OK, I used my Stryd the first time on a run tonight. I use Garmin 920xt, Garmin Express, Training Peaks and Strava. Where can I find step by step instructions for ideal pairing and combination of data?
It is a Connect IQ App that you can sync to your watch using Garmin Express
Once you have the Data Field installed you can add it to a data field in your run profile. The data field will then record all the power settings and it will get synced up to Garmin Connect. I would have Strava, Training Peaks, and Stryd Power Center all pull from Garmin Connect. Training Peaks is probably the best place to analyze your power data.
Here are some other tips:
- You can optionally configure Stryd as a "Foot Pod" sensor if you ever plan to run indoors. - If you ever plan to run with someone who also has a Stryd you need to do the Foot Pod sync, note what the Ant+ ID is of your sensor, and enter that into a configuration screen for the Connect IQ Data Field in Garmin Express. If you do not do this then there is the possibility that your watch could record someone else's Stryd.
So I've had the Stryd running meter since December. In that time I've done somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 runs with it. This has been a mix of (in order of frequency) treadmill, trails, snowshoe, and road. Here are my initial impressions:
Pros
Improved quantification of TSS, especially on trails. Without power, Training Peaks will calculate TSS by pace. This is usaully slower than road running, so TSS comes out artifically low. I used to manually adjust it to make it more accurate for trail runs.
It can act as a whip, especially on downhills. It's surprising how much power decreases on downhills but HR doesn't decrease proportionately, perhaps because I had done monster climbing uphill first and was fatigued.
It doubles as a footpod for indoor running. However, I've recently had it start dropping out. I contacted Styrd and their responsiveness was amazing. I need to try their suggestions.
Cons
The power readings vary by surface. For example, when I use it for snowshoe running, which is BTW about the hardest form of running, it consistently reads 40-50W lower than the level of effort elsewhere. This may be an artifact the their model doesn't account for having a heavy object strapped to your foot.
It needs to have 3s and 10s average metrics. The number is just to jumpy to be used in real time in most cases, similar to the instant power on a bike PM.
The change in power reading is laggy. On a road run with punchy uphills, I intentionally went all out on the climbs. The power numbers didn't increase until I hit the top of the climb usually. My HR was actually more responsive.
Summary I think this is an interesting new tool to add to the EN secret sauce. However, we're in the early days where the technology is still maturing, probably similar to where bike PMs were a decade ago. I still think a finely tuned RPE-meter is the most valuable tool, but it comes at a huge cost: run a shitload.
Based on the reading and discussions I have seen elsewhere, the Stryd will not take into effect either wind or the surface quality on which you run. So sand, gravel or snow (and wind) are not accounted for in the wattage calculation. Correct me please if Stryd has added these calculations in.
@Gabe Peterson any conclusions when comparing treadmill vs road?
I've noticed that the TM needs a 15-20sec faster pace to hit the same watts. For example, if I hold 240w on the road, I will run 8min/mi and if I hold 240w on the TM, I have to set the pace for about 7:41min/mi @ 1%incline. All along, I thought 8min road pace = 8min TM pace @ 1%incline, like the TM conversion charts have said.
@Ashton Mossy interesting question. I went and compared I couple runs. The wattage relative to pace is pretty close for road vs treadmill.
The delta for you might be caused by inaccurate pace on your treadmill. Treadmills are notorious for being inaccurate. I have finely calibrated my footpod by trial and error so the RPE and HR on the treadmill matches the pace I'd see on a road run, so I feel like they are really close.
Are you using a calibrated footpod? Or going by the treadmill pace reading?
Still getting the hang of these new forums. I thought if someone mentioned your name you would get an email notification, but the notification only happens within the website.
Anyways, here is my late response...@Gabe Peterson I simply "found" my footpod on my Garmin 735, downloaded the Stryd pwr app, and started running...was I supposed to calibrate it somehow? There is an option to calibrate, but it just says "error" every time I select it on my watch - maybe the watch thinks it's a bike power meter? Any tips are appreciated. I'm breathing hard on that TM trying to match the road watts, lol.
Anyone have suggestions for best practices when learning to use this product? I've had the device for a couple of months, collected a bunch of data and on the weekend ran a 5K for time. I'd love to analyze the weekend run using information from the Power Center in Stryd but I'm not really sure how to start. I've noticed a couple of white papers mentioned on the Stryd Facebook page so I'll pull those up.
I'd love some sort of template for learning to analyze a run. I can do this with bike files in my sleep
@Tom Glynn, you'll be there in no time with the run power meter too! I've been using mine for about 2 weeks now, and I see great potential! I did a steady hour run this weekend on a rolling course, sticking to my watts per my TRP on flats, and how interesting it was! I had to hold back more than expected uphill and push more than expected downhill. Kinda like the bike pm!!
Still getting the hang of these new forums. I thought if someone mentioned your name you would get an email notification, but the notification only happens within the website.
Anyways, here is my late response...@Gabe Peterson I simply "found" my footpod on my Garmin 735, downloaded the Stryd pwr app, and started running...was I supposed to calibrate it somehow? There is an option to calibrate, but it just says "error" every time I select it on my watch - maybe the watch thinks it's a bike power meter? Any tips are appreciated. I'm breathing hard on that TM trying to match the road watts, lol.
Most Garmin devices have a calibration routine for footpods. You run outside with GPS on and it automatically sets the calibration factor. I have spent so much time watching my HR at different paces that I was able to manually dial in the calibration factor. It should be an option under the footpod sensor on your Garmin device. The default is autocalibrate, which only works outside. I set it to manual and dialed in the calibration factor.
A couple of recent comparisons of Stryd and other devices by sports tech reviewers I trust:
Fellrnr looked at accuracy of GPS watches both on their own and using footpods, including Stryd. Stryd was by far the most precise (repeatable), and once calibrated, was also the least biased. 95% of the time a calibrated Stryd would be within 11 sec/mile of the true pace (while running 9 min/mile), while almost all GPS watches had a 95% confidence interval of over 30 sec/mile: http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy
Also, DCRainmaker looked at Stryd and several other running efficiency devices. His main conclusion was that it isn't clear yet how to use the data to improve running form -- we know that elite runners are more efficient, and can measure that through different parameters, but more research is needed to show that trying to change running form using this data actually works. Also, even basic metrics measured using different devices (e.g., Stryd, Runscribe, Shift Run) vary so much that it would be hard for a coach to draw conclusions from athletes on different platforms: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/02/running-efficiency-metrics-showdown.html
Also, Stryd uncovered one reason why treadmill paces often differ from the pace your watch/footpod is reporting: the treadmill belt doesn't move at a uniform rate! Instead, the belt slows down when your foot hits, then speeds up while you are in the air. As a result, even a well-calibrated treadmill can be off by 2% compared to the speed you are running. Details are here: http://blog.stryd.com/2017/02/10/mysteriously-low-treadmill-pace-2/
I decided to test out a couple of pairs of new running shoes to see if one was more efficient than the other. I took efficiency to mean less power required to run at a given pace.
Test: Two pairs of new shoes.
Gym treadmill - uncalibrated
Wahoo Tickr HR monitor
both shoes were size 10.5
Hoka Clifton 3
Altra Torin
10-minute warmup then 4 intervals of 10 minutes each at 8:00 min/mile according to the treadmill. After each interval, I jumped off the treadmill, swapped shoes, got back on treadmill and ran a bit to get adjusted before setting interval again (approx 2 minutes for each interval to swap and adjust)
Shoe / Power / Heart Rate / Cadence
Hoka 238 /124 / 173
Altra 239 / 125 / 174
Hoka 237 / 125 / 174
Altra 239 / 122 / 176
Results: No difference between shoes.
I would have thought the Hoka's would have been more efficient with the more cushioned insole. Now I know!
I've tried running on concrete, asphalt and compact dirt. I'm going to set up a test to confirm the efficiency of running surfaces.
Looks like Stryd has added average power capabilities, which was one of the gaps I noted in my assessment way above. This looks promising for using Stryd in real time as a governor or whip, respectively.
Jeremy - you are right. I was thinking past the heel strike, the expanding midsole would have some propulsion. I found it odd that the shoes were the same. Starting thinking that maybe the differences would show up later as fatigue metrics, but if power is the same, I guess they should tire you out the same. I'll keep testing out stuff to see if I can make any sense out of the data.
I would have thought the Hoka's would have been more efficient with the more cushioned insole. Now I know!
I've tried running on concrete, asphalt and compact dirt. I'm going to set up a test to confirm the efficiency of running surfaces.
Tom - I would have thought the opposite....the higher level of cushioning absorbs power that would otherwise go toward propelling your body forward.
Interesting that you saw no discernible difference.
Couple of thoughts (I do not have a running power meter):
Currently I've got three pairs of shoes I'm cycling through: Hoka Cliftons, Newton Aha's, and Suacony Kinvara's. All are 7-8oz, with distinctly different feels, Clifton > Kinvara > Newton feel less cushioned. The key thing to me is "How fast am I going with the same effort?" (as defined by HR). Clifton's win, Newton's lose. But the Clifton's heel wears out in less than 100 miles. I've already got lighter weight (5 oz) racing shoes, so I'm still sticking with Kinvaras long term - they give me 3-400 miles and cost less. (I got the Hokas and Newton's for $60 on sale, so I said, "Why not, I'll give em a try")
A study recording foot pressure on different surfaces showed that within one stride on a new surface (soft vs hard running track), the pressure felt by the foot - due to variation in muscle stiffness - is the same, meaning the body is adjusting immediately to any perceived difference in the cushioning underfoot. But then this more recent study shows different pressures on different surfaces. Maybe running power meters will help resolve this?
The thing I'm waiting to see from running power meters is: can they help me run @ the same speed with less effort, or faster with the same? Otherwise, it's just interesting data, like the ground contact time and vertical oscillation data I get from my Garmin. Don't know how to use that to improve, yet.
Al makes great points. I got the Stryd because I am a geek and love data. It hasn't impacted how I train or race one iota thus far. Running is tricky as biomechanics and stresses on the body play a bigger role in the running equation. Pushing too hard or going too long on the bike stresses the muscular system primarily whereas running stresses both the muscular as well as skeletal/soft tissue areas bringing with it greater exposure to injury. So even if a certain pair of shoes are more efficient from a power standpoint it doesn't matter if it causes your body to break down.
The holy grail is can we change our gear and/or form when running to apply the same power (effort) for a better result or a lower amount of power to achieve the same benefit (allowing us to get away with a higher IF on the bike, for example)
I too am collecting lots of data but not doing too much with it yet. They just added lap power which will be a useful tool for more properly pacing a hilly course. I am racing the LA marathon soon and I don't think I will use power as my primary pacing tool, but I will use it on the ups and downs to cross-check my effort.
I agree that it would be most most helpful as a tool to improve running economy in some sort of quantifiable way, and with metrics that are useful mid-run.
I am also intrigued by things like the leg spring stiffness. We do hill repeats, and strides, and perhaps even some light weightlifting at the gym, with the trust that they are useful and will give running improvements. It will be awesome to see leg spring stiffness improve over time after going targeted workouts. This should equate to better running economy.
I have just started running with Stryd. Like others, I'm still in the data collection only phase, so that I can eventually figure out how to best interpret and utilize the numbers to improve my running.
When looking at the data in Stryd's Power Center, I've noticed that it is also pulling in my bike ride data (I'm guessing because of my P1 pedals). Is there a way to prevent this, so I don't have to manually delete the bike workouts?
I have had my Stryd since December. Reviewing the data shows my cadence is way low. I'm currently working at bringing it up. My LRP zone cadence was in the 150s. I have been really focused on improving and have managed to raise it to 162ish. When I'm on the treadmill I can maintain 170 with focus. Literally is like relearning to run. Any one have any suggestions on how to improve cadence?
@Eric Rueppel for me it was about foot strike. When I changed from heel strike to mid/fore foot strike, my cadence naturally rose. I went from 150's to 180's pretty quickly. A focus on foot strike and foot turnover helped as well as quite a few strides sessions. Peter's suggestion is also a good way to be more systematic about it as well. Hope this helps.
Metronome is key! I have trained with it in the past, in small segrments of my runs so it wouldn't get too annoying. I now consistently hit 180-182 average every run.
Comments
I think the best configuration for you is to use the Connect IQ Power Data Field:
https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/apps/660a581e-5301-460c-8f2f-034c8b6dc90f
It is a Connect IQ App that you can sync to your watch using Garmin Express
Once you have the Data Field installed you can add it to a data field in your run profile. The data field will then record all the power settings and it will get synced up to Garmin Connect. I would have Strava, Training Peaks, and Stryd Power Center all pull from Garmin Connect. Training Peaks is probably the best place to analyze your power data.
Here are some other tips:
- You can optionally configure Stryd as a "Foot Pod" sensor if you ever plan to run indoors.
- If you ever plan to run with someone who also has a Stryd you need to do the Foot Pod sync, note what the Ant+ ID is of your sensor, and enter that into a configuration screen for the Connect IQ Data Field in Garmin Express. If you do not do this then there is the possibility that your watch could record someone else's Stryd.
Pros
- Improved quantification of TSS, especially on trails. Without power, Training Peaks will calculate TSS by pace. This is usaully slower than road running, so TSS comes out artifically low. I used to manually adjust it to make it more accurate for trail runs.
- It can act as a whip, especially on downhills. It's surprising how much power decreases on downhills but HR doesn't decrease proportionately, perhaps because I had done monster climbing uphill first and was fatigued.
- It doubles as a footpod for indoor running. However, I've recently had it start dropping out. I contacted Styrd and their responsiveness was amazing. I need to try their suggestions.
Cons- The power readings vary by surface. For example, when I use it for snowshoe running, which is BTW about the hardest form of running, it consistently reads 40-50W lower than the level of effort elsewhere. This may be an artifact the their model doesn't account for having a heavy object strapped to your foot.
- It needs to have 3s and 10s average metrics. The number is just to jumpy to be used in real time in most cases, similar to the instant power on a bike PM.
- The change in power reading is laggy. On a road run with punchy uphills, I intentionally went all out on the climbs. The power numbers didn't increase until I hit the top of the climb usually. My HR was actually more responsive.
SummaryI think this is an interesting new tool to add to the EN secret sauce. However, we're in the early days where the technology is still maturing, probably similar to where bike PMs were a decade ago. I still think a finely tuned RPE-meter is the most valuable tool, but it comes at a huge cost: run a shitload.
I've noticed that the TM needs a 15-20sec faster pace to hit the same watts. For example, if I hold 240w on the road, I will run 8min/mi and if I hold 240w on the TM, I have to set the pace for about 7:41min/mi @ 1%incline. All along, I thought 8min road pace = 8min TM pace @ 1%incline, like the TM conversion charts have said.
The delta for you might be caused by inaccurate pace on your treadmill. Treadmills are notorious for being inaccurate. I have finely calibrated my footpod by trial and error so the RPE and HR on the treadmill matches the pace I'd see on a road run, so I feel like they are really close.
Are you using a calibrated footpod? Or going by the treadmill pace reading?
Anyways, here is my late response...@Gabe Peterson I simply "found" my footpod on my Garmin 735, downloaded the Stryd pwr app, and started running...was I supposed to calibrate it somehow? There is an option to calibrate, but it just says "error" every time I select it on my watch - maybe the watch thinks it's a bike power meter? Any tips are appreciated. I'm breathing hard on that TM trying to match the road watts, lol.
I'd love some sort of template for learning to analyze a run. I can do this with bike files in my sleep
Fellrnr looked at accuracy of GPS watches both on their own and using footpods, including Stryd. Stryd was by far the most precise (repeatable), and once calibrated, was also the least biased. 95% of the time a calibrated Stryd would be within 11 sec/mile of the true pace (while running 9 min/mile), while almost all GPS watches had a 95% confidence interval of over 30 sec/mile: http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy
Also, DCRainmaker looked at Stryd and several other running efficiency devices. His main conclusion was that it isn't clear yet how to use the data to improve running form -- we know that elite runners are more efficient, and can measure that through different parameters, but more research is needed to show that trying to change running form using this data actually works. Also, even basic metrics measured using different devices (e.g., Stryd, Runscribe, Shift Run) vary so much that it would be hard for a coach to draw conclusions from athletes on different platforms: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/02/running-efficiency-metrics-showdown.html
Also, Stryd uncovered one reason why treadmill paces often differ from the pace your watch/footpod is reporting: the treadmill belt doesn't move at a uniform rate! Instead, the belt slows down when your foot hits, then speeds up while you are in the air. As a result, even a well-calibrated treadmill can be off by 2% compared to the speed you are running. Details are here: http://blog.stryd.com/2017/02/10/mysteriously-low-treadmill-pace-2/
Test: Two pairs of new shoes.
I would have thought the Hoka's would have been more efficient with the more cushioned insole. Now I know!
I've tried running on concrete, asphalt and compact dirt. I'm going to set up a test to confirm the efficiency of running surfaces.
http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=082dda916c00d472b4e61d119&id=965901b22c&e=5c1a156fd0
Interesting that you saw no discernible difference.
- Currently I've got three pairs of shoes I'm cycling through: Hoka Cliftons, Newton Aha's, and Suacony Kinvara's. All are 7-8oz, with distinctly different feels, Clifton > Kinvara > Newton feel less cushioned. The key thing to me is "How fast am I going with the same effort?" (as defined by HR). Clifton's win, Newton's lose. But the Clifton's heel wears out in less than 100 miles. I've already got lighter weight (5 oz) racing shoes, so I'm still sticking with Kinvaras long term - they give me 3-400 miles and cost less. (I got the Hokas and Newton's for $60 on sale, so I said, "Why not, I'll give em a try")
- A study recording foot pressure on different surfaces showed that within one stride on a new surface (soft vs hard running track), the pressure felt by the foot - due to variation in muscle stiffness - is the same, meaning the body is adjusting immediately to any perceived difference in the cushioning underfoot. But then this more recent study shows different pressures on different surfaces. Maybe running power meters will help resolve this?
The thing I'm waiting to see from running power meters is: can they help me run @ the same speed with less effort, or faster with the same? Otherwise, it's just interesting data, like the ground contact time and vertical oscillation data I get from my Garmin. Don't know how to use that to improve, yet.The holy grail is can we change our gear and/or form when running to apply the same power (effort) for a better result or a lower amount of power to achieve the same benefit (allowing us to get away with a higher IF on the bike, for example)
I agree that it would be most most helpful as a tool to improve running economy in some sort of quantifiable way, and with metrics that are useful mid-run.
I am also intrigued by things like the leg spring stiffness. We do hill repeats, and strides, and perhaps even some light weightlifting at the gym, with the trust that they are useful and will give running improvements. It will be awesome to see leg spring stiffness improve over time after going targeted workouts. This should equate to better running economy.
When looking at the data in Stryd's Power Center, I've noticed that it is also pulling in my bike ride data (I'm guessing because of my P1 pedals). Is there a way to prevent this, so I don't have to manually delete the bike workouts?