I'm intrigued by the concept and will be doing a lot of indoor track running this winter, so I just purchased Stryd to see what it's all about.
I suspect that elites would all be running by "power" it if it's the next "cat's meow" for run training. Virtually none of the elites currently are. It's a lot more prevalent in triathlon, but people love shelling out money in that sport.
The only thing that matters in distance running is your time. Nobody cares about your HR, your "power out put", steps per mile, number of times you blinked, percentage of body weight you lost, height, weight, salt content, iron levels, even age.
The ONLY thing that is relevant is the time it took you to cover the distance.*
*Unless it's a championship level RACE then it's all about place over time.
I trained by power for several months. The problem with it is it's a static measure that doesn't vary by the physiological stress of ~heat, fatigue, sleep, caffeine, wind, hydration, altitude. Heartrate is a much better metric to use because it's dynamic and a better measure of the physiological/external stressors on the body as mentioned. As an example, if you were going at an easy pace (65-70% of max heartrate), your power would be 60-65% of max power because power isn't influenced/increased by stressors.
The only thing I found useful about power is with hills- your uphill power and downhill power should be comparable. You can figure out what you need to work on (downhill vs uphill). I found out I could work on being a better downhill runner.
thoughts on power. wrote:
I trained by power for several months. The problem with it is it's a static measure that doesn't vary by the physiological stress of ~heat, fatigue, sleep, caffeine, wind, hydration, altitude. Heartrate is a much better metric to use because it's dynamic and a better measure of the physiological/external stressors on the body as mentioned. As an example, if you were going at an easy pace (65-70% of max heartrate), your power would be 60-65% of max power because power isn't influenced/increased by stressors.
Heartrate being dynamic doesn't make it better, it just makes it harder to practically use and rely upon.
The measure of metabolic power in running doesn't change in the conditions you describe (save for air resistance which is accounted for), but you can very easily apply factors to your baseline fitness (Critical Power) to adjust for what you can handle and produce in different temperature, humidity, and altitudes.
forcerunner wrote:
Heartrate being dynamic doesn't make it better, it just makes it harder to practically use and rely upon.
The measure of metabolic power in running doesn't change in the conditions you describe (save for air resistance which is accounted for), but you can very easily apply factors to your baseline fitness (Critical Power) to adjust for what you can handle and produce in different temperature, humidity, and altitudes.
I don't fully understand why this distinction makes training based on power a "better" metric to use.
With heartrate, I have great insight into where my body physically and how much longer/harder I can push. It's specifically based on how my body is handling what's going. For example, my heart rate increases at X pace as I'm sick, or running up a hill in the heat and direct sunlight, and my heart rate decreases when I'm running downhill in the shade. Alternatively, my heartrate increases when I'm running in thick snow or sand. Based on heartrate, I know exactly when to throttle up or down in a race based on how my body is responding to the conditions and how much farther I have to run. Sure, there is some lag time, but I can account for that.
It's my understanding that a power meter does not account for most environmental conditions, outside of elevation and wind. It doesn't account for stuff that can dramatically impact the body's stress level and ability to maintain a certain pace.
I'm going to start using a power meter this winter when as I begin training more on an indoor track, and I'm trying to wrap my head around this stuff.
When you run those indoor track meets, are they giving out awards for "Most Power" or are they still giving out awards based on the fastest time?
EZ10Miler wrote:
When you run those indoor track meets, are they giving out awards for "Most Power" or are they still giving out awards based on the fastest time?
I'm just using it to roughly calculate distance for interval purposes. I will be running on a wonky sized indoor track. I don't do math well, and I especially don't do math well when running longer intervals, so I'm hoping it will help me roughly track how far I'm running. (Obviously, I could run by time and effort, but it's nice to have a rough idea of how far I'm actually running.)
Based on my understanding of "power" without having used the power meter yet, I'd imagine it's probably most useful in an indoor track setting where the variables stay static.
I'm interested in experiencing using power, especially because it will help with calculating distance on a wonky track, but I suspect it's essentially a gimmick (for running purposes). If it's not a gimmick, I'd suspect that significantly more professional runners using it as a metric, even if it was on the down low because Stryd doesn't want to sponsor athletes.
Gotta be a gimmick. I have yet to see one good demonstration of how it’s used in a workout.
Good post.
I've had a Stryd since it came out in 2017. I've tried to see if/how to incorporate it into my training and it just didn't make sense on early attempts so I was not about to base my entire training around it. For those who say it's great for hill running - - any non-novice runner can 'feel' when they are putting down the same amount of force on hills, with a shortened stride and adjusted cadence and HR will take care of most any remaining guesswork out of gauging effort. I use the stryd just as a footpod for treadmill running. If you think the app is bad now, then you should have seen what turd it was back then.
My biggest qualm is how they went to being subscription based. Especially being an early early adopter, it's absolutely ridiculous that I can't even see my Leg Spring Stiffness graphed out over time anymore without paying for it. I can understand paying for plans or training recommendations which utilize proprietary algorithms and running science theory, but another subscription to visualizing my data over time is just dumb.
Similarly, is Stryd REALLY going to claim the hardware on their original Stryd is the same or up to par with the newest version? Doubtful. Will they describe the limitations of the original? Doubtful. As illustrated by the quoted post; internally, they know there are limitations and fixes to be made but are not transparent about it. Why the hell would they think I'd pay for a subscription without a free/heavily discounted new Stryd? Why don't I have access to the data I used to for so long? I'd be shocked to see another response from forcerunner; this isn't the first or last place he's given a guised ad but not at liberty enough to address individual concerns off or on company time.
To answer the question: Is running with power a gimmick: Borderline-gimmick-squishy science at best, definite a gimmick for the price, a bit akin to Whoop. At least I believe the hardware on whoop is legit/unique and its the firmware/algorithms that need work. The real science and limits of HRV and power for optimizing training are a lot more complicated, less understood, and squishy once out of a laboratory and in the real world. The peer-reviewed research work being done in HRV by individuals like Marco Altini is quality, meanwhile running-power meters are still stuck in "further research is needed" land (
. gov/33202809/).
I think the idea of accurately measuring running power (metabolic or mechanical) is a joke with the current tech. BUT it's like a really accurate footpod that will give you a new data field to interpret. Kind of like how we know Daniels VDOT isn't actually VO2max, but it's still useful to compare performances and design workouts with it. Running power devices don't measure what they want you to think they do, but they're still nifty and there's lots of room to figure out how to make use of them.
forcerunner wrote:
thoughts on power. wrote:
I trained by power for several months. The problem with it is it's a static measure that doesn't vary by the physiological stress of ~heat, fatigue, sleep, caffeine, wind, hydration, altitude. Heartrate is a much better metric to use because it's dynamic and a better measure of the physiological/external stressors on the body as mentioned. As an example, if you were going at an easy pace (65-70% of max heartrate), your power would be 60-65% of max power because power isn't influenced/increased by stressors.
Heartrate being dynamic doesn't make it better, it just makes it harder to practically use and rely upon.
The measure of metabolic power in running doesn't change in the conditions you describe (save for air resistance which is accounted for), but you can very easily apply factors to your baseline fitness (Critical Power) to adjust for what you can handle and produce in different temperature, humidity, and altitudes.
Forcerunner, stryd is not measuring metabolic power. Unless the new model includes some bags to collect expired air?
Stryd is great at measuring the dynamics of the stride pattern. Then it dumps those great measurements into a black box algorithm and we get inferred metabolic power, and that's the moment that stryd's data loses its magic. The relationship between mechanical and metabolic power is not consistent from day to day and athlete to athlete, just like with heart rate.
Mechanical power is a good measurement, why not just leave the economy and metabolism stuff out of it? Make the best footpod in the world? A given stream of footpod measurements could lead to different metabolic power, depending on wind, running economy, terrain surface, and a whole host of other things unknown to stryd. The fact that the device measures wind speed is a small concession to the complexity (impossibility, really) of converting foot patterns to metabolic power given the current paucity of physiological studies.