions, or in places with very bad GPS.

@Forcerunner - I'm interested in Stryd for the pace and distance accuracy given, but not very interested in power. Are stryd likely to release a lower cost unit that maintains the accuracy but doesn't do power?

Adifan wrote:

@Forcerunner - I'm interested in Stryd for the pace and distance accuracy given, but not very interested in power. Are stryd likely to release a lower cost unit that maintains the accuracy but doesn't do power?

Yeah good question. There was Stryd Live released a few years ago, but no plans to release that pace/distance only version again at the moment.

EU cyclist wrote: Nowadays I guess most users are triathletes, or cyclists who also run from time to time, as they are used to training with power concepts and jargon.

Also: people with more money than sense who get a thrill over throwing said money at hyped-up, flashy gear.

@forcerunner

Ok so it seems like some people say that Stryd is super accurate and some people find that it is off a little. Obviously this is a pretty big investment so I want to be sure that it works. Is there any where that I could test it or try it for a couple of runs?

Thanks!

modern philosopher wrote:

@forcerunner

Ok so it seems like some people say that Stryd is super accurate and some people find that it is off a little. Obviously this is a pretty big investment so I want to be sure that it works. Is there any where that I could test it or try it for a couple of runs?

Thanks!

Stryd has told me that each pod can be up to 3% off out of the box. To calibrate the unit you must go to a local track or somewhere with a measuring wheel to calibrate. Info is on their website. Mine was 2.4% off after a track calibration.

modern philosopher wrote:

@forcerunner

Ok so it seems like some people say that Stryd is super accurate and some people find that it is off a little. Obviously this is a pretty big investment so I want to be sure that it works. Is there any where that I could test it or try it for a couple of runs?

Thanks!

Currently, just a 30-day return period, but there is a Stryd Community on Facebook where someone might be in your local area who could let you demo. Wouldn't advocate for that option right now, but in the near future, it could be a possibility.

forcerunner wrote:

modern philosopher wrote:

@forcerunner

Ok so it seems like some people say that Stryd is super accurate and some people find that it is off a little. Obviously this is a pretty big investment so I want to be sure that it works. Is there any where that I could test it or try it for a couple of runs?

Thanks!

Currently, just a 30-day return period, but there is a Stryd Community on Facebook where someone might be in your local area who could let you demo. Wouldn't advocate for that option right now, but in the near future, it could be a possibility.

Thank you!

How well does it work on a soft surface? Snow for instance, or sand? Snow could be packed firm like pavement, or deep such that you are post holing, or crust that holds supports your weight half of your steps. Would Stryd be telling you your power is higher to maintain speed in those different surface conditions? What about on a trail with rocks and roots?

outside in woods and mountains wrote:

How well does it work on a soft surface? Snow for instance, or sand? Snow could be packed firm like pavement, or deep such that you are post holing, or crust that holds supports your weight half of your steps. Would Stryd be telling you your power is higher to maintain speed in those different surface conditions? What about on a trail with rocks and roots?

Bump. No answer, so I'm assuming it doesn't accurately estimate power going over different surfaces. If it actually does, then that would be a great tool, since that's one of the main things I see affecting my speed at the same effort or perceived power.

outside in woods and mountains wrote:

outside in woods and mountains wrote:

How well does it work on a soft surface? Snow for instance, or sand? Snow could be packed firm like pavement, or deep such that you are post holing, or crust that holds supports your weight half of your steps. Would Stryd be telling you your power is higher to maintain speed in those different surface conditions? What about on a trail with rocks and roots?

Bump. No answer, so I'm assuming it doesn't accurately estimate power going over different surfaces. If it actually does, then that would be a great tool, since that's one of the main things I see affecting my speed at the same effort or perceived power.

I think no answer because you only have it 36 hours to be addressed, but I'll do my best - I've had no issues running Stryd through snow or light trails. I'm in the midwest so we get a lot of slick roads, some deep snow, and everything in between, and I haven't had issues with those runs being mischaracterized either in distance or in power. I have less experience on trails (they are based in Colorado, so I'm guessing it's pretty functional there, too) but from the light dirt and gravel systems I've run, there's been no issue. I imagine steep terrain or really rocky paths where your footstrike is wonky would present a problem - I just haven't tested it.

I'll put in another vote for Stryd, generally. I do a good bit of treadmill running (especially lately, with the 6' "rule" making it tricky in dense urban areas) and Stryd is 100% dead on accurate there. Outdoors, I use it for pace and distance, and am hoping to use Stryd to develop a training plan towards a fall marathon (maybe ForceRunner can help me there, but there are plenty of resources, nonetheless). I also review shoes, so end up switching the footpod around 2-4x/week, and have had no major discrepancies across shoes (assuming you lace it properly!). It's well worth it, IMO.

I havent used mine in the snow yet, havent had it that long.

Mine was calibrated at the exact same time with a friends this past weekend. We ran together for 10 miles yesterday on trails with lots of turns and hills, within 0.01mi of each other. We ran again today and after 3 miles we were out of sync and off. Eventually the splits were getting 0.02mi off by each mile. Straight path, no turns. Same watch and settings and no changes to stryd. Only thing that changed was the shoes we both had on.

Disappointed again with stryd. Hard to do a workout with someone when your splits are getting further and further apart literally running stride for stride next to each other, AFTER calibrating!

Cons: power is unproven in running, (it's barely proven in cycling)

Stryd constantly puts out bad data. Stryd pays people to pump up their product as "accurate" and also encourages said people to hid their relationship with stride.

Stryd is too expensive, the avg rec runner doesn't need exact pace for anything.

forcerunner wrote:

I work at Stryd, so feel free to ask any specific questions.

!

so everything this going to be a advertisement after this with no real useful information.

Stryd duped their original backers on kickstarter and then tried to get more $$ out of them.

Alberto's Dog wrote:

I think no answer because you only have it 36 hours to be addressed, but I'll do my best - I've had no issues running Stryd through snow or light trails. I'm in the midwest so we get a lot of slick roads, some deep snow, and everything in between, and I haven't had issues with those runs being mischaracterized either in distance or in power.

To clarify, it's telling you that you are putting in the power in deep snow even though your pace has dropped, say from 8:00 to 14:00 pace?

Stryd has stated that it cannot factor in the surface you are running on. https://support.stryd.com/hc/en-us/articles/360020313954-Does-Stryd-consider-the-surface-where-I-run-

Stryd can currently not detect the surface you are running on and adjust power readings accordingly. For example, if you run on the beach it will obviously take more effort to run at the same pace then it would be on the road. For the same effort, Stryd will indicate a lower power level on the beach.

If you always run on a particular surface, you can adjust your power zones. We recommend doing a critical power test on the surface you regularly run on. If you do that, your power zones will adjust so that you can still use power for proper training.

Soapbox time. I urge everyone to really understand the tech you're using - failing to interpret your data correctly can lead to false conclusions and incorrect training practices, and ultimately to incorrect conclusions about the effects of your training.

I know I might sound dramatic, but understanding your data is the price of entry if you're gonna use it to train.

npurdy1112 wrote:

I havent used mine in the snow yet, havent had it that long.

Mine was calibrated at the exact same time with a friends this past weekend. We ran together for 10 miles yesterday on trails with lots of turns and hills, within 0.01mi of each other. We ran again today and after 3 miles we were out of sync and off. Eventually the splits were getting 0.02mi off by each mile. Straight path, no turns. Same watch and settings and no changes to stryd. Only thing that changed was the shoes we both had on.

Disappointed again with stryd. Hard to do a workout with someone when your splits are getting further and further apart literally running stride for stride next to each other, AFTER calibrating!

You have to calibrate with each of your shoes. Sort of annoying, but once you've got the calibration done it is more accurate and consistent than GPS.

One pair of my shoes is calibrated to 100.0 exactly (NB 1080v10s), another pair is 102.0 (Hoka One One Clifton 6), and another is 98.1 (Nike Zoom Flyknits), so you can have pretty big differences between shoes.